GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
0 likes242 views
This document provides a toolkit for transforming universities into green and sustainable campuses. It acknowledges contributions from universities globally for case studies and the support of UNEP's Environmental Education and Training Unit. The toolkit aims to inspire, encourage and support universities to develop and implement strategies for establishing green, resource-efficient and low-carbon campuses through strategies, tools and resources. It is intended to help universities become exemplars of best environmental practices through their operations in addition to their teaching and research on sustainability. The toolkit will be updated regularly as a living document to share additional university experiences.
![12
Public-garden of the warsaw
university library in poland
TRANSFORMING UNIVERSITIES INTO GREEN AND SUSTAINABLE
© SHUTTERSTOCK
The Design and Development of this Toolkit
The Toolkit was conceived in 2011 as part of the
Greening Universities Initiative set up by UNEP’s En-vironmental
Education and Training Unit (EETU)
in partnership with other UN agencies and leading
“green universities” experts and researchers, under
the umbrella of the Global Universities Partnership
for Environment and Sustainability (GUPES). UNEP’s
approach to this project involves:
Developing criteria for green/sustainable campuses,
including infrastructural, managerial and operational
considerations;
Supporting the development and implementa-tion
of strategies for transforming Universities
into green/sustainable campuses;
Advocacy, lobbying and publicity activities for
greening Universities;
Developing and launching a global award
scheme for green Universities.
Publication of this Toolkit addresses the first of these
four objectives. The University of New South Wales
(UNSW) Faculty of the Built Environment was engaged
to prepare the draft Toolkit for review by UNEP. This
process involved four stages:
An extensive review of the green University lit-erature,
including both academic research and
the so-called “grey” literature of reports, web-sites
and operational material produced by
individual Universities and international and
national associations relevant to University
sustainability;
Two international workshops auspiced by
GUPES, held in Santiago, Chile in September
2011 and in Nairobi, Kenya in February 2012,
which reviewed and discussed work in pro-gress
and provided input and direction to the
final document. An additional consultation
meeting took place during the GUPES launch
in Shanghai, China in June 2012, where partici-pants
provided input for case studies;
Collection of a substantial body of best prac-tice
case studies from Universities worldwide
both to inform the content of the Toolkit over-all
and to include as a standalone section on
global exemplars; and
Final review by the EETU to ensure currency,
consistency and alignment with the objectives
of the UNEP Greening Universities Initiative.
Objectives and Expected
Outcome of this Toolkit
The objective of this Toolkit is to inspire, encourage
and support universities to develop and implement
their own transformative strategies for establishing
green, resource-efficient and low carbon campuses.
It will provide an opportunity to build stakeholder
capacity to deliver systemic, institution-wide integra-tion
of sustainability principles into all aspects of uni-versity
business. This initiative is intended to improve
the sustainability performance of universities globally
and to provide support to other stakeholders embark-ing
on their own sustainability journeys. Further, it will
enhance the practical relevance of universities to sus-tainable
development and by extension, the new para-digm
of the “green economy”. In short, the aim is to en-courage
and promote the contribution of universities
to the overall sustainability of the planet. We cannot
have a sustainable world where universities promote
unsustainability [1] – conversely, the sustainable uni-versity
can help catalyse a more sustainable world.
Using this Toolkit
This Greening Universities Toolkit is designed to pro-vide
universities with the basic strategies and tactics
necessary to transform themselves into green, low
carbon institutions with the capacity to address cli-mate
change, increase resource efficiency, enhance
ecosystem management and minimise waste and
pollution. To effectively support this journey and
other transformative processes in Universities, the
Toolkit is structured in such a way that the focus is on
the sustainable planning, design, development
and management of the university campus. This is](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-7-320.jpg)
![linked to the core business of teaching, research and
outreach, which are the subject of a separate initiative
by UNEP’s Environmental Education and Training Unit
(EETU)[ Higher Education Guidelines for Curriculum
Review and Reorientation Towards Sustainable Devel-opment],
Aspects of teaching, research and outreach
are addressed here only insofar as they intersect/inter-act
with the fabric and operations of the campus.
Overview of this Toolkit
The first section, Universities and sustainability:
definitions, issues, risks and challenges; estab-lishes
the context with a brief introduction to
sustainability and sustainable development,
and the elements expected of a sustainable uni-versity.
The second section, Strategies for initiating
transformation; addresses the strategic
infrastructural, managerial, operational and
cultural issues to be considered in setting up a
framework for sustainability
planning and management.
The third section, Tools for
implementing transformation;
sets out generic guidance
on the tactical aspects
– step-by-step methods
and procedures,
checklists, performance
indicators and monitoring,
evaluation, reporting and
communication tools. Hyperlinks
to a variety of existing online resources
and organisations are provided to enable
universities to access information pertinent
to their particular circumstances, and brief
examples of best practice are described to
encourage emulation.
The fourth section, Recognising and rewarding
progress; outlines a methodology and potential
criteria for a global award scheme to facilitate
continual improvement in university
sustainability performance, and introduces a
university sustainability scorecard.
The fifth section, Resources for change; lists a
variety of books, journals, associations and
websites which can provide further information
and guidance on university sustainability topics.
The sixth section, Greening your University; is
an introductory brochure which presents a
brief outline of the overall project and a concise
summary of the outcomes.
The seventh section, Global exemplars; presents
a series of best practice case studies from
universities around the world.
Finally, a technical appendix is included which
sets out the full list of references drawn on and
the methods and calculations used to inform
the development of the Toolkit.
Each section has been prepared as a stand-alone
document which can be read and used on its own, or be
combined with the other sections to constitute the full
Toolkit. The emphasis is on practical guidance, drawn
from mainstream, proven systems, techniques and tools
and illustrated by examples of what works, and why.
Universities have long been agents of change – cata-lysts
for social and political action as well as centres
of learning. Universities not only educate most of the
world’s leaders, decision-makers and teachers and
advance the boundaries of knowledge, but as major
employers and consumers of goods and services they
play a significant economic role nationally and glob-ally.
Given the ascribed role of Universities in society, and
the prevailing environmental and sustainability chal-lenges,
Universities are coming under increasing pres-sure
to engage with and respond to climate change
and other sustainable development issues and the as-sociated
risks and opportunities. They are expected to
be the engines and innovation centres for sustainable
development through teaching and learning, research
and knowledge transfer. Critically, universities’ edu-cational
role does not end with undergraduate and
postgraduate learning; it extends to the plethora of
activities which support and extend the teaching and
research core: campus management and operations;
campus planning, design, construction and renova-tion;
purchasing; transport; and engagement with the
wider community. Awareness is also growing in the
higher education sector that universities can teach
and demonstrate the theory and practice of sustain-ability
through taking action to understand and re-duce
the unsustainable impacts of their own activities.
Linkage of curricula and campus operations under the
aegis of sustainability can create a powerful “shadow
curriculum” which emphasises the nexus between
theory and practice [2-5].
Evidence, however, shows that many universities are
struggling with the concept and agenda of university
“greening”; achievements to date have been scattered
and unsystematic. Completion of a showcase green
building is not the same as embracing a university-wide
commitment to ensure all future buildings are
built green – the former is a project success, the latter
a systemic transformation [6], which is more desirable
for sustainability. However, sustainability needs not be
considered only from perspectives extrinsic to univer-sities,
but also from more intrinsic perspectives. These
should motivate universities to adopt sustainable/
green university strategies which should demonstrate
sustainability principles.
Education has been described as humanity’s best
hope and most effective means in the quest to achieve
sustainable development [7]. In this context, universi-ties
have a special responsibility to help define and
also to exemplify best practice.
The steady growth of higher education in both the de-veloped
and the developing world has created a surge
of competing priorities, of which sustainability is one
of the more recent. The most successful green campus
initiatives are those which acknowledge these shift-ing
priorities and welcome the emerging opportuni-ties
which growth and development can generate [6].
While some noteworthy exemplars of university sus-tainability
initiatives exist around the world, there is a
need to maximise the potential benefits by encourag-ing
their replication in as many universities as possible
globally.
Introduction](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-8-320.jpg)
![SECTION 1 1.3 The four capitals and the
Universities and sustainability:
definitions, issues, risks and challenges
1.1 What do we mean by “sustainability”?
The World Conservation Strategy was launched in 1980
by the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources), UNEP (United Nations
Environment Programme) and WWF (the World Wildlife
Fund) and introduced not only the concept of sustain-able
development but also the term “sustainable” in
relation to human use of the biosphere. However, the
antecedents of the sustainability debate are evident in
the discussions of ‘limits to growth’ in the early 1970s,
whilst the concept itself was developed at the United
Nations Conference on the Environment in Stockholm
in 1972 [8].
The World Conservation Strategy was significant for
stressing that rather than conservation and develop-ment
being mutually exclusive activities, as had gener-ally
been argued up to that time, they are interdepend-ent.
The WCS stressed that development requires the
conservation of the living resource base on which it ul-timately
depends; in the longer term development will
not be able to take place unless we conserve our living
resources. Likewise conservation will not occur unless
at least minimal standards of development are met, i.e.
basic needs of food, shelter and clean water [9].
Subsequent definitions of “sustainability” and “sustain-able
development” run into the hundreds and reflect a
wide range of perspectives. Despite lack of agreement
on an unequivocal interpretation of the concept, there
is general agreement that it involves simultaneous sat-isfaction
of economic, environmental and social goals.
Meeting environmental criteria in a society which fails to
meet economic and social goals concerning justice and
equity does not make for sustainability.
The most emblematic definition of sustainable devel-opment
is that set out in Our Common Future, the 1987
“Brundtland Report” of the World Commission on Envi-ronment
and Development [10], which states:
Humanity has the ability to make development
sustainable – to ensure that it meets the needs
of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs.
The WCED go on to say (p 8):
The concept of sustainable development does
imply limits – not absolute limits but limitations
imposed by the present state of technology and so-cial
organization on environmental resources and
by the ability of the biosphere to absorb the effects
of human activities. But technology and social or-ganization
can both be managed and improved to
make way for a new era of economic growth.
And (p 46):
In essence, sustainable development is a process
of change in which the exploitation of resources,
the direction of investments, the orientation of
technological development, and institutional
change are all in harmony and enhance both the
current and future potential to meet human needs
and aspirations.
This statement of sustainable development is one which
we would probably all endorse. It captures the key tem-poral
prerequisite of sustainability – persistence into the
long-term future – through its explicit reference to inter-generational
equity. On the other hand, the Brundtland
formulation can be seen as enigmatic as well as em-blematic
– by expressing a qualified consensus reached
by a UN Commission charged with reconciling the goals
of environmental protection and economic growth it
epitomises the contestability of the territory. The price
of consensus commonly is ambiguity; the positive as-pect
is that ambiguity can encourage discussion and de-bate,
an essential part of the practical process of work-ing
towards sustainability [11].
1.2 Sustainability and
sustainable development
The terms “sustainability” and “sustainable develop-ment”
have been used interchangeably above – but is
this appropriate? The following distinction [12] offers a
useful guide:
Sustainability is the ultimate goal or destination.
Exactly what defines the state of being, of what is
sustainable (whether it be a society, logging, fishing,
etc.), is informed by science but ultimately depends
on personal values and world views.
To achieve a state of environmental sustainability,
a framework or process is needed. Certain condi-tions
have to be met and steps in the process toward
‘sustainability’ have to be made. The framework of
sustainable development is the means for achieving
sustainability.
So, in brief, “sustainability” refers to the goal and
“sustainable development” is the path or framework
to achieve it. As with the term “sustainability”, what is
considered as a necessary path and time frame will
vary amongst individuals.
Further, it must be emphasised that development is not
synonymous with growth. Growth is about becoming
quantitatively bigger; development on the other hand is
about becoming qualitatively better [13].
Sustainable development, then, may be defined as the
intentional means whereby humans strive towards sus-tainability,
the co-evolution of human and natural sys-tems
to enable adaptation to change indefinitely, which:
Is based on qualitative development/im-provement,
not quantitative growth;
Conserves and enhances natural capital
stocks, which cannot sustainably be substi-tuted
by other forms of capital;
Combines social equity in improving present
quality of life with intergenerational equity in
meeting the needs of the future; and
Acknowledges cultural development and
cultural diversity (as with biodiversity) as
central to the adaptive process of realising
sustainability.
four bottom lines
Ecological economists generally recognise four distinct
“capitals” [14-16] which are necessary to support the real,
human welfare producing economy:
Natural (the land, sea, air and ecosystems from
which the human economy derives its materials
and energy and to which it ultimately returns its
wastes);
Built (buildings and cities, the physical infrastruc-ture
which produces economic outputs and the
human artifacts thus obtained);
Human (the health, skills, knowledge and values
of the human population); and
Social (the web of formal and informal interper-sonal
connections and institutional arrangements
which facilitate human interactions).
This taxonomy provides a useful model to help articulate
the structures, processes and relationships which are
fundamental to the transition to sustainability.
The expectation of tripartite satisfaction of economic,
environmental and social goals referred to above can
also be expressed in terms familiar to the business world;
the triple bottom line refers to satisfaction of not just the
acknowledged bottom line of meeting economic goals
(profits) but also the need to now simultaneously meet
environmental and social goals (or “bottom lines”) in car-rying
out their business. This also provides a practical
framework for the development of policies and strategies
to drive institutional change. When the objective is trans-formation
rather than mere observation, the rationale
for including governance as a fourth bottom line is rein-forced
(Figure 1.1). Governance is defined in the present
context to include both the formal regulatory, business,
administrative and political processes of the university
which determine or influence decision-making and ac-tion,
and the informal networks, traditions and cultural
and behavioural norms which act as enablers or disa-blers
of sustainable development.
5 6
UNIVERSITIES AND SUSTAINABILITY GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-9-320.jpg)
![SUSTAINABILITY
UNIVERSITIES AND SUSTAINABILITY GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
7
1.4 What does a “sustainable
university” look like?
It seems pretty clear that there can be no sustainable
world where universities promote unsustainability [1].
Moreover, “…no institutions in modern society are better
situated and more obliged to facilitate the transition to
a sustainable future than colleges and universities” [17].
A “fully mature” approach to university sustainability
may be summarised as “one in which the activities of a
university are ecologically sound, socially and culturally
just and economically viable” [18]. How the transition
towards sustainability is expressed in a particular uni-versity
must inevitably reflect the social, cultural, eco-nomic
and ecological circumstances of the nation and
region in which that university is situated. Nevertheless,
although they can be expressed in different ways, there
are well-defined foundational principles which charac-terise
university sustainability [18-22].
In general terms, a university consciously choosing the
path of sustainable development would exemplify the
following principles:
Clear articulation and integration of social, ethical
and environmental responsibility in the institu-tion’s
vision, mission and governance;
Integration of social, economic and environmen-tal
sustainability across the curriculum, commit-ment
to critical systems thinking and interdis-ciplinarity,
sustainability literacy expressed as a
universal graduate attribute;
Dedicated research on sustainability topics and
consideration of “quadruple bottom line” sustain-ability
aspects in all other research;
Outreach and service to the wider community, in-cluding
partnerships with schools, government,
non-governmental organisations and industry;
Campus planning, design and development
structured and managed to achieve and surpass
zero net carbon/water/waste, to become a regen-erative
organisation within the context of the local
bioregion;
Physical operations and maintenance focused
on supporting and enabling “beyond zero” envi-ronmental
goals, including effective monitoring,
reporting and continual improvement;
Policies and practices which foster equity, diversity
and quality of life for students, staff, and the broad-er
community within which the university is based;
The campus as “living laboratory” – student in-volvement
in environmental learning to transform
the learning environment;
Celebration of cultural diversity and application
of cultural inclusivity; and
Frameworks to support cooperation among uni-versities
both nationally and globally.
Universities by definition have accepted the challenge
of leadership and aspiration to best practice, in the
creation and dissemination of knowledge. The transi-tion
to sustainability opens up new challenges, but also
tremendous opportunities. Governments, businesses,
NGOs and individuals – and a growing number of uni-versities
– have already made significant progress, and
the road ahead is well illuminated in terms of tested
and evidenced strategies. The following Section of the
Toolkit introduces those strategies which have shown
the greatest capacity to enable systematic institutional
transformation, and are also internationally recognised
and readily available. These include the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) environmental
management standards and social responsibility guide-lines,
the Global Reporting Initiative framework and uni-versity-
specific resources which have been developed by
several international sustainable campus associations
and intergovernmental organisations (see also Section
5, Resources for change).
ECONOMIC SOCIAL
GOVERNANCE
ENVIRONMENT
Figure 1.1: The quadruple bottom line.
8
Source: From A practical guide to the United Nations Global Compact For Higher Education Institutions, p.9. adapted from Euromed
Management /Kedge 2009 [93]
www.unprme.org/resource-docs/APracticalGuidetotheUnitedNationsGlobalCompactforHigherEducationInstitutions.pdf](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-10-320.jpg)
![UNIVERSITIES AND SUSTAINABILITY GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
9
1.5. Sustainability issues, risks
and associated challenges in
universities
Universities are complex, multi-faceted entities with di-verse
organisational subcultures, traditions and concerns
[6], and the transitory nature of university life for the bulk of
the campus community can mean the real impacts of the
institution remain unacknowledged [23]. There may be in-dividual
high quality initiatives aimed at addressing these
impacts, but where these are restricted to one or a handful
of organisational units they inevitably end up ad hoc and
uncoordinated. In addition, limited funding and multiple
calls on capital budgets favour short-term fixes over green
investments with long-term paybacks.
Staff and students have heavy workloads; limited time
and multiple expectations as to how that time is used
can make it problematic to initiate, maintain, complete
and evaluate projects, and compound natural resist-ance
to change. Moreover, universities generally lack the
incentive structures necessary to promote changes at
the individual level [24].
Universities are located in a sea of competing and inter-acting
social processes whereby decisions on growth
and direction are often made outside the immediate
institutional community [25]. Structural change in re-sponse
to new research priorities and societal educa-tional
demands combined with the loss of corporate
memory through staff turnover and the transience of the
student population can mean mistakes are repeated,
previous high performing initiatives are not emulated
and it becomes difficult to build on progress or initiate
continual improvement cycles. Sometimes failure to de-velop
appropriate performance measures limits direct
feedback on the benefits of sustainability actions – the
environmental, social and financial value of achieve-ments
is not understood or promoted [26-28]. Two
common denominators across all of these well-recog-nised
risks and challenges are lack of commitment by
university leadership, and lack of awareness and en-gagement
of staff and students.
However, some of the same characteristics of univer-sities
which tend to hinder progress towards sustain-ability
– for example the tradition of decentralisation
and autonomy – have a dual nature, and can equally
act as enablers of change. In particular, the university
has historically provided a safe haven for the innovator
and the activist. Early-adopter sustainability champi-ons,
whatever their substantive role in the organisation,
can be critical change agents. And where cross-campus
interdisciplinary networks already exist, they can con-tribute
to the critical mass for the dissemination of new
ideas. There are also important external drivers, for ex-ample
pressure from peer institutions, particularly those
which have already made worthwhile progress towards
sustainability; and pressure from society at large – com-munity
aspirations for a cleaner, greener world, and
corporations and government bodies keen to support
sustainability-focused research, or to hire graduates
with the relevant skills [24].
In discussing the issues, risks and challenges of university
sustainability it is helpful to separately review the “triple
bottom line” dimensions of environment, economy and
society / culture, recognising both their inter-relationships,
and the crucial role of the fourth “bottom line” – govern-ance
– across these three dimensions.
1.5.1 Environmental
Universities embody the environmental issues, risks and
challenges of the wider communities in which they are
situated, but also express their own unique characteris-tics.
On one level, a university may be likened to a small
town, with all the associated issues of spatial planning,
management of physical growth and development,
maintenance of buildings and open spaces, supply of
electricity, water and other utilities, and often provision
of residential accommodation and ancillary services. In
addition, there are the typically corporate functions of
finance, procurement, human resources, etc.
However, the distinguishing feature of a university is its
core purpose of teaching, research and community out-reach.
This generates a plethora of distinctive environ-mental
issues on top of those typical of the small town
or the corporate office, which often include significant
(indeed semi-industrial) levels of resource consump-tion,
carbon emissions, waste and pollution. Risks here
include the reputational and financial – linked to legal
compliance – which on their own are enough to moti-vate
some institutions towards sustainable develop-ment.
The broader challenge is to minimise the legally
compliant but environmentally unsustainable impacts
10
of the university’s activities while maintaining and ex-tending
its teaching / research / outreach core.
To meet this challenge requires an understanding of the
particularities of the university’s activities as well as its
environmental impacts, in other words, the key areas
for intervention: in relation to environmental parameters
such as energy, carbon and climate change, water, waste,
and biodiversity; and management parameters such as
the planning, design and development of the campus;
and the “greening” of specific operational activities such
as offices, laboratories, information technology, trans-port
and procurement. Both sets of parameters are ad-dressed
in Section 3, Tools for delivering transformation.
1.5.2 Economic
Universities are major employers, major investors and
major purchasers of goods and services. There are op-portunities
across all these areas for intervention, in
terms of direct and indirect support for local jobs, ethi-cal/
sustainable investment and “green” procurement
strategies which can help integrate sustainability along
the supply chain (for example by specifying standards of
environmental performance in tender documentation).
One challenge common across many nations is a declin-ing
level of public funding. Cost is a significant factor in
most sustainability investment, and in some cases may
appear insurmountable. However, even in situations
where natural disaster or difficult economic conditions
limit university budgets to the minimum necessary to
keep their doors open, options to address sustainability
imperatives are available. Typically these will involve the
capture of savings around management of the key flows
(inputs and outputs) of energy, water and materials,
which can provide a buffer for future capital and opera-tional
investment in sustainability initiatives.
The risk is that senior management may welcome the
savings, but be reluctant to channel any (let alone all)
into new greening endeavours, thereby relinquishing
the opportunity for continual improvement. The key
here is management buy-in – which means a shift from
a “command and control” mentality to a shared vision
[29], discussed in Section 2, Strategies for initiating trans-formation.
Nevertheless, universities in different parts of the world,
and at different stages of their life cycles, are not directly
comparable – there is no “one size fits all” approach
to addressing the economic dimension of sustainabil-ity.
The intent of this Toolkit is to provide a conceptual
framework which allows participating universities to
take from it what is appropriate to their circumstances,
from effectively zero cost behaviour change “house-keeping”
measures to reduce energy consumption to
development of institution-wide sustainable investment
and procurement strategies. Indeed for any university,
whatever its circumstances, logic supports a step by
step approach which starts with initiatives able to gener-ate
immediate monetary savings (and gain staff, student
and management support) before tackling more com-plex,
costly or contentious matters. These opportunities
are discussed in some detail in Section 3.
PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT BY
CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES
The Coalition of Universities for Responsible Investing
was founded in 2009 to identify constructive, new ap-proaches
to bring environmental, social and govern-ance
concerns into the management of university en-dowments
and pension funds. Focusing on Canadian
universities, CURI aims to help resolve the responsible
investment gap by:
Providing multi-stakeholder solutions for invest-ment
policy development and the proactive man-agement
of beneficiary interests, through the pro-vision
of best practices, sample policies and other
relevant guidance material;
Serving as a forum where relevant stakeholders –
including industry experts, students, alumni, trus-tees
and academics – are invited to participate in
innovative and collaborative initiatives including
conferences, web-based discussions, outreach
campaigns and networks; and
Supporting curriculum development to advance
knowledge and expertise in the field of responsi-ble
investing.
CURI is also committed to building an interna-tional
movement to connect dispersed efforts to
incorporate responsible investment in universities,
for example through facilitating collaboration be-tween
universities and investor coalition groups
such as the Social Investment Organization, the
UN Principles for Responsible Investing, and the
Responsible Endowments Coalition.
http://www.curi.ca/](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-11-320.jpg)
![23
UNIVERSITIES AND SUSTAINABILITY GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
11
1.5.3 Socio-cultural
The socio-cultural dimension of sustainability needs to
be considered at two levels: internally with respect to
the university’s own formal and informal organisational
structures; and externally with respect to the university’s
relationships with the wider community. Regarding the
former, the key issue is gaining support and commit-ment
from students, academic staff, operational staff
and senior management, groups whose motivations,
priorities and ways of thinking and doing may be on
some issues not just unaligned, but diametrically op-posed.
Section 2 provides a detailed explanation of stakehold-er
engagement strategies to promote cross-university
participation in sustainability action – and in particular,
commitment from senior management. Absence of top
management support precludes long-term gains. Simi-larly,
if the university’s leadership is not “walking the
talk”, then employees will disregard any change initia-tive
as just “talk” [29].
Some remarks on avoiding greenwash are pertinent
at this point. Greenwash refers to the not uncommon
situation where an organisation makes serious claims
to “green” credentials but does little or nothing to act
on them. Even before making a formal commitment to
sustainable development, there must be a sufficient
level of organisational maturity to give confidence to the
university community that decisions will be followed
through. In particular:
Is there evidence that the university has the re-sources
to commit to implementation of sustain-ability
programme (budget, people, time, knowl-edge
and skills)?
Is there a history of following up internal and
external engagement with action on the issues
raised?
Does the university have efficient and effective
governance and administration systems (finance,
facility management, human resources, teaching
and research management)?
Are there effective, day-to-day internal and ex-ternal
communications channels (newsletters,
websites)?
Is the university open and transparent in its deal-ings
with staff, students and the wider commu-nity?
A university is by definition a teaching organisa-tion,
but is it also a learning organisation (staff
development programs, internal and external
benchmarking and quality systems)?
Answers to these questions may provide a useful check-list
of the capacity of the institution to deliver on its
promises. A lot of negative answers would suggest there
are more deep-seated management issues to be ad-dressed
before taking on the additional challenge of
sustainable development.
Yale campus
© SHUTTERSTOCK](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-12-320.jpg)
![Strategies for initiating transformation
STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
13
Having established the destination, the next step is to
decide how to get there. Fortunately, there is no need to
“reinvent the wheel” – given the intent of this Toolkit as
a resource relevant to universities worldwide, strategies
and frameworks with evidenced global applicability are
adopted where possible, and adapted where necessary.
The focus of this Section is on the high level strategies
needed to initiate a university’s transition to sustain-ability
– understanding barriers and drivers, making the
commitment, establishing a vision and engaging with
the university and external communities to bring it to
fruition. The sources drawn on for this Section include
the International Organization for Standardization, the
UNEP Practitioner’s Handbook on Stakeholder Engage-ment
[30] and work done over the past two decades by
organisations such as the University Leaders for a Sus-tainable
Future (ULSF), International Sustainable Cam-pus
Network (ISCN), and Association for the Advance-ment
of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE).
Details for these and other similar international organi-sations
are provided in Section 5, Resources for change.
It is stating the obvious that the transition to global sus-tainability
requires conscious, long-term, directed ef-fort,
but the message bears repeating. It will not happen
through wishful thinking. The time scale for such trans-formational
change is frequently cited as 40-50 years,
or between one and two generations. If, for instance,
worldwide CO2 emissions were halved by 2050 com-pared
to 1990 (suggesting a reduction of at least 80%
by developed countries), there is a high probability that
global warming could be stabilised below two degrees
[31]. The strategies introduced in this Section reflect this
long-term perspective.
2.1 Where to begin?
Strategies for organisational change are often character-ised
as top down (management driven) or bottom up (staff
driven). The best strategies usually involve a combination
of both approaches; for example, adoption of a high level
vision statement or policy, and initiation of low cost, high
impact project(s) at a grass roots level. Improving energy
efficiency is a typical example of such “low hanging fruit”.
Experience worldwide has demonstrated time and
again that leadership from university management at
the highest level is essential to integrate sustainabil-ity
into mainstream practice. Bottom-up action by staff
and students is necessary, but is not in itself sufficient
to bring about inclusion of sustainability in the univer-sity’s
core business. For development to be sustainable,
it must be rooted in cultural values [32] – the bottom-up
approach alone is unlikely to achieve the cultural shift
which is a precondition for institutional sustainability
transformation [33].
However, the top-down approach by itself is also insuffi-cient.
The decentralised and semi-autonomous nature
of university entities such as departments, schools and
research centres tends to encourage responsibility to
the unit rather than the university, so initiatives driven
solely from the top may be seen as an imposition and
will be difficult to implement successfully [34].
There are three distinct constituencies in any university
– students; academic staff; and administrative / opera-tional
staff. Any sustainability programme which aims to
achieve widespread participation must take account of
the varying roles, experiences and expectations of these
separate subcultures as the starting point. The evidence
suggests the greatest leverage in achieving institution-al
change occurs when all three groups share a vision
and a perception that they are working to the same
end [6]. Further, once an idea has been accepted and
incorporated into the system’s culture and day-to-day
operations it becomes difficult to dislodge, even with a
change of top management [35].
Another way to manage change is to think of a univer-sity
as a complex ecosystem composed of interdepend-ent
components which must be considered in their
totality, together with their web of connections. This
“whole systems” approach implies a condition of dy-namic
equilibrium in which goals, objectives, and activi-ties
are adjusted and fine-tuned in the organisation and
SECTION 2
14
day-to-day practical delivery of campus sustainability
programs [25]. This model is consistent with the con-tinual
improvement cycle discussed in Section 3, and is
the hallmark of a learning organisation.
In summary, experience worldwide confirms that a
combination of top management commitment and
staff and student engagement offers the best opportu-nity
both for successful initiation and long-term perfor-mance
of university sustainability programs. The follow-ing
sections discuss some practical strategies to bring
this about, while Section 3, Tools for delivering transfor-mation,
addresses the substantive “tactical” aspects of
making it happen, broadly in line with the ISO 14001 En-vironmental
Management System standard as adapted
for the higher education context
Table 2.1: Process overview – summary of Sections 2 and 3 of the Toolkit.
ACTIVITY COMMENTS
Making the commitment This commonly includes developing a sustainability vision and/or mission statement, and/or signing a third party
declaration or charter on university sustainability.
Engaging the university and
wider community
Includes strategies and tactics for engaging with and securing the participation of university stakeholders (academic and
operational staff and students) as well as the wider community of alumni, industry partners, government agencies, local
schools and residents, etc.
Developing a sustainability
policy The university’s sustainability policy is the high level driver for its short- and long-term sustainability goals.
Establishing a sustainability
committee
The committee, representing staff and students and chaired by a member of senior management, is responsible for input
to and review of the university’s sustainability policy, objectives, targets and action plans, for final management approval.
Setting up the sustainability
team
Top management should appoint a sustainability manager with sufficient authority, resources and freedom to act, who
may head a professional sustainability unit and/or coordinate a team of staff and student volunteers, depending on the
size and resources of the particular university.
Determining the baseline:
initial environmental /
sustainability reviews
This provides the starting point for prioritising issues for action (for example through application of risk assessment
methods) and setting objectives and targets.
Selecting and defining
indicators
Indicators enable tracking of progress towards achievement of objectives and targets. Suggested indicator themes
are: energy, carbon and climate change; water use; land use; material flows; sustainability in research; education for
sustainability; governance and administration; and community outreach.
Setting objectives and targets
Objectives are overall goals arising from the university’s sustainability policy; targets are detailed performance require-ments
set to achieve the objectives. Targets should be “challenging but achievable”, and should reflect the university’s
commitment to sustainable development and the ultimate achievement of a sustainable university.
Developing and implementing
sustainability action plans
Sustainability management programs or action plans are the engine room for change. Plans are time-bound, and
developed and reviewed on a regular basis in line with the sustainability targets. The plans set out in this Toolkit address
the following substantive areas: Energy, Carbon and Climate Change; Water; Waste; Biodiversity and ecosystem services;
Planning, Design & Development; Procurement; Green office; Green lab; Green IT; Transport
Awareness and training Awareness building and training opportunities need to be built into every sustainability action plan.
Communications and
documentation
Each sustainability action plan will need to incorporate a communications strategy to facilitate engagement of the
university community and maximise the chances of success. Documentation of all aspects of the system minimises the
loss of “corporate memory”.
Closing the loop: monitoring,
evaluating and communicating
progress
This system requirement includes establishment of internal audit and management review cycles, annual sustainability
reporting, and marketing promotion and celebration of successes.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-13-320.jpg)
![STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
15
2.2 Making the commitment –
visions, missions, values and
declarations
Terms such as “vision” and “mission” may be dismissed
as management jargon, and sustainability is not ad-vanced
through uncritical adherence to textbook pre-scriptions.
Fundamentally, universities should define
their own concept and definition of what a sustainable
university is about [36]. However, all universities have
strategic planning processes, which commonly include
some kind of vision of what the university leadership (in
most cases), or the university community more gener-ally,
want to see their institution become. Typically this
will be some version of “the best” [37].
Envisioning exercises are sometimes conducted by local
governments, universities still rely predominantly on
more traditional and hierarchical methods [19] where-by
vision statements are generally handed down from
above. A more robust process, and certainly one which
encourages ownership of the outcome, is to involve the
university community through seminars, workshops,
surveys, etc. in the same way as local residents may be
engaged in the process of developing a vision for their
city’s future.
ENVISIONING THE SUSTAINABLE UNIVERSITY
Universities are increasingly aspiring to be both models and catalysts of change, leading the world to a more sustainable future. Yet
complex and ineffective governance, traditional disciplinary boundaries, and the lack of a shared vision often hinder progress towards
this goal.
In 2007, the University of Vermont in Burlington, USA initiated an envisioning process to develop a plan to transform the university into a
leader in whole systems thinking and sustainable design. The process involved 1,500 participants from the campus and the Burlington
community. Participants’ visions of a sustainable and desirable university were gathered through two community events and three on-line
surveys. Analysis of the results led to the formation of a vision narrative, a sustainability charter, and guided the creation of a range
of initiatives. The results suggest that when provided with sufficient and well-structured opportunities, university community members
will become active participants in initiatives aimed at fostering institutional change.
By focusing on shared values and long-term goals, envisioning exercises can achieve a surprising amount of consensus while avoiding
the divisiveness and polarization that often plague open-ended discussions and university governance.
Pollock, N., Horn, N, E., Costanza, R. & Sayre, M. (2009). Envisioning helps promote sustainability in academia: A case study
at the University of Vermont. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 10, 343-353.
While a vision statement represents a commitment to
the future rather than a decision to do something now,
it provides a good starting point for policy development
and a motivational focus for the university community,
if the staff and students have been actively involved
from the start. They must own it. A strong strategic vi-sion
helps focus attention on opportunities which sup-port
that vision [38] – beginning with the end in mind
and working to achieve it step by step.
A vision statement should by definition be future orient-ed
and ambitious [22], but it also needs to be specific
enough that it is not simply a promise to be “the best”. It
should reflect the organisation’s values and culture, and
also its activities and context. Where is the university lo-cated?
Is it big or small, primarily a research institution or
mainly teaching focused? What are its particular teach-ing/
research strengths? Is the campus part of a heavily
built-up urban area, or spread out across a “greenfields”
site? Is it a centuries old university, steeped in tradition,
or was it founded in the past decade? What are its rela-tionships
with the wider community? All these present-day
issues (and more) can contextualise and inform
where and how the university sees itself positioned in
terms of an envisioned sustainable future.
16
DEVELOPING A VISION STATEMENT – UNIVERSITY
OF MARIBOR
The University of Maribor in Slovenia is leading the
nation’s universities in introducing sustainability prin-ciples
into its everyday performance, guided by its in-stitutional
vision.
The number of tertiary students in Slovenia more than
doubled between 1995 and 2005, coinciding with its
evolution as an independent country and admission
to the European Union. In 2006 the University of Mari-bor
established a Sustainability Council, including
representatives from most departments, in response
to growing interest from the university community.
The Council adopted a combination of top-down and
bottom-up approaches to promote the sustainability
agenda, and in June 2006 proposed the following vi-sion
statement:
“To become an institution that integrates sustaina-ble
development principles into everyday activities,
from achieving research and educational excellence
(ranking within the first third of European universi-ties)
and to foster local, regional, and international
cooperation, and spread cultural awareness and
values.”
The University adopted the Plan-Do-Check-Act con-tinual
improvement “Deming cycle” [39] to drive its
sustainability initiatives (see also Section 3). The Sus-tainability
Council continues to bring together stake-holders
from across the University to coordinate and
foster sustainability projects.
Lukman, R. & Glavič, P. (2007). What are the key
elements of a sustainable university? Clean Tech-nologies
and Environmental Policy, 9: 103-114.
Many organisations, including many universities, adopt
a mission statement as well as (or instead of) a state-ment
of their vision for the future. A mission statement
helps explain the motivation for the vision; it should
answer (in general terms) the questions who, what, and
why, and lay the foundation for future action [36]. A mis-sion
is more pragmatic than a vision. It is about what the
organisation plans to do rather than what it wants to be.
It uses “doing words” (lead, educate, plan, develop…) to
identify actions, and defines those areas in which action
will be taken (curriculum, research, fabric and opera-tions...).
VISION, MISSION AND VALUES
With more than 300 member, the Environmental Asso-ciation
for Universities and Colleges (EAUC) www.eauc.
org.uk strives to lead the way in bringing sustainability
to the business management and curriculum of insti-tutions
across the UK and further afield. As well as its
vision and mission, the EAUC website sets out the As-sociation’s
foundational values:
Our Vision
Our vision is a tertiary education sector where the prin-ciples
and values of environmental, economic and so-cial
sustainability are embedded
Our Mission
The EAUC will lead, inspire and support Members and
stakeholders with a shared vision, knowledge and the
tools they need to embed sustainability and facilitate
whole institution change through the involvement of
everyone in the institution.
Our Values
Leadership and Service for Sustainability
Leading, as a role model, we inspire change and chal-lenge
unsustainable practice
Partnership and Independence
Benefiting from our independent position we value
collaborative networks and partnerships
Commitment and Creativity
As one team, we bring a potent mix of optimism, deter-mination,
innovation and dynamism to solving prob-lems
Listening, Understanding and Learning
We continually learn, account for and improve our or-ganisation
through the knowledge and initiative of our
members, staff, trustees and other stakeholders
Since the launch of the Talloires Declaration in 1990
[20], regional and international conferences, higher
education associations and intergovernmental organi-sations
such as UNESCO have developed a variety of
agreements, declarations and charters on university
sustainability (See Section 5). These represent another
strategic tool available to universities choosing the path
of sustainable development. As at 2011 there were more
than 30 such international agreements, signed by more
than 1400 universities globally [40].](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-14-320.jpg)
![Figure 2.1: The “virtuous cycle” of stakeholder engagement. Modified from The Guide to Practitioners’ Perspectives on
Stakeholder Engagement [42]
Framework for establishing
sustainability dialogue
Focus for initiating action
Program implementation
Buy-in and influence of
senior management
Support and resources
STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
17
Similar to a vision or mission statement, a sustainabil-ity
declaration represents a high level commitment to
achieving a sustainable future; as such it can offer gen-eral
guidance, but is not designed to provide specific
direction. Institutions pledge to implement broadly de-fined
actions around core issues such as environmental
literacy, institutional culture change, interdisciplinary
collaboration and stakeholder participation. These ac-tions
may be staged for ease of implementation, for ex-ample
the International Sustainable Campus Network
– Global University Leaders Forum Sustainable Campus
Charter [41] structures commitments into a nested hier-archy
encompassing individual buildings, campus-wide
planning and target setting, and integration of research,
teaching, outreach and facilities for sustainability.
Of course signing a declaration does not of itself guar-antee
implementation of its commitments. Voluntary
agreements by definition provide no mechanisms to
enforce accountability. On the other hand, commit-ment
to an external agreement can provide the basis
for a university to develop its own internal sustainability
vision and policy. Arguably, international declarations
and charters have also helped to shape the growing
consensus on the role of universities in sustainable de-velopment,
and even national legislation [40].
2.3 Engaging the university
(and wider) communities
Section 2.2 above introduced the notion of top-down,
bottom-up and combined strategies. In all cases, genu-ine
engagement of academics, administrative / opera-tional
staff and students in the early stages is crucial to
the successful initiation of the sustainability agenda. In-deed
the organised participation of students and staff in
every aspect of the sustainability transition is essential
to success. Hence the strategies presented below can
be employed to support and reinforce any of the practi-cal
sustainability initiatives and interventions discussed
in Section 3 of this Toolkit at any stage of the journey,
involving different people at different stages.
The topic of community engagement and participation
is an important focus for research and teaching, and an
issue for practical application in governance and the
corporate sector, but universities can sometimes be
reticent about practicing what they teach. But as with
other aspects of greening the university, tested and ef-fective
strategies exist for motivating, informing and
engaging the involvement of the university and wider
communities, discussed below.
STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT
INTERNAL
COMMITMENT
VALUE
CREATION
EXTERNAL
CREDIBILITY
Public awareness
catalyst for change
integration
Renewed engagement
18
2.3.1 Initiating engagement for sustainable development
The primary stakeholders are the staff and students, but
within these constituencies there are of course particu-lar
groups and individuals whose involvement is critical
[43]:
University leadership – the office of the President
/ Vice Chancellor and the governing Council or
Board, academic and operational executives;
Key operational departments – facilities manage-ment,
purchasing, IT, marketing and media, stu-dent
housing, etc.;
Academic experts in various aspects of sustain-ability;
Academic and operational staff associations;
The student association and student clubs.
In addition, the web of groups and individuals who af-fect,
or are affected by the university and its activities
[30] extends well beyond the immediate university com-munity
to include:
Alumni, who may be scattered across the world;
Public and private sector funding bodies, which
have their own agendas and objectives;
Government and corporate research partners, as
above;
National and international associations to which
the university may belong;
External suppliers of goods and services, for
whom the university may represent a major eco-nomic
development opportunity;
School students and their families, as prospective
university students; and
The local community within which the university
is situated.
The precise composition of the wider “secondary com-munity”
of university stakeholders will vary from place
to place, and will certainly include members not specifi-cally
identified above. It is worth noting too that usually
it is better to cast the net more widely than is absolutely
necessary rather than inadvertently exclude an impor-tant
group. However, it is also necessary to define and
adhere to the time and resources available for the task.
How extensive the engagement process needs to be
will be determined by its purpose and scope – initia-tion
of an institutional sustainability vision or policy, or
It should be emphasised that the present discussion is
about engagement to inform and promote institutional
sustainability, not what is referred to as “civic engage-ment”
or “outreach” whereby the university is promot-ing
sustainability beyond its own institutional bounda-ries.
The latter interpretation is outside the scope of this
toolkit – although the strategies for accomplishing it are
much the same as for the former.
“Engagement” describes the full scope of an organisa-tion’s
efforts to understand and involve stakeholders in
its activities and decisions. It includes basic communi-cation
strategies consultation exercises and deeper lev-els
of dialogue and collaboration [42]. Stakeholder en-gagement
in the wider world is progressing from simple
informing to discussing to partnering. A similar progres-sion
is necessary in the higher education sector to drive
sustainable development.
Engagement of staff and students in creating a sustain-ability
vision or mission or around signing a declara-tion
or developing a policy provides both a framework
for dialogue and a focus to initiate action. This in turn
generates credibility, encourages commitment and ul-timately
facilitates the integration of sustainability into
institutional culture – a “virtuous cycle” (Figure 2.1).
INTERNATIONAL CAMPUS NETWORK DISCUSSES
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
The International Sustainable Campus Network Sym-posium
Better Campus, Better City: Learning for a
Sustainable Future took place in Shanghai during the
World Expo 2010. The conference session on “Green
buildings and beyond” prompted some insightful
discussion on the effective integration of sustainable
buildings, technologies and design elements on cam-puses.
First and foremost, stakeholder engagement
was identified as critical. Frequently difficult and
complex choices must be made which impact stake-holders
right across a campus. For example, at the
National University of Singapore, a decision was made
to air-condition common spaces and classrooms but
not the dormitory rooms. As an energy saving meas-ure,
the benefits of this decision were clear; however,
students needed to understand why the choice was
made. Sometimes the impacts of campus develop-ment
spread well beyond the physical boundaries. For
example when campus transportation and mobility
options are developed, the neighbourhoods around
the campus will be affected, necessitating honest dia-logue
with local residents.
ISCN (2010). “Better Campus, Better City: Learning
for a Sustainable Future”, International Sustainable
Campus Network Symposium, Shanghai, July 27-28.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-15-320.jpg)
![STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
19
the launch of an individual programme or project. So a
stakeholder “mapping” exercise represents a good start-ing
point. Aspects to consider are:
Who needs to be involved?
Why do they need to be involved?
How should they be involved?
Equally, who from the university is managing the en-gagement
process – if it is initiated by staff and/or stu-dents
(bottom-up), has senior management been in-vited
to the table? And if initiated by management, has
it been organised so that staff (or students) do not see
it as an imposition on their already busy schedules? In
either case, clear objectives are essential, and also a
clear explanation of the baseline position (whether with
respect to overall policy, or to a specific project, depend-ing
on the purpose of the engagement) from which it is
intended to progress. Those who are being asked to get
involved need to be adequately briefed.
Finally, in relation to capacity, community engagement
requires resources too. Those being asked to contribute
their time and energy will respond to the time and ener-gy
put into the participatory process. Whether engaging
with internal or external stakeholders, those involved
need to be both good listeners and good advocates. It
can often be a useful strategy to utilise the services of
an independent specialist facilitator where the issues
are complex and often poorly defined [30], as is the case
with sustainable development.
2.3.2 Levels and methods of engagement
The stakeholder engagement spectrum ranges from
informing through to empowering. The table below is
adapted to the university context from The Practitioner’s
Handbook on Stakeholder Engagement, published by
UNEP, AccountAbility and Stakeholder Research Asso-ciates
to promote the use of stakeholder engagement
worldwide as a way of advancing sustainable develop-ment
goals [30]. While the focus of the Handbook is on
the corporate sector and external engagement, strate-gies
are easily modifiable to suit other types of organisa-tions.
Table 2.2: Levels and methods of stakeholder engagement, modified from The Practitioner’s Handbook on Stakeholder Engagement [30].
LEVEL GOAL COMMUNICATION RELATIONSHIP TYPICAL METHODS
Inform Inform or educate
stakeholders. One-way. “We will keep you informed.” Newsletters, brochures, displays, websites,
presentations.
Consult
Gain information
and feedback from
stakeholders to inform
decisions made by
management.
Limited two-way – views
solicited and provided.
“We will keep you informed,
listen to your concerns, consider
your insights, and provide
feedback on our decision.”
Surveys, focus groups, workshops,
“toolbox” meetings, standing advisory
committee, online feedback and
discussion.
Involve
Work directly with
stakeholders to
ensure their views
are understood and
considered in decision
making.
Two-way, learning takes place
on both sides.
“We will work with you to ensure
that your views are understood,
to explore options and
provide feedback about how
stakeholders’ views influenced
the decision making process.”
Multi-stakeholder forums, advisory
panels, consensus building processes,
participatory decision making processes.
Collaborate
Partner with or
convene a network
of stakeholders to
develop mutually agreed
solutions and joint plan
of action.
Two-way, or multi-way between
the university and stakeholders.
Learning, negotiation, and
decision making on both sides.
Stakeholders work together to
take action
“We will look to you for direct
advice and participation in
finding and implementing
solutions to shared challenges.”
Joint projects, voluntary two-party
or multi-stakeholder initiatives,
partnerships. In the university context this
may involve partnerships with student or
staff associations, local NGOs, etc.
Empower
Delegate decision
making on a particular
issue to stakeholders.
New organisational forms of
accountability: stakeholders
have formal role in governance
or decisions are delegated to
stakeholders.
“We will implement what you
decide.”
Integration of stakeholders into
governance structure (note that many
universities already include staff and
student representatives in governing
bodies, but their influence may be
nominal).
20
Higher level engagement makes for greater opportunities
for transformation. In practice, the three lower levels – In-form,
Consult and Involve, and their associated methods
– are most appropriately applied during the early stages
of consolidating commitment, articulating a vision and
formulating a policy. The two higher levels – Collaborate
and Empower – are more relevant to the implementation
of a comprehensive sustainability programme. In particu-lar
empowerment necessitates governance structures of a
distinctly new type, appropriate for an organisation well
advanced along the transition to sustainability.
Table 2.1 demonstrates that methods of engagement
should reflect the intended objectives [30]. They must also
take into account local circumstances, and acknowledge
that each method has both strengths and weaknesses.
For example web or email based feedback or discussion
facilities may be convenient for engaging with staff and
students, but online approaches may exclude members
of the external community without internet access. Sur-veys
(verbal, written or online) are very helpful to estab-lish
a baseline and identify issues of concern. However,
they are essentially a one-way means of communication
and must be well designed and the results carefully ana-lysed
if they are to elicit useful information. Focus groups
are effective for in-depth investigation of a particular topic
but may favour expertise over representativeness, while
larger public meetings can encompass a variety of issues
but may feel intimidating for some participants. A useful
“hybrid” method is the single-issue forum, which enables
a wider group of participants to focus on more tractable
subsets of a complex whole.
Once the university’s sustainability commitment and vi-sion
have been defined, a SWOT analysis may be used
to identify institutional strengths, weaknesses, oppor-tunities
and threats which can help or hinder progress
towards achievement [43]. Advisory panels or commit-tees
are particularly valuable during the practical imple-mentation
stage, and are discussed further in Section 3.
These methods are best understood as complementary
– they are designed to achieve different outcomes and
are applicable at different stages, but appropriately
combined can present a comprehensive and trans-formative
approach.
The Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable
Future (ULSF) has developed a university Sustainability
Assessment Questionnaire [44], which is discussed fur-ther
in Section 4 in relation to the development of a
performance “scorecard”. The issues raised in the ques-tionnaire
can also serve as helpful prompts during the
early stages of establishing a commitment and vision,
to initiate engagement around what constitutes best
practice. Table 2.2 summarises the main sustainability
criteria targeted by the ULSF.
One of the most perceptive questions / prompts is:
“What do you see when you walk around campus
that tells you this is an institution committed to
sustainability?” [44].
Equally it could be asked: “What do you see when you
walk around campus that suggests opportunities for
improvement and action?” A guided campus walk is
simple and instructive engagement strategy for observ-ing
and assessing (at a very general level) what is, as a
guide to considering what could and should be.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-16-320.jpg)
![33
Table 2.3: University sustainability prompts for community engagement, adapted from ULSF Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire [44].
DIMENSION TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION
Curriculum
STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
21
Courses which address topics related to sustainability
Integration of sustainability into traditional disciplines
Learning about the campus as a socio-environmental system
Research and scholarship Staff and student research and scholarship relating to sustainability
Interdisciplinary structures for sustainability research, education and policy development
Fabric and operations
Building construction and renovation
Energy and water conservation
Waste minimisation
Sustainable food programs
Sustainable landscaping
Sustainable transportation
Green purchasing
Minimisation of toxic materials
Environmental / sustainability auditing
Integration of operational practices with learning and teaching
Staff development and
rewards
Sustainability criteria for hiring and promotion
Staff development opportunities
Outreach and service Sustainable community development at regional, national and international levels
Partnerships with schools, local government and local business
Student opportunities
Orientation on sustainability for students
Student environmental centre
Student groups with sustainability focus
Career counselling focused on sustainability
Student involvement in campus sustainability initiatives
Administration, mission
and planning
Commitments to sustainability in terms of reference for university organisational units
Positions and committees dedicated to sustainability issues
Staff orientation programs
Socially responsible investment practices
Regular environmental audits
Sustainability related events
Heinz chapel on the campus
of the university of pittsburgh
in pittsburgh pennsylvania
© SHUTTERSTOCK](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-17-320.jpg)
![Tools for delivering transformation
STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
23
This Section of the Toolkit sets out step by step guid-ance
for universities seeking to translate their commit-ment
to, and vision of sustainable development into re-ality.
The format follows the familiar Plan-Do-Check-Act
“Deming cycle” of continual improvement [39] which re-flects
the globally acknowledged management system
models developed by the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) [45-48]; the Global Reporting Ini-tiative
guidelines [49]; and a range of best practice initia-tives
drawn both from practical experience and from the
literature.
An important “bridging” stage between initial commit-ment
as an institution to take the sustainable develop-ment
path and the development of detailed policies and
strategies to effect delivery is to adopt a time scale for
the transition to sustainability. Definition and adoption
of a time scale which is both challenging and appropri-ate
to a particular university requires serious engage-ment
with the members of that university, for example
as part of a visioning process, as discussed in Section 2.
It is arguable that objective reality is defining the time
scale for us. Over the past few decades it has become
obvious that anthropogenic environmental impacts are
global in scope [50, 51]. The landmark Millennium Eco-system
Assessment [52] revealed that some 60% of eco-system
services which provide the basis for life on Earth
have been degraded or are being used unsustainably,
and emphasised that humans have changed ecosys-tems
more rapidly and extensively in the past 50 years
than at any other period. Increasing evidence of global
warming, predicted “peaking” of oil, phosphorus and
other natural resources and an extinction rate which
rivals the great extinctions of the deep geological past
[53] reinforce the need to take action now.
Universities have been described as microcosms of the
environmental problems which face society as whole
[54], from greenhouse emissions to noise pollution. The
previous sections of this Toolkit have emphasised that
achievement of a sustainable campus represents a par-adigm
shift in institutional thinking and practice. While
as noted in Section 2, “little victories” can pave the way
for “systemic transformation” [6], it is necessary to keep
the destination in mind. From that perspective, setting
long term stretch goals can provide a framework for nec-essary
action.
Campus sustainability integrates the cultural/institu-tional
and the biophysical, and different strategies – and
stretch goals – are required in each case. In relation to
the quantitative, there are four broad categories for
which both long and short-term targets can be defined
and presented:
Energy, carbon and climate change;
Water consumption;
Use of land – campus ecology, planning, design
and development; and
Material flows – procurement, toxicity and pollu-tion,
waste disposal and recovery.
Taking energy consumption as an example, the propor-tion
of energy derived from renewable sources (hydro,
wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels) globally was approxi-mately
8% in 2010 [55]. A university which is genuinely
sustainable in terms of its energy consumption is one
which derives 100% of its energy needs for heating,
cooling and transport from renewable sources. The
difference between 100% and 8% (or perhaps a higher
baseline, if the university is already using more than 8%
renewable energy) represents the “sustainability gap”
for energy which the university can close by setting an
ultimate target date and meeting a step-by-step sched-ule
of intermediate targets until the final goal is achieved
(Figure 3.1). The Technical Appendix describes a math-ematical
model for deriving these targets from baseline
energy consumption.
SECTION 3
24
Figure 3.1: Example of planning the transition to 100% renewable energy consumption through staged application of 5-year
targets. Each university needs to set its own targets and timelines.
Similar transitional strategies can be defined for water
consumption (not exceeding the sustainable yield of
the catchment within which the university is located),
land use (campus planning and development), and
management of material flows (zero net waste). For
present purposes, the primary issue is to establish
agreed stretch goals and target dates; the methodology
is explained in detail in the Technical Appendix.
Energy, water, land and materials are defined in terms
of direct biophysical outcomes. Other aspects of sus-tainable
university practice are characterised by their
social and cultural outcomes. The biophysical impact
of embedding sustainability in research and teaching,
governance and administration and community out-reach
is long term and indirect. Suitable stretch goals
in these areas may be qualitative or quantitative, and
will be more closely linked to management decisions –
100% of goods and services procured by the university
to meet some sustainability accreditation target, 100%
of students to have completed an introductory sustain-ability
course, and so on.
The question of a sustainability policy has not been dis-cussed
to this point. Policy development represents the
first stage of implementing the university’s vision. While
still articulated at the “overview” level (for example,
referencing the stretch goals mentioned above) an or-ganisation’s
policy should be the driver for setting inter-mediate
objectives and targets, and giving the context
for action plans around the issues identified through
community engagement. Policies in general apply to
the medium term, and are subject to regular review.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-18-320.jpg)
![STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
25
Figure 3.2: The university sustainability continual improvement cycle [45-49, 56-58]. The red spiral represents the main
plan-do-check-act sequence, the blue arcs indicate secondary feedback loops and information inputs.
Figure 3.2 maps the structure of the continual improve-ment
cycle, synthesised from a variety of sources [45-49,
56-58] and including a set of management programs
(ISO 14001 terminology) or action plans specific to this
toolkit. In summary:
The university’s sustainability policy (Section
3.1) drives the cycle. Also discussed in this Sec-tion
are the structures necessary to ensure deliv-ery:
a cross-campus sustainability committee
and the dedicated personnel assigned the task of
managing implementation – the sustainability
team.
An initial environmental review ((ISO 14001 ter-minology)
or sustainability review determines
the baseline conditions and enables issues to be
prioritised for action (Section 3.2).
The policy (“where do we want to be?”) and the
initial review (“where are we now?”) informs the
planning phase (“how do we get from where
we are to where we want to be?”). This includes
identification of appropriate performance in-dicators
(Section 3.3), objectives and targets
(Section 3.4) and sustainability action plans
(Section 3.5). Planning as per ISO14001 also in-cludes
awareness and training (Section 3.6),
communications and documentation (Sec-tion
3.7) and emergency preparedness and re-sponse
(Section 3.8).
The implementation phase refers to the “doing”
element of the plan-do-check-act cycle. This en-tails
carrying out the context-specific action plans
prepared during the previous phase of the cycle,
and also taking advantage of any unforeseen op-portunities
which may have emerged [58] since
the original plans were prepared. In addition, de-fects
in existing plans can be identified in imple-mentation,
and this information fed back into the
planning process.
The checking phase represents the closing of the
loop: monitoring and measurement of pro-gress,
internal audits and management review
(Section 3.9) enables rejuvenation of the entire
cycle. Outcomes from benchmarking against best
26
practice and any planned actions which have not
been achieved inform the next round of plan-ning;
the policy is re-assessed for relevance and
currency; and the progress to date is document-ed
in the university’s sustainability report.
3.1 Sustainability policy,
governance and administration
ISO 14001 specifies environmental management sys-tem
elements applicable to all types and sizes of or-ganisations
under diverse geographical, cultural and
social conditions. Success depends on commitment
from all levels of the organisation. There must be dem-onstrated
dedication to establishing and assessing the
effectiveness of environmental policy, objectives and
procedures, and to achieving conformance and dem-onstrating
it to others. Thus the aim of ISO 14001 is to
support environmental protection in balance with
socio-economic needs. It should be emphasised that
ISO 14001 does not establish absolute requirements for
environmental performance beyond commitment to
compliance with applicable legislation and regulations
and to continual improvement. ISO 14001 also does not
address the broader social, economic or cultural issues
pertinent to a holistic approach to university sustain-ability;
these aspects, however, may be incorporated
into the relevant sections of the EMS Standard (policy,
objectives and targets, action plans, training, etc.) with
only minor adjustments required to facilitate imple-mentation.
An organisation’s sustainability policy is the essen-tial
tool for setting short- and long-term sustainability
goals against which all subsequent actions will be
judged. ISO 14001 requires an organisation’s environ-mental
policy to:
Be developed by top management and cover
the scope of the EMS (in the university context,
“top management” refers to the President / Vice-
Chancellor and those senior executives who re-port
directly to him/her);
Be appropriate to the nature, scale and environ-mental
impacts of the organisation’s activities,
products and services (i.e. linked to the overall
mission of the university);
Include a commitment to continual improve-ment
and prevention of pollution;
Commit to compliance with applicable legal
requirements and with other requirements to
which the organisation subscribes which relate
to its environmental aspects;
Provide the framework for setting and reviewing
environmental objectives and targets;
Be documented, implemented and maintained;
Be communicated to all persons working for or
on behalf of the organisation (which includes
contractors, temporary staff, etc. – and in the
case of universities, students);
Be available to the public.
Adaptation of the above points to address a universi-ty’s
sustainability policy (i.e. to explicitly include social,
economic and cultural elements) will not substantially
change the structure of the policy statement, although
it will obviously affect the content.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-19-320.jpg)
![STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
29
student services, human resources, equal opportunity
and the like. Again, it is critical to ensure appropriate
alignment and communication between those charged
with delivering outcomes across the different facets of
sustainable development, whether these have been
explicitly identified as “sustainable” or simply as part of
good management practice.
3.2 Determining the baseline:
initial environmental/
sustainability reviews
The ISO 14001 EMS standard offers flexibility to organi-sations
to develop their own means of identifying the
significant environmental impacts of their activities.
ISO 141001 does not stipulate the method to be used,
only that it has to be applied systematically. Standards
Australia’s HB [Handbook] 206 Initial Environmental
Review (IER) provides structured guidance to organisa-tions
seeking to determine their current baseline envi-ronmental
status [59], and may be adapted to include
additional sustainability aspects beyond the specifical-ly
environmental. The results of the review can be used
to assist the organisation in developing or improving its
environmental policy, setting the scope of its environ-mental
/ sustainability management system, establish-ing
its sustainability objectives and targets, and deter-mining
the effectiveness of its approach to maintaining
compliance with applicable legal and other require-ments.
Less formally, an initial review will answer the
question “Where are we now and what do we have to
do to get where we want to be”?
The review is intended to provide sufficient informa-tion
for a preliminary identification of the significant
environmental (and other sustainability) aspects and
impacts associated with the activities of, and services
provided by, the university. “Environmental aspects”
are identified as elements of an organisation’s activities,
products or services which can interact with the envi-ronment,
for example energy consumption or waste
generation. An impact, on the other hand, is any change
to the environment (positive or negative) resulting from
this interaction. In addition, the review identifies how
these aspects are currently being managed, including
legal compliance and emergency response, and can
also reveal opportunities for improvement.
A systematic initial sustainability review of a university
will entail five phases:
Planning – setting the scope and objectives,
schedule, resources and personnel;
Review of existing information (i.e. documen-tation
review) – organisational, physical (site) and
functional (detail of activities, including teaching,
research and operations);
Confirmation of existing information and
collection of new information – site inspec-tions,
questionnaires, interviews, discussions;
Evaluation of the information, for example in
relation to potential environmental risks, compli-ance
with legal requirements and adequacy of
existing policies, procedures and management
practices (gap analysis);
Reporting and recommendations – summary
of the methods and findings and presentation of
opportunities for improvement (how to get from
“where we are” to “where we want to be”).
The review can be conducted using checklists, process
flowcharts, interviews, direct inspection, past and cur-rent
measurements, and where available, the results
of previous audits or reviews. An initial review does
not involve site contamination audits, direct sampling
and analysis of environmental media (soil, water, air) or
detailed life cycle assessment of products or services.
However, if a need for any such investigations is identi-fied,
it should be flagged in the recommendations.
3.2 1 Prioritization of issues to be addressed
Not all environmental or sustainability aspects and im-pacts
are equally important – determination of their
significance is necessary to enable prioritisation of
responses, for example through sustainability action
plans. Qualitative evaluation of the significance of envi-ronmental
aspects and impacts is commonly achieved
through application of risk assessment techniques,
which identify the consequences of a particular impact
(severity, spatial and temporal scale), and the probabil-ity
(likelihood) of it occurring, to determine the overall
risk (Figure 3.3). The particular criteria used to define
the consequences may include effects on people, prop-erty
and ecosystems, monetary value and reputation.
30
Figure 3.3: Probability / consequences matrix, indicating Extreme, High, Medium and Low risk.
In the case of readily quantifiable aspects such as en-ergy
and water consumption, waste production and
procurement of high volume goods such as paper or
construction materials, the significance of the associ-ated
environmental impacts may be ascertained more
directly. Typical methods include calculation of opera-tional
greenhouse gas emissions, embodied energy and
material balances for particular goods (e.g. the amounts
of paper purchased, used, recycled and disposed of to
landfill). These figures can also be used to generate sus-tainability
indicators (Section 3.3), particularly when
coupled with appropriate denominators (e.g. tonnes CO2
per square metre of floor space, or per student).
Given the wide range of universities at which this Toolkit
is aimed, it is impossible to set out a checklist of ac-tivities,
aspects, impacts, management responses and
levels of significance relevant to all; the methodology is
the critical factor here. To take one common (but by no
means universal) activity: grounds maintenance – Table
3.1 outlines some potential (but again, not universal)
sustainability issues to consider in an initial review. The
matrix format can provide a useful template to assess
the vast variety of activities relevant to any given univer-sity,
which may encompass anything from student hous-ing
to research on genetically modified organisms.
3.3 Selecting and defining
indicators
What gets measured gets managed. Measurement of pro-gress
against agreed performance indicators enables a uni-versity
to benchmark against others, but more importantly,
against the sustainability targets it sets for itself [60].
Indicators provide the mileposts on the journey to sus-tainability.
As such, they need to fulfill certain criteria.
The World Health Organisation [61] points out that the
criteria used to select a particular indicator depend on
the purpose of that indicator. Indicator selection is thus
both a technical and a normative decision; linking the
two provides an opportunity to facilitate dialogue and
learning, which “provides the foundation for developing
shared meanings of sustainability, the role of indicators,
and how they will function” [62].
Sustainability indicators need to incorporate, but go be-yond,
considerations of “eco-efficiency” (or environmental
performance). An eco-efficiency energy indicator, for exam-ple,
would measure energy conservation – a sustainability
indicator would record total greenhouse gas emissions
against a goal of zero. The difference is between incremen-tal
and systemic change; eco-efficiency ends with the in-cremental,
sustainability integrates both [60].](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-21-320.jpg)
![Table 3.1: Sustainability aspects and impacts, significance and potential management responses in relation to the maintenance of campus grounds.
ACTIVITY ASPECT IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
31
Indicators may also be grouped and weighted to form
indices of environment or sustainability performance.
Ecological footprint analysis (the amount of land neces-sary
to provide the necessary resources and assimilate
the wastes and pollutants generated by a population
[63]) is a well-known index which has been extended
from its original role in comparing national and regional
impacts to include application to public and private
sector organisations, households and the comparison
of consumer products. It has also been adapted to
focus on specific criteria of environmental concern, for
example carbon and water footprints.
The advantage of the ecological footprint lies in the com-prehensibility
and educative value of the measure; the
disadvantage is that despite extensive data collection
and analysis requirements, the end result is a metric
which enables comparability between places, but not a
high degree of accuracy. It is not discussed further here
– a wide range of online and other resources is available
for those wishing to explore and apply footprint analysis
in their institutions.
The development of an indicator set typically proceeds
from the general to the particular: from the overall con-cepts
to the main themes, to the specific, measurable
indicators. The themes serve to organise and contextu-alise
the indicators. More detail on the process of indica-tor
selection, which as suggested above, should involve
a participatory dialogue with the university community
– is given in the Technical Appendix.
The biophysical aspects of university sustainability can
be condensed into four key themes, as noted above:
energy use, water use, land use and material flows. Al-though
climate change crosses multiple themes, for ease
of data collection and reporting it is included here with
energy, to create a theme of “Energy, carbon and climate
change”. In addition to the themes where physical out-comes
are directly measureable, there are a further four
themes which relate to more qualitative (but indirectly
measurable) aspects of change: research, learning and
teaching (education for sustainability), governance and
administration and community outreach (Table 3.2). The
“range of variables” column indicates potential areas for
the definition of quantitative or qualitative indicators.
32
Grounds
maintenance
Water use Resource depletion
Depends on climate and geography –
will be of major significance for some
sites
Use recycled water and/or captured
rainwater
Select low water requirement plants
Fuel use
Resource depletion
GHG emissions
Air pollution
Depends on extent of mechanised
maintenance, impacts likely to be
moderate
Substitute biofuels for fossil fuels
Purchase fuel-efficient equipment
Reduce use of mechanical equipment
Improve equipment maintenance,
training
Fertiliser use
Resource depletion
Damage to soil structure
Runoff / eutrophication
Impacts generally moderate, but
may be more significant where a
university is located near sensitive
natural ecosystems
Replace artificial fertilisers with organic
products
Herbicide /
pesticide use
Resource depletion
Effects on non-target species
Runoff / water pollution
Spillage
Generally as above; however the
impact of a spill may represent a major
risk
Reduce chemical use
Substitute non-persistent for persistent
chemicals
Improve chemical safety – storage,
handling, training
Biodiversity
and ecosystem
services
Biodiversity and ecosystem services
may be maintained, enhanced
or reduced, depending on
maintenance regime
Positive or negative impacts
range from relatively low to high,
depending on location (urbanised vs.
natural ecosystems)
Specify local native species
Preserve significant vegetation during
building works
Avoid monocultures
Avoid environmental weeds
Soil disturbance
Erosion
Compaction
Dust
Generally low, but may be moderate,
again depending on location
Apply mulch
Use no-till methods
Garden organics
(green waste)
Reduction of landfill space
GHG emissions
Impacts of transport to landfill
Land and aquifer contamination
Production / use of compost
Moderate negative impacts from
landfill, but these will increase as
landfill space runs out in many
regions
Moderate positive impact of
composting
Process garden organics to generate
mulch and compost
Campus amenity
Impact on work/study
environment, productivity, quality
of life
Moderate positive impacts Continually improve maintenance
standards, training
Local
employment Impact on local economy Range from low to relatively high,
depending on location Hire grounds staff from local area
Table 3.2: Potential themes and indicative measurable variables relating to university sustainability.
THEME INDICATIVE RANGE OF VARIABLES
Sustainability in research Grant funding, publications, conferences and seminars, commercialisation
Education for sustainability Cross-disciplinary courses, sustainability literacy, curriculum integration
Governance and administration Sustainability policies, environmental management plans and systems, environmental auditing, recruitment
and staff development, ethical investment, local economic development, student access and equity
Community outreach Service learning, collaboration with other institutions, community development projects
Energy, carbon and climate change Operational energy, embodied energy, transport energy, greenhouse gas emissions
Water use Potable water, water reuse, rainwater collection
Land use Green buildings, space planning, ecosystem services, biodiversity
Material flows Contract specification and evaluation, supply chain management, life cycle assessment, waste minimisation,
air and water pollution](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-22-320.jpg)
![STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
33
The focus of this Toolkit is on the sustainable plan-ning,
design, development and management of the
university campus as distinct from the core business of
teaching, research and outreach, which is the subject of
a separate initiative by UNEP’s Environmental Educa-tion
and Training Unit (Higher Education Guidelines for
Curriculum Review and Reorientation towards Sustain-ability).
Hence the indicators proposed here will be re-stricted
to the four themes which encompass the physi-cal
aspects of university sustainability, together with the
critical enabler – governance and administration.
Every university has its individual goals and priorities,
and every university exists in a national and regional
context, as has been emphasised throughout the
Toolkit. Hence to suggest a “one size fits all” indicator
set would be inappropriate and unworkable. However,
there are clearly a number of core indicators – such as
carbon emissions – which are relevant to all universi-ties.
Each university can supplement these core indica-tors
with additional metrics which measure particular
attributes which the university community deems are
worth tracking on its journey towards sustainability.
Table 3.2 lists a recommended core set of indicators of
environmental performance, which are identified as rel-evant
and applicable to almost all universities, irrespec-tive
of size or location (one minor exception include use
of natural gas, which will be irrelevant to some). The
task of collecting the initial baseline data should be
used to develop an effective procedure for regular data
collection to inform action planning and target setting –
annually for most indicators, and typically monthly for
energy, water and waste.
Table 3.3: Recommended core university environmental performance indicator set.
ELEMENT METRIC UNITS* COMMENTS
Energy, carbon
and climate
change
Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse
gas emissions tCO2e/capita Measurement of Scope 1 & 2 emissions disaggregated to source is regarded as the
minimum requirement. Best practice will include Scope 3.
Electricity consumption kWh/m2 floor space
kWh/capita
In most cases, this will be the largest contributor to a university’s GHG emissions.
Proportion of electricity derived from onsite and/or renewable sources should be
separately recorded.
Natural gas consumption GJ/m2 floor space
GJ/capita
Any natural gas used in cogeneration and trigeneration should be separately
recorded.
Transport energy
consumption
kL fuels
Passenger kilometres
Minimum requirement for measurement is the university vehicle fleet. Best practice
will include air travel and commuter travel modal split.
Water use
Potable and non-potable
water consumption
kL/m2 floor space
kL/capita
Should include consumption of collected rainwater and any other sources of water
reuse.
Wastewater production kL/capita Volume of greywater and blackwater which is reused is captured by the previous
indicator
Land use
Proportion of certified green
buildings by floor area m2/m2 This indicator is assumed to integrate the workplace health, environmental and
productivity benefits of green buildings.
Proportion of pervious /
impervious surfaces m2/m2 Proxy metric for anthropogenic impact on hydrological cycles and urban
microclimate.
Vegetation cover m2/m2
Proxy estimate of vegetation ecosystem services. May be supplemented by
measurement of leaf area index (LAI) which enables a more refined estimate (see
Technical Appendix).
Material flows
Solid waste disposal kg/capita Can be disaggregated into categories, e.g. municipal solid waste, construction and
demolition, hazardous, e-waste, etc.
Solid waste recovery kg/kg (diversion rate) Can be disaggregated into material types where required.
Material use kg/capita Typically one or a few representative materials such as paper will be selected. Best
practice will require a more comprehensive material balance.
*Given as SI units here, actual units employed will depend on country. Note that “per capita” refers to the total population of the university (staff + students).
34
In addition to these biophysical metrics, the following
management indicators are recommended as a basic
core on which individual universities can build. These
are adapted from the University Leaders for a Sustain-able
Future Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire
for Colleges and Universities [44].
Existence of a university Sustainability Policy
Existence of a Sustainability Management Plan
Existence of a Sustainability Steering Committee
or equivalent institution-wide strategic body
Responsibility for oversight of sustainability mat-ters
allocated to member of senior management
Appointment of a Sustainability Manager or
equivalent position
Orientation programs on sustainability for aca-demic
and operational staff
Existence of socially responsible purchasing and
investment practices and policies
Regularly conducted environmental audits
A new initiative to be launched at the Rio +
20 Conference, the Higher Education Sustain-ability
Initiative, sets out similar core criteria
with respect to teaching and research, campus
greening, community outreach and also sharing
knowledge through international frameworks
such as the UN’s education and training struc-tures.
(http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/index.
php?page=view&nr=341&type=12&menu=35)
3.4 Setting objectives and targets
ISO 14001 defines an environmental objective as an
overall goal, arising from the environmental policy, which
an organisation sets itself to achieve and which is quan-tified
where practicable. An environmental target is de-fined
as a detailed performance requirement, quantified
where practicable, applicable to the organisation or parts
thereof, which arises from the environmental objectives
and which needs to be set and met (annually, five yearly,
etc.) in order to achieve these objectives. Similar criteria
will apply to objectives and targets which address the eco-nomic,
social and cultural dimensions of sustainability.
Objectives and targets are typically linked to indicators,
to enable tracking of progress. Targets should be “chal-lenging
but achievable”, and should reflect the univer-sity’s
commitment to sustainable development and
the ultimate achievement of a sustainable university.
The introduction to this Section proposes a combina-tion
of stretch goals (e.g. zero net imported energy and
water, zero net waste) and staged transitional strate-gies
to achieve them – see for example Figure 3.1. To
support the implementation of sustainability action
plans, objectives and targets should be set and regular-ly
reviewed for each relevant function and level of the
university; for example an overall objective to reduce
energy use may be disaggregated to include individual
annual targets for specific buildings or services such as
lighting or HVAC.
Objectives and targets must be relevant to the univer-sity’s
significant environmental / sustainability aspects
and impacts, discussed in Section 3.2 above. Priorities
will vary according to the economic, social, geographic,
etc. circumstances for each university, although it is
clear that carbon emissions and climate change will
represent a common priority for the great majority of
institutions. ISO 14001 also requires organisations to
consider legal, financial, operational and business re-quirements
in setting its objectives and targets, and the
views of “interested parties”. In the university context,
the interested parties are students, staff and the wider
community, who should be purposely engaged in the
target setting process (see Section 2, Strategies for initi-ating
transformation).
3.5 Developing and
implementing sustainability
action plans
Sustainability management programs or action plans
are the engine room for change. Plans are time-bound,
and developed and reviewed on a regular basis in line
with the sustainability targets. Each university will have
its own targets and its own organisational structures for
delivery. The structure developed for this Toolkit inte-grates
models from many individual universities, uni-versity
associations and other organisations reported in
the literature, and practical experience in preparing and
implementing environmental / sustainability action
plans. It is designed to address:](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-23-320.jpg)
![Figure 3.4: Sustainability themes mapped onto management programs.
on minor GHGs is available from the Intergovernmen-tal
Panel on Climate Change website). Emission offsets
such as tree planting and renewable energy credits also
need to be included in the inventory. Inclusion of Scope
3 emissions will require significantly more detailed data
collection – and rather than attempting to evaluate the
emissions from all goods and services procured by the
university, it is more practicable to start with one or a
small number of high visibility examples, such as paper.
A climate action plan limited to Scopes 1 and 2 will focus
mainly on energy use; inclusion of Scope 3 will extend the
system boundary to include solid waste management,
transport (air travel, commuting) and procurement. The
Cool Campus climate planning guide [43] produced by
the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability
in Higher Education (AASHE) describes suitable meth-ods
for collecting and calculating Scope 3 emissions, and
another NGO, Clean Air-Cool Planet, has produced a free
downloadable campus carbon calculator.
The major source of campus emissions in most cases will
be purchased energy, hence the primary focus of a univer-sity
climate action plan will generally be on energy man-agement.
Energy management can be split into three
discrete categories, which provide the framework for the
energy-related elements of the climate action plan:
Energy conservation – policy interventions and
behaviour change programs;
Energy efficiency opportunities – maintenance
and capital works;
Renewable and alternative energy solutions.
The specific detail of the actions identified under each
of these headings will of course depend on the context
of the individual university. Table 3.4 outlines some sig-nificant
opportunities under the headings listed above,
adapted from the Cool Campus climate planning guide
[43] and practical experience. Note also that there will
be some overlap with other action plans.
STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
35
The core biophysical aspects – energy, carbon
and climate change; water consumption; waste
generation; and biodiversity protection and en-hancement
– which are pertinent to the great
majority of the university’s operations and activi-ties;
The main activity-specific aspects – campus
planning, design and development, procure-ment
of goods and services, sustainability of of-fices,
laboratories and IT services, and transport
(university related and commuter).
Figure 34 maps four of the five sustainability themes
– energy/climate, water, land and materials – against
the portfolio of management programs / action plans.
The depth of the shading indicates the strength of the
connection between the theme and the plan, in other
words the extent to which each plan addresses the
objectives and targets set under each theme. The fifth
theme – governance and administration – is implicit
across all plans. Action plans for learning, teaching and
research and community engagement are outside the
scope of this Toolkit.
The remainder of this Section summarises the possible
content of action plans under the categories set out
above – acknowledging also that some actions logically
could be placed under more than one plan. Guidance is
kept general, and is provided as a set of “prompts” (in
tabular format) to initiate discussion rather than a blue-print.
Examples and sources of further information are
given where relevant. Most of the plans suggest employ-ment
of a dedicated position (Energy Manager, Green
Procurement Manager, etc.) – depending on the size of
the university and available resources, some or all of
these roles may be combined.
3.5.1 Energy, Carbon and Climate Change
The challenge of climate change can serve as a fulcrum
for institutional transformation. The ultimate necessity
for carbon neutrality anticipates myriad opportunities
for organisational learning across all aspects of higher
education [64].
As noted above in Section 3.3 Selecting and defining indi-cators,
measurement of Scope 1 and 2 emissions disag-gregated
to source is regarded as the minimum require-ment
to support climate change action planning. Best
practice will address at least some Scope 3 emissions1.
Development of a climate action plan – assuming the
necessary policy, governance and administrative struc-tures
are in place (see Section 3.1) will commence with
the development of a GHG inventory. Where the focus
is limited to Scope 1 and 2, this will include reference to
utility billing data, and measurement or modelling of fu-gitive
emissions of minor greenhouse gases such as re-frigerants
used in air-conditioning systems and methane
produced by any farm animals on campus (information
1 Scope 1 refers to direct emissions, e.g. CO2 released by burning fossil fuels on
site or in university vehicles, and fugitive emissions of minor greenhouse gases;
Scope 2 refers to indirect GHG emissions, resulting from purchased electricity,
heat or steam; and Scope 3 refers to indirect emissions other than those covered
by Scope 2, such as emissions associated with the production of goods and
services purchased by the university, waste-related emissions and emissions from
business travel or employee commuting in vehicles not owned or controlled by
the university.
SUSTAINABILITY
MANAGEMENT
THEMESPROGRAMS
Energy & Climate
Change Water Land Materials
Energy, Carbon and Climate Change
Water
Waste
Biodiversity and ecosystem services
Planning, Design & Development
Procurement
Green Office
Green Lab
Green IT
Transport
Learning, Teaching and Research
Community Engagement
36
Table 3.4: Climate action planning – some common energy-related actions.
CATEGORY ACTION
Energy
conservation
(policy and
behaviour change)
Employment of Energy Manager.
Energy efficiency standards for new construction and refurbishments.
Energy efficiency purchasing standards.
Staff energy conservation training.
Improved space utilisation to avoid new construction or heating/cooling of underutilised space.
Thermal comfort policy (e.g. widening heating/cooling temperature settings).
Financial strategies to assign energy costs incurred – and savings achieved – to the responsible cost centres.
Energy / climate change awareness programs – posters, stickers, events and competitions, websites, awards and
incentives for switching off, reporting waste etc.
Establishment of “energy champions” network across campus buildings.
Energy efficiency
(maintenance and
capital works)
Detailed energy audit to identify priority areas.
Periodic recommissioning and building tuning to optimise energy efficiency.
Building retrofitting – installation of external shading devices, sealing, insulation, double glazing, low emissivity
window film, light coloured paint.
Lighting – delamping, installation of high efficiency lighting fixtures, use of task lighting, lighting controls (timers/
sensors).
Heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) – high efficiency chillers, boilers, motors, pumps and air handling
units, variable speed drives, variable air volume fan systems, recommissioning, tuning and regular maintenance,
heat recovery systems.
Laboratory ventilation and fume hoods – ventilated storage cabinets for storage, variable air volume and low-flow
hoods.
Installation of building management and control systems (BMCS) and sub-metering for major building energy uses,
energy use displays.
Renewable and
alternative energy
Purchase of certified “green power”.
Installation of photovoltaic, wind, biomass, etc. systems.
Installation of cogeneration and trigeneration.
Fuel switching – conversion of electric space or water heating to natural gas.
University managed revegetation program to offset greenhouse emissions.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-24-320.jpg)
![STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
37
University energy management probably offers the
best opportunities for achieving the “little victories”
necessary to enable “systemic transformation” [6]. An
important consideration here is developing a business
case which itemises costs and savings. Many energy ac-tions
(like switching off lights and equipment when not
in use) are effectively cost free. Others will involve up-front
cost which are paid back over time – and payback
calculations should take account of energy price infla-tion,
project life span and other monetary and non mon-etary
savings such as reduced maintenance, impacts on
health or comfort and pedagogic value (life cycle cost
analysis) [43].
One useful method is to establish a revolving
loan fund, whereby savings accruing from energy
conservation and efficiency actions (and other sustain-ability
initiatives) are placed in an account to fund other
projects.
Other potential actions to save energy and reduce
greenhouse emissions can include outreach pro-grams
such as collaboration with schools, local
government and community organisations; service
learning activities for students; engagement in the
public policy process; and programs to support stu-dents
and staff to reduce their own residential energy
consumption [43].
The above recommendations focus on reducing emis-sions
from stationary energy – electricity and gas.
Universities may wish to combine a suite of emission-reducing
actions around transport, waste, building de-sign,
procurement, office and laboratory practices and
IT into a single climate action plan, or include them in
separate action plans around the abovementioned is-sues
(which is the format given here). Either option is
entirely valid.
DISTANCE LEARNING AND
GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS
In the UK, distance learning requires 87% less energy
and generates 85% fewer CO2 emissions than full-time
courses on campus, and part-time campus-based
courses reduce energy and CO2 emissions by 65 and
61% respectively compared with full-time [65]. The
lower impacts of part-time and distance learning is
due mainly to a reduction in student travel, elimina-tion
of significant energy consumption from students’
housing and more efficient campus site utilisation.
E-learning appears to offer only relatively small ener-gy
and emission reductions (20 and 12% respectively)
compared with mainly print-based distance learning
courses, mainly because online learning requires more
energy for computing and paper for printing.
The most striking finding from this project was that
distance learning can dramatically reduce the energy
and emissions involved in studying to only 13-15% of
those arising from an equivalent full-time, face-to-face
campus-based course [65]. While these outcomes are
specific to a particular time and place, they suggest
that university sustainability programs should be ex-tended
beyond addressing campus site impacts and
greening the curriculum, and that the role of distance
education should be further evaluated as a potential
sustainability initiative.
3.5.2 Water
Depending on location and climate, availability and
conservation of adequate supplies of clean drinking
water may be the most critical sustainability issue for
a university. As well as conservation (policy and behav-iour
change) and efficiency measures (maintenance
and capital works), water management for sustainabil-ity
generally includes actions to reuse and recycle po-table
water for potable or non-potable purposes. Table
3.5 outlines some typical opportunities for managing
campus water use, adapted from the University of New
South Wales Water Savings Action Plan [66].
38
Table 3.5: Actions for water conservation, efficiency, reuse and recycling.
CATEGORY ACTION
Water conservation
(policy and behaviour
change)
Employment of Water Manager (can be combined Energy / Water Manager position).
Water efficiency standards for new construction and refurbishments.
Water efficiency purchasing standards.
Staff water conservation training (can combine with energy conservation training).
Financial strategies to assign water costs incurred – and savings achieved – to the responsible cost centres.
Water conservation awareness programs – posters, stickers, events and competitions, websites, awards and
incentives.
Extension of “energy champions” network to incorporate water conservation.
Water efficiency
(maintenance and
capital works)
Detailed water audit and campus water balance to identify priority areas.
Active maintenance program of early detection and repair of faulty plant, equipment and fixtures.
Retrofitting of water saving devices – timed flow taps, waterless urinals, dual flush cisterns, eater efficient
shower heads.
Underground pipework leak detection and repair.
Use of pervious paving.
Specification of low water use species for campus grounds.
Laboratory water use – mechanical vacuum infrastructure to replace use of aspirators, closed loop cooling
water systems, water efficient reverse osmosis plant.
Installation of building management and control systems (BMCS) and sub-metering for major building water
uses, water use displays.
Water reuse and
recycling
Capture and reuse of rainwater from roofs and other hard surfaces for non-potable uses (irrigation,
laboratories, toilet flushing, cooling towers, construction works, swimming pools, etc.) – may also be treated
to potable standard.
Substitution of borewater for non-potable uses, when combined with managed aquifer recharge to ensure
more water is returned to the aquifer than extracted (see also Section 7 of the Toolkit, Global exemplars).
Installation of greywater recycling system for treatment of kitchen, laundry and shower water for non-potable
uses.
Composting toilets and urine recovery for fertiliser.
Installation of blackwater recycling system to treat sewage for non-potable uses.
Recovery and reuse of fire system test water, vehicle washdown water, etc.
3.5.3 Waste
The central objective of a university solid waste action
plan is to maximise resource recovery (i.e. the propor-tion
of solid waste stream recovered for high resource
value use), with the corollary that this minimises waste
disposal to landfill. The main strategy is to apply the
“waste hierarchy” – avoid purchasing products which
will end up as waste, repair and reuse, then recycle,
and finally if there are no other options, dispose. This
also recognises that environmentally preferred pro-curement
is a major factor in avoiding waste in the
first place.
Since the environmental impact of responsible waste
management is inherently beneficial, continually im-proving
the delivery of the service itself represents a
positive sustainability action. Waste management is
data intensive – but unlike energy and water, there are
no “waste meters” to track performance. Hence regu-lar
data collection and audits are necessary. The first
step will usually be a full waste characterisation study
to describe the waste stream, evaluate existing waste
management practices and identify gaps, with the aim
of informing the development of additional systems for
avoidance, reuse and recovery.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-25-320.jpg)
![UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA FOOD COMPOSTING PROGRAM
March 3, 2010 – The University of Virginia plans to expand its pioneering food composting program to two more dining halls.
Food waste from the Observatory Hill Dining Hall has been composted since November 2008. A student-run operation hauls about 2.5 tons
of organic waste from the dining hall to Earlysville’s Panorama Farms each week, where it is composted and sold locally as a fertilizer and
soil amendment.
“We’ve reduced Observatory Hill’s trash service by half,” said Bruce “Sonny” Beale, recycling superintendent for the University. “We were
picking up six to 10 tons a week. Now we are getting six to eight tons every two weeks.”
A second food pulper has been installed in Newcomb Dining Hall. The pulp is placed in special 30-gallon containers, which the recycling
office hauls to Panorama Farms.
“This takes landfill material and turns it into a useful product,” said Jeff Sitler, environmental compliance manager at the Office of Environ-mental
Health and Safety. “And it reduces greenhouse gases because food waste in a landfill generates methane gas. When you compost it
is broken down by different microbes and does not produce methane.”
He also noted that the material is composted locally and used locally in growing food and flowers. “This is a student-initiated learning tool,”
Sitler said. “They collect the data and write all the reports.”
Report edited from http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=11152, accessed 25/3/2012
Engagement with the university community requires a
focus on best practice, accountability and transparency.
Waste management systems must be more convenient to
use than the alternative of throwing things away – because
there is no “away”. So adequate information is crucial to
progressing “towards zero waste”, and where dedicated
off-site processing is available, it will reduce the need for
user-unfriendly source separation systems on site.
The university solid waste stream is usually extremely
diverse, ranging from food organics to electronic waste
and laboratory glassware, and actions to deal with these
varied components need to be prioritised according to
impact. Table 3.6 lists some common elements of a
waste management action plan.
STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
39
Table 3.6: Actions to maximise resource recovery and minimise waste to landfill.
CATEGORY ACTION
Policy and
behaviour
change
Employment of Waste Manager.
Sustainable procurement standards which address longevity, durability, repairability recyclability and recycled content.
Financial strategies to assign waste costs incurred – and savings achieved – to the responsible cost centres.
Waste management awareness programs – posters, stickers, events and competitions, websites, awards and incentives.
Programs targeting teaching and research to minimise generation of hazardous wastes.
Waste
management
Waste characterisation study to identify waste stream components and prioritise response.
Individual staged and prioritised programs for waste minimisation which address each component of the university
waste stream according to environmental impact.
Performance-based waste management contracts to specify resource recovery targets.
In-house collection of recyclables (e.g. paper / cardboard) where practicable, to support local job creation.
Provision of adequate storage spaces for waste and recyclables.
Secure storage spaces for hazardous wastes to minimise risk of spillage / leakage.
Closing the
loop
Campus based exchange and reuse programs – e.g. office furniture, stationery, lab equipment, computers and office
equipment.
On-site composting of food and garden organics for reuse on campus grounds.
Campus based programs to process collected recyclables – e.g. shredding of food-contaminated paper, broken
furniture, etc. for compost and mulch.
40
3.5.4 Biodiversity and ecosystem services
University campuses are located in practically every bi-oregion
on the planet. Even in the most urbanised set-ting,
a campus usually contains some greenery – trees,
lawns and garden beds.
Costanza et al identify 17 major categories of services
provided by natural ecosystems, from climate regula-tion
to pollination and recreation [67]. They estimate
these services (via economic valuation methods, which
they stress are hedged by uncertainties) as worth at
least $US33 trillion annually worldwide. Their valuation
was in 1994 US dollars, equivalent to at least $50 trillion
in today’s money. Greater biodiversity enhances the
resilience and productivity of these ecosystem services.
Urban spaces in particular import ecosystem services
from vast areas; “Eventually, human services in urban-ized
areas decline as ecosystem services locally and
globally are reduced by the increasing pressure posed
by urbanization” [68].
Objectives for the design and management of campus
green space should therefore address three distinct
aspects: extending the area of vegetation where pos-sible
(which may include, for example, the installation
of green roofs; increase the density of vegetation, e.g.
as measured by leaf area index, i.e. available photo-synthetic
surface; and enhance the diversity of vegeta-tion.
Targets can be set for all three aspects. “Ecologi-cally
engineered” green infrastructure systems [69] (of
which green roofs and walls are two examples) provide
a means of addressing these aspects simultaneously.
Similarly, development of productive landscape sys-tems
to provide food, fibre and/or timber (e.g. through
permaculture design) can address the economic, social
and environmental bottom lines of sustainability at the
same time.
Finally, the specifically human element cannot be ig-nored
– the design of the campus landscape should
acknowledge the restorative effect of green spaces, and
incorporate opportunities for quiet contemplation and
relaxation, community interaction and more active rec-reation,
to enhance health and wellbeing in an environ-ment
which can often be intense and stressful.
In relation to green infrastructure management, the
key is to design in such a way as to minimise the ongo-ing
impacts of maintenance (material and energy inputs
and waste outputs). Table 3.1 discusses a range of sus-tainable
management and maintenance opportunities.
Table 3.7 outlines some potential action plan responses
relating to biodiversity and ecosystem services policy,
design and development.
Table 3.7: Actions to preserve and enhance campus biodiversity and ecosystem services.
CATEGORY ACTION
Policy, design and
development
Survey and evaluation of campus biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Extension of campus green space (consolidation / intensification of campus buildings over time,
installation of green roofs / walls).
Increase density of campus vegetation, e.g. through additional tree planting.
Enhance diversity of campus vegetation.
Green infrastructure / ecological engineering projects (green roofs / walls, designed wetlands for
wastewater treatment, phytoremediation of contaminated land, indoor landscapes for biofiltration / indoor
environmental quality).
Development of productive landscape systems (permaculture, aquaponics) to provide food / fibre / timber.
Restorative and enabling landscapes for contemplation, recreation and wellbeing.
Campus grounds and green infrastructure used in teaching and research.
Management and
maintenance
Refer to Table 3.1 for typical management and maintenance actions. Note that specialised green
infrastructure (green roofs, designed wetlands, etc.) require specialised maintenance, which can both
provide opportunities for local job creation and valuable student learning experiences.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-26-320.jpg)
![Table 3.9: Core elements of sustainable procurement action planning.
CATEGORY ACTION
STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
43
Table 3.10: Actions to reduce the impacts of office work.
CATEGORY ACTION
Policy and
behaviour
change
Employment of Green Office Manager.
Sustainable procurement standards for office equipment and consumables.
Education, training and awareness programs – induction of new staff, seminars and discussion groups, posters,
stickers, events, websites, social media.
Establishment of “Green Office champions” network across campus buildings as the vehicle for the energy and
water conservation network proposed in Sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.2.
Office practices
Campus- wide audit of office practices disaggregated to department level – paper use, energy consumption,
deployment and use of office equipment, procurement of consumables, office waste management.
Establishment of department-specific targets for (e.g.) paper use, office waste, equipment left on overnight, etc.;
monitoring of progress; and competitions between departments to drive continual improvement, including awards
and incentives.
Developing
specifications
Evaluation of university contracts for procurement of goods and services on the basis of cost, complexity and
actual/potential sustainability impacts to determine priorities.
Staged development of sustainable procurement standards / specifications based on identified priorities.
Inclusion of sustainability criteria in tender specifications for procurement of goods and services.
Tender evaluation Inclusion of sustainability criteria in tender evaluation procedures.
Contract management
Inclusion of sustainability objectives and targets in contract management documentation, and regular
monitoring of progress.
“Second party” audits of providers to drive continual improvement through the supply chain.
3.5.7 Green Office
Universities are largely office-based institutions, and
Green Office programs / action plans deal with the sus-tainability
transformation of office practices. The Green
Office “mandate” or terms of reference cross over into
energy, water, waste, procurement and IT services. The
focus is typically on education, training and awareness;
the methods may include seminars and online discus-sion
groups, websites, social media, newsletters and
other promotion material, events and competitions.
Specific actions – switching off appliances when not in
use, turning off lights in vacant rooms, default double-siding
for printing and copying, etc., when implemented
university-wide may represent considerable monetary
savings as well as a significant cumulative reduction in
environmental impacts.
Table 3.10 lists some generic Green Office actions
around policy and behaviour change and improve-ments
to office practices.
3.5.8 Green Laboratories
Laboratories are complex environments which may
stock hundreds or thousands of chemicals, compressed
gases, biological agents, radioactive materials, fume
hoods, biosafety cabinets, centrifuges, autoclaves, vac-uum
systems, lasers, sophisticated electrical equipment
and any number of other research items [70]. University
labs commonly cater for researchers who are indepen-dently
funded through external grants. These labs must
continually accommodate new equipment and proce-dures;
constant change makes it difficult for occupation-al
health and safety, energy efficiency and other sustain-ability
issues to be adequately and routinely addressed.
Laboratory planning and design represents a key oppor-tunity
to minimise environmental impacts, particularly
those relating to energy consumption – labs typically
consume 4-5 times more energy than similarly-sized
commercial spaces [70]. The Laboratories for the 21st
Century (Labs21) program provides extensive guidance
44
on the design and management of high performance
labs. Strategies include using life-cycle costing to identi-fy
energy efficiency opportunities, separating energy in-tensive
processes and spaces from those which are less
intensive to optimise mechanical and electrical design,
“right-sizing” equipment and installing energy monitor-ing,
control and recovery systems.
Fume hoods are the primary means by which lab per-sonnel
minimise their chemical exposure. A typical fume
hood in a research lab runs 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year and uses 3.5 times more energy than the average
(western) house [70]. Careful planning for the number,
size, location, and type of fume hoods is critical to ef-ficient
laboratory performance. Water use is another
major concern – a useful principle to adopt is that no
potable water be used “once-through” for any labora-tory
equipment, unless it is required as direct contact
process water. Best practice also demands that universi-ties
develop systems to track the inputs and outputs of
hazardous materials, and establish procedures to elimi-nate,
minimise, substitute, recycle and safely dispose of
these materials [71].
LABORATORY GREENING ONLINE
Behaviour change opportunities abound in the univer-sity
laboratory setting [70]. The Green Lab Program at
the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia
was one of the first of a growing number of specialist
initiatives focusing on higher education labs. The pro-gram
provides mandatory online environmental com-pliance
training for research staff and students, cover-ing
environmental best practice behaviour as well as
legal obligations. Researchers learn to prepare a com-prehensive
risk assessment before initiating new exper-iments,
manage hazardous materials and wastes and
conserve energy and water. This may involve the rede-sign
of experiments to reduce material and energy use
and toxic byproducts, utilise safer solvents and allow
for greater reuse and recycling, for example through
application of the principles of green chemistry.
Table 3.11 describes some typical Green Lab actions re-lating
to the three main areas of policy and behaviour
changes, laboratory practice and maintenance and capi-tal
works. Note that some actions also are listed in the En-ergy
and climate change, Water and Waste action plans.
Table 3.11: Actions to support laboratory “greening”.
CATEGORY ACTION
Policy and
behaviour
change
Employment of a Green Lab manager.
Development of a “green chemistry” program.
Sustainable procurement standards for lab equipment and consumables.
Green Lab online and face-to-face training.
Laboratory
practice
Campus wide audit of university laboratories – energy, water, input and output of chemicals, hazardous waste
management.
Establishment of lab-specific prioritised targets for improvement.
Development of online tracking system for chemical management (inputs, processes and outputs).
Establish lab equipment / consumables exchange program to minimise waste.
Maintenance
and capital
works
Development of green laboratory design standards, e.g. referencing Labs21.
Laboratory ventilation and fume hoods – ventilated storage cabinets for storage, variable air volume and low-flow hoods.
Laboratory water use – mechanical vacuum infrastructure to replace use of aspirators, closed loop cooling water
systems, water efficient reverse osmosis plant.
Secure storage spaces for hazardous wastes to minimise risk of spillage / leakage.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-28-320.jpg)
![STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENT TOOLS
The IEEE 1680-2009 Standard for Environmental Assess-ment
of Electronic Products [72] establishes environ-mental
performance criteria for the design of electronic
products and provides a valuable tool for developing
contract specifications. The Electronic Product Environ-mental
Assessment Tool (EPEAT®) offers a rating system
for suppliers and a global registry to help purchasers
identify greener electronic products [73]. It combines
comprehensive criteria for design, production, energy
use and recycling with ongoing independent verifica-tion
of manufacturer claims. The Electronics Environ-mental
STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
45
3.5.9 Green IT
Information technology (IT) or more broadly, informa-tion
and communication technology (ICT) is a pervasive
element of most universities. IT integrates a spectrum of
sustainability aspects – energy use, procurement, waste
management, and even campus development (considera-tion
of computer heat loads in building design). Actions to
address the impacts of information technology may thus
be spread across a number of action plans, or conversely,
recognising the common management context, they may
be amalgamated into a separate “Green IT” plan.
The growing energy demand associated with the prolif-eration
of IT services has prompted the development of
a number of national and globally recognised standards
and assessment tools (see box below).
Actions around green IT can be conveniently grouped
into two categories – policy and behaviour change and
IT management and capital works. Table 3.12 lists some
generic suggestions.
to the former, the most effective action is to increase
the proportion of student housing and related services
provided on campus, to eliminate the need to com-mute
to the university each day. In relation to the latter,
the increasing availability and sophistication of video
conferencing facilities can be utilised to substitute “vir-tual”
for physical travel in many cases – and enable
considerable savings on escalating travel costs. Table
3.13 outlines some generic actions to reduce green-house
emissions and other environmental impacts of
transport.
Benefits Calculator (EEBC) was developed to
help organisations assess the environmental benefits
of greening their purchase, use and disposal of elec-tronics
[74]. The EEBC estimates the environmental
and economic benefits of purchasing EPEAT registered
products and improving equipment operation and end-of-
life management practices.
Table 3.12: Actions to support the “greening” of university information technology.
CATEGORY ACTION
IT policy and
behaviour
change
Adoption and implementation of IT purchasing standards (e.g. IEEE, EPEAT, etc.).
“Switch off when not in use” awareness programs – posters, stickers, events and competitions, websites, awards
and incentives.
Standard operating environments (hardware and software).
IT management
and capital
works)
Reduce frequency of computer replacement programs – substitute software upgrades for hardware upgrades
where possible.
Centralised / dedicated server space(s) to avoid dispersing server heat loads across multiple buildings.
Computer reuse program, e.g. donation to community groups / schools.
E-waste program.
Ensure energy saving features are enabled.
3.5.10 Transport
Sustainability action planning around transport will
probably involve the greatest variation between univer-sities
based on location, existing public transport infra-structure
and the extent to which residential and other
services are provided on campus for students (and in
some cases for staff).
The two main areas – flagged in Section 3.5.1 Energy
and climate change – are commuter travel and travel
on university business (air or land-based). In relation
46
Table 3.13: Actions to reduce impacts of commuter and business travel.
CATEGORY ACTION
General
Employment of Transport Manager.
Development of university transport policy.
Commuter transport
Student housing and services on or close to campus.
Awareness and promotion of alternatives to private transport – posters, stickers, events and competitions,
websites, awards and incentives.
Regular liaison with public transport providers to optimise services to the campus.
Incentives for staff committing to forego use of private commuter transport.
Secure, undercover bike racks, and shower facilities, lockers and bike repair workshop for cyclists.
Car pooling programs.
Reduction of car parking spaces and provision of dedicated spaces for car pool vehicles and electric vehicles
(and also charging points).
Establishment of shuttle bus service where the university has multiple campuses.
Acknowledgement that for reasons of social equity, disability, etc. some staff and students will still need to
use private vehicles to access the campus.
Pedestrian-friendly campus to minimise internal motor vehicle trips.
Travel on university
business
Acquisition and promotion of video conferencing technology to staff and students.
University managed revegetation program to offset emissions for air travel, and/or commitment to “third
party” carbon credit / carbon offset program.
Purchase of fuel efficient vehicles for university fleet.
Regular maintenance to optimise motor vehicle fleet fuel efficiency.
3.6 Awareness and training
Awareness building and training opportunities need
to be build into every sustainability action plan. Staff
at all levels and new students should be introduced
to sustainability awareness training as part of regular
induction procedures, explaining the university’s sus-tainability
policy and action plans, the impacts of the
university’s activities (particularly around priority areas
such as climate change) and the importance of compli-ance
with relevant legislation and regulations.
3.6.1 Student and staff development
ISO 14001 requires organisations to identify training
needs associated with their environmental aspects for
all persons performing tasks for or on behalf of the or-ganisation,
i.e. contractors, subcontractors, agency staff,
etc. as well as the permanent workforce. As with all as-pects
of the EMS, training details and competence levels
must be clearly documented, and documentation kept
up to date. While training for (e.g.) office staff may be
covered by the “general awareness” discussed above, it
is essential that staff performing tasks with the potential
to cause (or prevent) significant environmental impacts
are appropriately trained and examined with respect to
the appropriate competencies.
Personnel performing specialised environmental man-agement
functions must have appropriate education,
competence, experience and training. It is important
that such personnel are exposed to the most recent
technology and knowledge base relevant to the or-ganisation’s
significant environmental impacts. This
includes those staff with responsibilities for delivering
particular tasks associated with actions specified in the
university’s sustainability action plans. Development
plans which address these issues should be incorpo-rated
into the university’s human resources policies and
procedures (e.g. in relation to recruitment, performance
review, promotion, etc.).
Training and development opportunities should also be
provided for students working as volunteers or interns](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-29-320.jpg)
![STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
47
on environmental or other sustainability projects. This
may be integrated with, or managed separately from,
the university’s usual curriculum, and may be run as
an incentive scheme (e.g. fee-free) to encourage par-ticipation.
University student associations are often
well-placed to offer training and development, which
can help to reinforce their stake in sustainable campus
development.
3.6.2 The campus as living laboratory
The Introduction to the Toolkit notes that “universities
can teach and demonstrate the theory and practice of
sustainability through taking action to understand and
reduce the unsustainable impacts of their own activi-ties.
Historically, the demands of teaching and research
resulted in the structural separation of academic staff
from campus management. This has led to the view
that focusing on campus issues is a distraction from the
core mission of the university. In fact, the campus itself
can become a feedback mechanism for the teaching
and research practice to “achieve mission alignment
between teaching, research and campus operations,
harnessing the vast collective learning process that is
currently underway within its walls, to benefit its own
systems” [6].
Such projects broadly reflect the philosophy of experi-ential
learning. Kolb [75] offers a concise summation:
“Learning is the process whereby knowledge is created
through the transformation of experience”. This defini-tion
emphasises process as distinct from content or
outcomes, and importantly, the transformative nature
of that process, in both an objective and a subjective
sense. Within this experiential framework, environmen-tal
learning is best served by an approach which is both
context-based, responsive to social context and setting
[76]; and problem-based, characterised by the use of
“real world” problems as the context for students to
learn critical thinking and problem-solving skills [77].
The literature and many university websites offer a
substantial and growing inventory of examples of the
university campus as living laboratory (and lecture the-atre)
for applied sustainability interventions. Examples
include projects from first year to PhD level, and include
all aspects of sustainability – environmental, social,
economic and cultural.
UNIVERSITY OF SONORA
CERTIFIED SUSTAINABILITY
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
One of the most successful efforts in Latin America to
transform a higher education institution into a more
sustainable organisation has come from the Univer-sity
of Sonora in Mexico.
Sustainable practice at the University of Sonora is
inspired by the institutional vision and mission and
reflected in the sustainability policy which fosters a
culture of protecting natural resources and prevent-ing,
reducing and/or eliminating environmental and
occupational risks.
The University’s sustainability initiatives address the
full scope of its activities – teaching, research, out-reach
and partnership and campus greening. A Sus-tainability
Management System (SMS) provides the
framework for greening campus operations. The SMS
achieved ISO 14001 certification in 2008, enabling the
University of Sonora to become one of the few higher
education institutions in the world with this certifica-tion,
and the first in Latin America.
The SMS is not only directed at sustainable opera-tions,
but also strives to enhance Engineering Col-lege
students’ education through practical appren-ticeships
with an integrated triple bottom line focus.
From the start, the system has been linked to the sub-stantive
functions of teaching and research in order
to transform the campus into a living laboratory for
continual learning. Areas of attention include efficient
use of water and energy, laboratory safety and haz-ardous
materials management as well as the reduc-tion,
reuse, and recycling of non-hazardous materials
such as paper, plastic and organic waste.
A quarterly report provides the basis for review and
evaluation of the SMS to ensure its effectiveness. Strong
emphasis is put on continuous improvement and over-all
performance shown by sustainability indicators.
The appropriateness of the sustainability policy is also
reviewed, as well as achievement of the objectives and
targets, regulatory compliance, corrective and preven-tive
actions and the findings of internal audits.
Text adapted from Velázquez, L., Munguía, N., Esquer,
J. and Zavala, A., 2011. “Sustainable Good Practices
in the University of Sonora, Mexico”, Global University
Network for Innovation http://www.guni-rmies.net/
news/detail.php?id=1750; Image from Universidad
de Sonora/University of Sonora website http://www.
uson.mx/noticias/default.php?id=6511, accessed
21/08/2011.
48
For universities embarking on the transition to sustain-ability,
logical opportunities to pursue include deter-mination
of the university’s baseline environmental /
sustainability performance through an initial environ-mental
or sustainability review, preparation of a sustain-ability
report, or conducting a carbon footprint analysis,
as assessable components of an environmental science
or engineering program. Generally these tasks would
be class based; individual or small team based studies
could include post-occupancy evaluation of a specific
campus building, energy, water or waste audits of par-ticular
activities, life cycle assessment of goods or ser-vices
procured by the university or life cycle costing of
proposed sustainability actions.
Even this brief summary indicates the potential to in-volve
different disciplines individually and collectively
in campus based projects. Sociologists and historians
can explore the background to university sustainability
management with a view to informing current policy;
law students can research the applicability of environ-mental
legislation to campus operations; medical stu-dents
can address issues of public health; psychologists
can investigate opportunities and barriers to organisa-tional
change and the adoption of sustainable behav-iours
– and this is just a partial list.
There are several different models for implementing
“living laboratory” initiatives:
Student internships, paid or unpaid, with the
sustainability team. These would include an ap-propriate
level of academic credit awarded for
successfully completed projects.
Inclusion of teaching and assessment material
on campus sustainability in an existing course.
A specific course focused on campus sustainabil-ity.
Ideally this would be cross-disciplinary, and
open to students from different fields of study.
Integration of teaching and assessment mate-rial
on campus sustainability across a number of
courses, covering a range of disciplines and coor-dinated
with implementation of the university’s
sustainability action plans. This is the preferred
model to support the university’s ongoing transi-tion
to sustainability, and will likely require sev-eral
iterations of the sustainability planning cycle
to achieve.
The campus can also function as a living laboratory
for staff and student research, with similar scope as in
learning and teaching. The advantage here is that the
outcomes are likely to be more long-lasting, for exam-ple
involving potentially major innovations affecting the
campus fabric and operations, and also providing new
resources for learning and teaching into the future. The
main criterion – whether in relation to teaching or re-search
– is that living laboratory programs are integral to
the university’s sustainability management system and
action plans.
3.7 Communications and
documentation
“Communications” in this context refers to internal
communications relevant to the development, main-tenance
and continual improvement of the university’s
sustainability management system. Strategies for com-munication
with internal stakeholders should consider
the range of variables addressed in Section 2.4 of the
Toolkit relating to community engagement. Each sus-tainability
action plan will need to incorporate a com-munications
strategy to facilitate engagement of the
university community and maximise the chances of
success – although in practice some of these may be
combined.
ISO 14063: 2006 Environmental management - Envi-ronmental
communication - Guidelines and examples,
one of the International Organization for Standardiza-tion
“family” of environmental management stand-ards
[78], gives guidance to an organisation on gen-eral
principles, policy, strategy and activities relating
to both internal and external environmental com-munication.
For example, communications activities
should enhance two-way communication, promote
consensus, provide opportunities to address issues
in depth and promote education and awareness. ISO
14063 suggests setting targets for communication,
for example in terms of stakeholder participation
and feedback obtained. Approaches and tools may
include minuted meetings (possibly with an inde-pendent
facilitator where the issues are particularly
complex), newsletters, social media, focus groups and
workshops, displays and exhibitions.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-30-320.jpg)
![Measurement of performance against agreed
sustainability indicators (see for example the list
of recommended core indicators in Table 3.2);
Extent of achievement of detailed sustainability
targets;
Any changes in relation to sustainability impacts
and their significance, as a result of changes in
internal or external circumstances since the last
audit (for example a new research project which
requires storage, use and disposal of hazardous
materials);
Any changes to the university’s fabric or opera-tions
which may affect overall sustainability per-formance
(for example increase in greenhouse
emissions resulting from the construction of a
new building).
Any organisational changes which may affect
overall sustainability performance.
System documentation should include proce-dures
for internal audits which cover the audit
scope, frequency and methodology, as well as
the responsibilities for implementation and re-porting
results. Internal auditors must demon-strate
objectivity and impartiality, ideally by being
independent of the organisational unit responsi-ble
for the establishment and day-to-day man-agement
of the system being audited.
Table 3.14 Shows an internal audit checklist which cov-ers
the common system attributes of a sustainability
management system. The heading “Corrective and pre-ventive
action” refers to system issues; potential envi-ronmental
incidents are addressed under the heading
“Emergency preparedness and response” (noting of
course that system nonconformities may give rise to en-vironmental
incidents).
Each university will have its own individual system attrib-utes
which require checking; similarly, the combination of
indicators, targets, significant impacts, etc. will be unique to
every university, so the content of an internal sustainability
audit will invariably be unique to the given institution.
Table 3.14: A basic sustainability management system audit checklist.
SYSTEM ELEMENT THE AUDITOR IS LOOKING FOR EVIDENCE THAT…
Sustainability policy There is top management commitment; the policy is distributed internally; the policy is available to the public
Organisational
Management responsibility is assigned; specific roles / responsibilities are defined at each level / function;
structure
roles / responsibilities are understood and communicated
Training and
awareness
Training needs are identified; appropriate training is conducted at each level / function; competence is
determined; training records are kept
Sustainability aspects /
impacts
Sustainability aspects / impacts are identified; significance is determined; procedures exist to update
information
Legal requirements Legal and regulatory requirements are identified; this information is accessible; procedures exist to update
information
Objectives and targets Appropriate objectives and targets are set at each level / function; objectives and targets are regularly
reviewed; views of the university community are considered in setting objectives and targets
Sustainability action
plans
Responsibilities are designated at each level / function; appropriate resources are allocated and time
frames are set; plans are reviewed and updated
Documentation and
document control
Core system documentation exists, is up to date and controlled; documentation is cross-referenced;
documentation is reviewed and approved; documents are available where needed; procedures exist for
creation and modification of documents
Communication and
reporting
Procedures exist for communicating internally and externally; there are records of internal and external
communications
Emergency
preparedness and
response
There are documented emergency procedures; capability exists for emergency response and mitigation;
procedures are tested and reviewed
Corrective and
preventive action
There are procedures for preventing, recording, handling and investigating nonconformities and preventing
recurrence; effectiveness of corrective and preventative actions is reviewed; changes are made to
documented procedures arising from corrective/preventive actions; roles, responsibilities and authorities
are established for handling nonconformities
Internal audit
There is an internal audit program and audit procedures; internal audit responsibilities are set and
understood; audit reports exist and recommendations are followed up; internal auditors demonstrate
objectivity and impartiality
STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
49
Responsibilities for communication with the university
community around sustainability issues should be de-fined
and allocated, and should also include media /
communications staff responsible for other areas of in-ternal
university communications. The effectiveness of
communication activities should be regularly evaluated
to help drive the continual improvement cycle.
“Documentation” – in the context of ISO 14001 – simply
refers to the need for all aspects of the university’s sus-tainability
management system to be documented, and
the records to be centrally maintained and kept up to
date. Documentation includes obvious material such as
policies, plans, minutes of meetings and training records
– but importantly, the EMS standard (and good man-agement
practice) requires that system procedures be
documented and maintained. This includes procedures
for stakeholder engagement, identifying and assessing
the significance of environmental impacts, conducting
initial reviews and internal audits, setting objectives and
targets, and so on.
Section 1.5 points out that “…the loss of corporate
memory through staff turnover and the transience of the
student population can mean mistakes are repeated,
previous high performing initiatives are not emulated
and it becomes difficult to build on progress…” Ensuring
comprehensive and current documentation minimises
this scenario.
3.8 Emergency preparedness and
response
Universities are not usually associated with environmen-tal
emergencies such as spills or inadvertent release of
air pollutants. However, the range of hazardous materials
stored on many campuses, the variety of teaching and
research endeavours in which these materials are used,
and also the scope of operational activities, highlights
the need to be prepared for potential emergencies.
ISO 14001 outlines the requirements for emergency
preparedness and response for organisations subscrib-ing
to an environmental management system, and this
advice is relevant to universities which have committed
to the path of sustainable development. As a minimum,
documented procedures should be established, main-tained
and periodically reviewed for identifying hazards
and risks, responding to accidents and emergency situ-ations
and for preventing and mitigating the potential
environmental impacts associated with them. Periodic
exercise of such procedures should be undertaken
where practicable.
Emergency preparedness and response needs to be
included in the training provided to those staff (and
contractors) responsible for teaching, research or op-erational
areas with the potential to cause significant
environmental impacts, and those providing specialised
environmental management services for the university.
3.9 Closing the loop: monitoring,
evaluating and communicating
progress
Regular monitoring, evaluation and communication of
progress are integral aspects of mainstream business
culture, and thus should be integral to sustainability as
a mainstream university activity. Audits provide a way
of tracking progress towards achievement of objectives
and targets and – through implementation of audit
recommendations – driving continual improvement.
Management review enables update of policies and
objectives to align with changing circumstances, and
the effectiveness of the system overall. Sustainability
reporting informs the university and wider community
of what has been achieved, and equally, what remains
to be achieved [79]. Figure 3.2 illustrates the functions of
auditing, review and reporting in the overall context of
the sustainability management system.
3.9.1 Internal audit
ISO 14001 Environmental management systems – Speci-fication
with guidance for use requires organisations to
conduct internal audits at planned intervals to objec-tively
verify the adequacy and effectiveness of the EMS.
These are system audits which are aimed at continual
improvement in the performance of the system, hence
only indirectly address continual improvement in the
objective sustainability performance of the university.
Best practice suggests combining internal system audits
with periodic evaluation of the university’s sustainability
performance as required to inform production of the sus-tainability
report. This is effectively a repeat of the initial
review conducted to determine the institution’s baseline
performance, and matters to consider will include: 50
Management review Management review is occurring; follow-up actions from management review are implemented;
recommendations from management reviews are incorporated into the system](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-31-320.jpg)
![STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
51
3.9.2 Management review
In addition to regular internal audits (usually annual, or
otherwise aligned with the frequency of publication of the
sustainability report), the university’s senior management
is expected to implement a high level review of the sustain-ability
management system at defined intervals. A four or
five yearly cycle should generally be adequate. The intent
is that core elements of the system such as the university’s
sustainability policy, objectives, resourcing arrangements
and so on are reviewed at the level of management which
defined these elements in the first place.
Matters to be considered in a management review will
include:
The continuing relevance of the sustainability pol-icy,
and sections which may need to be updated
in the light of changing internal or external circum-stances
(for example new teaching or research pri-orities
or government greenhouse legislation);
The overall performance of the system, and in
particular the extent to which objectives and tar-gets
have been met;
Establishment of new, high level objectives and
targets (the setting of more detailed and spe-cific
targets is addressed in the development of
sustainability action plans rather than at senior
management level);
The status of corrective and preventative actions
relating to any environmental incidents or regula-tory
non-compliances which may have occurred;
Relevant communications from external stake-holders
(government bodies, industry, the local
community, etc.);
Any follow-up actions from previous manage-ment
reviews;
Any other recommendations for improvement.
3.9.3 Preparing a sustainability report
Sustainability reporting has been defined as “the prac-tice
of measuring, disclosing, and being accountable
to internal and external stakeholders for organizational
performance towards the goal of sustainable develop-ment...
A sustainability report should provide a bal-anced
and reasonable representation of the sustainabil-ity
performance of a reporting organization – including
both positive and negative contributions.” [49].
The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is an independent
international foundation based in The Netherlands. It
has developed a comprehensive sustainability report-ing
framework, based around a set of principles and
performance indicators which organisations can use to
measure and report their economic, environmental, and
social performance.
The GRI promotes a standardised approach to sustain-ability
reporting which has been used by thousands of
organisations worldwide. All GRI Reporting Framework
documents are developed using a process that seeks
consensus through dialogue between stakeholders
from business, the investor community, labour, civil so-ciety,
accounting, academia and others [49].
The GRI Framework consists of the Sustainability Report-ing
Guidelines, Sector Supplements and the Technical
Protocol - Applying the Report Content Principles. The
Guidelines set out Performance Indicators and Manage-ment
Disclosures which organisations can adopt volun-tarily,
flexibly and incrementally, enabling them to be
THE PLATFORM FOR
SUSTAINABILITY PERFORMANCE
IN EDUCATION
The Platform for Sustainability Performance in Edu-cation
brings together organisations which have
created sustainability assessment tools designed to
support universities and colleges around the world.
The purpose of this Platform is to promote sustaina-bility
assessment in education. By coming together it
is our goal that more universities and colleges learn
about the value of sustainability assessment tools to
improve the sustainability performance across the
whole of their institution.
The Platform is also designed to assist commitments
of Higher Education Sustainable Initiative (HESI) sig-natories,
by providing a range of tools and options
in assessing and improving their sustainability per-formance.
It can also support complimentary Rio+20
initiatives such as the People’s Sustainability Treaty
on Higher Education.
http://www.eauc.org.uk/theplatform/home
52
transparent about their performance in critical sustain-ability
areas. Sector Supplements address sector-specific
issues, and the Technical Protocol provides process guid-ance
on preparing a sustainability report and how to de-fine
the content.
A university sustainability report should reflect both the
institution’s mission and activities, and the expectations
of the university community and other stakeholders.
Thus the context – if not the content – is consistent with
accepted global practice such as represented by the GRI.
The GRI Guidelines are intended to be applicable to most
organisations irrespective of size, type, sector or location.
However, while many indicators are relevant to universi-ties
others are not, and the core university mission of
teaching, research and outreach is not addressed.
The GRI defines the base content which should appear in a
sustainability report (“standard disclosures”) as follows [49]:
“Strategy and Profile: Disclosures that set the
overall context for understanding organizational
performance such as its strategy, profile, and gov-ernance.
“Management Approach: Disclosures that cover
how an organization addresses a given set of top-ics
in order to provide context for understanding
performance in a specific area.
“Performance Indicators: Indicators that elicit
comparable information on the economic, en-vironmental,
and social performance of the or-ganization.”
Table 3.15 Illustrates a generic table of contents for a uni-versity
sustainability report based on the above criteria.
INTRODUCTION TO BALL STATE
UNIVERSITY SUSTAINABILITY
REPORT 2010
At Ball State University, we have a long history of
identifying and implementing methods to protect and
enhance our environment. We are proud to maintain
this forward momentum by our active use of the Sus-tainability
Tracking, Assessment and Rating System1
(STARS); a reporting tool now in use by some 675 cam-puses
throughout North America. In fact, we are on
schedule to file our first full STARS Report by the close
of this calendar year.
As a compliment to this nation-wide collaboration to
report on campus sustainability, we have been work-ing
through our Ball State University Building Better
Communities (BBC) Fellows Program to explore the
use of an additional assessment tool: the Global Re-porting
Initiative2 (GRI). Like STARS, this tool provides
a framework for reporting sustainability performance
and it is in use today by some 1500 organizations in
over 60 countries.
An interdisciplinary team of students working within our
BBC Fellows program, under the direction of Dr. Gwen
White, Associate Professor in the Miller College of Busi-ness,
was instrumental in gathering the information nec-essary
to construct this first GRI Sustainability Report for
BSU. Through this experience they have become versed
in environmental, social and economic sustainability,
developed leadership skills, and worked in a collabora-tive
environment. Their efforts contribute to our actions
to protect and enhance our environment.
With the country’s largest geothermal project under-way
on our campus, our biennial Greening of the Cam-pus
Conference Series and our very active campus-wide
Council on the Environment, we maintain a substantial
investment in achieving campus sustainability. The use
of STARS and GRI for annual Sustainability Reporting
extends that work as a valuable resource for our full
academic community: our students, faculty, staff and
administrators.
Jo Ann Gora
President
Ball State University
Sustainability Report accessed 24/3/2011 at http://
cms.bsu.edu/Academics/CentersandInstitutes/COTE/
Sustainability/GRI.aspx,](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-32-320.jpg)
![Resources for change SECTION 5
RESOURCES FOR CHANGE GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
57
The emergence and diffusion of individual campus
greening initiatives in the late 1980s soon led to existing
university coalitions and associations adding sustain-ability
criteria to their terms of reference, establishment
of new organisations, convening of conferences, adop-tion
of high level declarations and charters and the pub-lication
of a rising tide of print and online resources. This
Section of the Toolkit brings together and summarises
the material: associations; international commitments;
online tools; books and journals; and sustainability
award programs. The list does not attempt to be all-inclusive
– this is a rapidly expanding field – but includes
the most widely recognised, readily available and rel-evant
resources for university senior management, aca-demic
and operational staff and students to support the
transition towards sustainability.
5.1 International and regional
associations
This list includes only those bodies which are interna-tional
in scope – i.e. with member universities across
several countries. Many nations have their own univer-sity
sustainability organisations, and many generalist
university organisations include sustainability interest
groups or activity streams.
Global Higher Education for Sustainability Partnership
(GHESP)
“Four international organisations with a strong commit-ment
to making sustainability a major focus of higher
education have formed the Global Higher Education for
Sustainability Partnership (GHESP). The four founding
partners of the initiative – the International Association of
Universities, the University Leaders for a Sustainable Fu-ture,
Copernicus Campus and UNESCO – combine forces
in a unique effort to mobilise universities and higher edu-cation
institutions to support sustainable development in
response to Chapter 36 of Agenda 21.”
University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (ULSF)
“The mission of the Association of University Leaders for
a Sustainable Future (ULSF) is to support sustainability
as a critical focus of teaching, research, operations and
outreach at colleges and universities worldwide through
publications, research, and assessment.”
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in
Higher Education (AASHE)
“AASHE is helping to create a brighter future of opportu-nity
for all by advancing sustainability in higher educa-tion.
By creating a diverse community engaged in sharing
ideas and promising practices, AASHE provides adminis-trators,
faculty, staff and students, as well as the business
that serve them, with: thought leadership and essential
knowledge resources; outstanding opportunities for pro-fessional
development; and a unique framework for dem-onstrating
the value and competitive edge created by
sustainability initiatives.”
Global University Network for Innovation (GUNI)
“The Global University Network for Innovation - GUNI is
composed of the UNESCO Chairs in Higher Education,
higher education institutions, research centers and net-works
related to innovation and the social commitment
of higher education. 179 institutions from 68 countries are
GUNI members.”
International Sustainable Campus Network (ISCN)
“The International Sustainable Campus Network (ISCN)
provides a global forum to support leading colleges, uni-versities,
and corporate campuses in the exchange of in-formation,
ideas, and best practices for achieving sustain-able
campus operations and integrating sustainability
in research and teaching. The ISCN sponsors a biannual
symposium, conferences, several standing committees,
has developed a charter that more than 20 world leading
universities have endorsed, and is dedicated to building a
gallery of outstanding projects that showcase excellence
and leadership from all continents.”
58
COPERNICUS Alliance
“The COPERNICUS Alliance is the European Network on
Higher Education for Sustainable Development. The vi-sion
of the COPERNICUS Alliance is to promote the role of
Sustainable Development in European Higher Education
to improve education and research for sustainability in
partnership with society.”
International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU)
“The International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU)
is a collaboration between ten of the world’s leading
research-intensive universities who share similar visions
for higher education, in particular the education of future
leaders... The Alliance has identified sustainable solu-tions
on climate change as one of its key initiatives. As
a demonstration of its commitment to promote sustain-ability,
IARU has sought to lead by example through the
establishment of the Campus Sustainability Programs
aimed at reducing the environmental impact of our cam-pus
activities.”
Alianza de redes iberoamericanas de universidades por
la sustentabilidad y el ambiente - ARIUSA
“ARIUSA is a network of environmental university created
in Bogota October 26, 2007 by a group of University Net-works
in Environment and Sustainability (RUAS), collect-ed
during the “Fourth International Congress University
and Environment”, organized by the Colombian Network
of Education environmental (RCFA).The basic purpose or
mission is to promote and support ARIUSA coordination of
actions in the field of environmental education superior,
and the scientific and academic cooperation between
University Networks for Environment and Sustainability”.
5.2 International agreements and
declarations
Since the formulation of the Talloires Declaration in
1990, regional and international university conferences
have generated a range of agreements, declarations
and charters on university sustainability. As at 2011
universities and intergovernmental institutions had
developed some 30 university sustainability declara-tions,
and more than 1400 universities worldwide had
signed such a document [40]. A declaration represents
a high level statement of commitment to a sustainable
future; as such it can offer general guidance, but is not
designed to provide specific direction. The most widely
adopted examples are listed below.
Talloires Declaration
“Composed in 1990 at an international conference in Tal-loires,
France, this is the first official statement made by
university presidents, chancellors, and rectors of a com-mitment
to environmental sustainability in higher educa-tion.
The Talloires Declaration (TD) is a ten-point action
plan for incorporating sustainability and environmental
literacy in teaching, research, operations and outreach at
colleges and universities. It has been signed by over 400
university leaders in over 50 countries.”
Copernicus Charter
The University Charter for Sustainable Development is an
instrument created by Copernicus, an inter-university co-operation
programme on the environment, established
by the Association of European Universities. The Charter
expresses a collective commitment on behalf of a large
number of universities. It represents an effort to mobilize
the resources of institutions of higher education to further
concept and objective or sustainable development.
Halifax Declaration
“Over the period 8-11 December 1991, the presidents and
senior representatives of 33 universities from 10 countries
on 5 continents met in Halifax, Canada to take stock of
the role of universities regarding the environment and
development. They were joined by a number of senior
representatives from business, the banking community,
governments, and non-governmental organizations.
The meetings were sponsored by the International Asso-ciation
of Universities, the United Nations University, the
Association of Universities and Colleges Canada and Dal-housie
University, Canada.” Creating a Common Future:
The Halifax Declaration and Action Plan was released at
the end of the conference.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-35-320.jpg)
![RESOURCES FOR CHANGE GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
61
Good Campus (UK)
“We provide guidance (e.g. cases, guides, white papers), net-working
and tools on sustainability - and especially energy
and resource efficiency - in knowledge-intensive organisations.
We began, and retain a strong presence, in universities but now
also work in health, hitech, pharma and similar areas.”
Sustainable University 21 One-stop Shop (Asitha
Jayawardena, UK)
“This website is a one-stop shop for resources for initiatives
in sustainability in higher education in the UK and outside.
And it strives to promote the Sustainable University con-cept
around the world – within and outside universities.”
Sustainable Procurement Centre of Excellence for Higher
Education (UK)
“The Sustainable Procurement Centre of Excellence for
Higher Education (SPCE) is a 4 year project funded by the
Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE).
The project began in October 2009 and intends to make
demonstrable changes to the ways Higher Education
Institutions (HEIs) embed sustainable procurement into
their standard procedures, practices and policies.”
Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges
Resource Bank (UK)
“Built up by the sector for the sector, the Resource Bank
is a hugely important and useful long-term resource. The
Bank is comprised of 11 key sector areas, in each you will
find a growing collection of sector generated resources
plus related case studies, forthcoming events and current
news.”
Sustainable Development on Campus – Tools for Campus
Decision Makers (International Institute for Sustainable
Development, Canada)
“These tools will help you to learn more about sustainable
development and its relevance to you and your institution.
There are learning modules, case studies, action plans,
environmental policies, resources, forums and contacts -
all designed to help you, as part of the administration, as
a student, or a member of faculty, implement sustainable
development on your campus.”
Virtual Sustainability Platform in Universities
(www.projetosustentabilidade.sc.usp.br)
(Consortium: University of São Paulo, Brasil; Autono-mous
University of Madrid (Spain) and the Pontifi-cal
Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil))
The Virtual Sustainability Platform is a digital space cre-ated
to stimulate the participation of the university com-munity
in evaluating and learning about sustainability in
the campus. In it, users register and share personal, group
and institutional initiatives concerning sustainability.
The platform has also a sustainability test, which poses
questions to the reader about his/her university related
to institutional commitment, management (waste, en-ergy,
water, mobility, buildings, green purchasing, green
areas), curriculum greening and participation in decision
making. After each block of questions the user receives
information of the situation in his/her campus, previously
prepared by the staffs of the universities involved. The re-sults
are shared and discussed with managers and direc-tors
to improve activities, projects and programs towards
sustainability.
Platform for Sustainability Performance in Education
(http://www.eauc.org.uk/theplatform/home)
The Platform for Sustainability Performance in Educa-tion
was launched at UNEP In February 2013. It brings
together organisations which have created sustainability
assessment tools designed to support universities and
colleges around the world.
The purpose of this Platform is to promote sustainability
assessment in education. By coming together it is our goal
that more universities and colleges learn about the value
of sustainability assessment tools to improve the sustain-ability
performance across the whole of their institution.
62
5.4 Books and journals
From a base of virtually no published material 20 years
ago, accumulating practical experience and theoretical re-flection
on university sustainability has generated a lively
and expanding literature which includes a small shelf of
books, a dedicated, peer-reviewed journal and hundreds
of specialist papers published in education, environ-mental,
policy and other publications. The key published
sources of information (as at 2011) are listed below. The
explanatory text is taken from the relevant websites.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education (IJSHE)
“The IJSHE is the first fully refereed academic journal for
the analysis of environmental and sustainability pro-grams
and initiatives at colleges and universities world-wide…
The journal will be of special interest to higher
education institutions and to those working on them.”
Solutions
“Solutions is an online and hard-copy journal and maga-zine
providing substantive discussion on the integrated
design and analysis of human social and economic
systems, ecological systems, urban environments and
building and all other components of the earth system to
achieve a desirable and sustainable human future. Solu-tions
is a ULSF partner.”
Higher Education Quarterly
“Higher Education Quarterly publishes articles concerned
with policy, strategic management and ideas in higher
education. A substantial part of its contents is concerned
with reporting research findings in ways that bring out
their relevance to senior managers and policy makers at
institutional and national levels, and to academics who
are not necessarily specialists in the academic study of
higher education.”
Journal of Education for Sustainable Development
(JESD)
“The Journal of Education for Sustainable Development
(JESD) is a forum for academics and practitioners to share
and critique innovations in thinking and practice in the
emerging field of Education for Sustainable Development
(ESD). A peer-reviewed international journal, JESD aims at
global readership and is published twice a year.”
Perspectives: Policy & Practice in Higher Education
“Perspectives: Policy & Practice in Higher Education pro-vides
higher education managers and administrators
with innovative material which analyses and informs their
practice of management.”
Campus Ecology, by April Smith and the Student
Environmental Action Coalition (1993)
“This book is designed to take the environmental issues
and principles currently being studied in the classroom
and move them outside the classroom doors into the
campus community and the larger world. By making en-vironmental
knowledge part and parcel of campus envi-ronmental
practice, students, faculty, and administrators
have an extraordinary opportunity to act as agents of en-vironmental
education and change.”
Ecodemia: Campus Environmental Stewardship at the
Turn of the 21st Century, by Julian Keniry (1995)
“At campuses around the country, staff, administrators,
faculty, and students are redesigning the basic principles
on which their institutions operate from day to day. The
winners in this transformation are the global environ-ment,
local communities, campus morale, and the insti-tutions’
fiscal bottom-line. Now, the [US] National Wildlife
Federation’s Campus Ecology Program has documented
these management innovations in a comprehensive new
book based on extensive interviews with the people be-hind
the green practices.”](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-37-320.jpg)
![CASE STUDY: AUSTRALIA
GLOBAL EXEMPLARS GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
67
Tyree Energy Technologies Building (TETB),
University Of New South Wales (UNSW)
General Description:
The University of New South Wales (UNSW) each year
educates more than 50,000 students from over 120
countries in eight faculties
The Tyree Energy Technologies Building (TETB) is lo-cated
on the university’s main campus on a 38-hec-tare
site in Kensington
The six storey building of the TETB, which is used
largely by the Faculty of Engineering, features teach-ing
and learning spaces, workshops and display spac-es,
research spaces including wet and dry labs and a
cafe
The TETB’s laboratories will support the ongoing re-search
of UNSW researchers in world record-breaking
solar photovoltaic technologies, sustainable clean
fuels, smart grids, energy storage, energy economics
and policy analysis
The TETB is also an educational hub for
undergraduate and postgraduate students, providing
an optimal learning environment for expert engineers
and analysts.
Target beneficiaries:
Community largely at university and regional level, but also
at global level.
UNEP thematic priority area:
Climate change; Resource efficiency (sustainable
consumption and production).
68
Project/Innovation area:
Research & Development
Greening of University infrastructure/facilities/opera-tions
Community collaboration
University management
Student participation/engagement
Identified issues:
Indoor environmental quality; energy consumption; water
conservation; and carbon emission
Outcomes:
Environmental Management – The head Contractor,
Brookfield Multiplex, is ISO 14001 certified ensuring
that sound environmental practices are involved in
all decision making processes associated with the
design and construction of the building
Waste Management – The construction waste man-agement
plan and agreements with waste contrac-tors
ensured over 80% of the construction waste
being recycled or re-used.
Indoor Environment Quality – Furniture and finishes
have been carefully selected to reduce off-gassing
of Volatile Organic Compounds and Formaldehyde,
and improve air quality.
Tri-generation – A tri-generation plant is installed not
only to service the TETB but also to export both elec-tricity
and chilled water to surrounding buildings.
This ensures that the tri-generation system operates
for longer hours and maximises the benefit of the re-duced
carbon emissions provided by this method of
power and chilled water production.
Energy Efficiency – Air conditioning load is reduced
by linking the air conditioning controls to motion
sensors and carbon dioxide sensors in all spaces. An
underground labyrinth and borewater is also used to
pre-cool/warm incoming outside air.
Energy Production – In addition to the tri-generation
system it is also furnished with 1,000sqm of photo-voltaic
panels which will produce up to 150KW of
electrical energy.
Water re-use – An existing bore feeds into a storage
tank which also collects rainwater from the roof.
This systems feeds into the campus borewater sys-tem
which is then treated and returned to buildings
as non-potable water. This is used in TETB for toilet
flushing, laboratory water and makeup to the evapo-rative
cooling systems. Fire system testing water and
run-off from hardstand area is also returned to the
aquifer through the percolation chamber.
Water efficiency – Water efficient fixtures are used
throughout the building, including waterless urinals.
The cooling of the tri-generation system is provided
by a hybrid Muller 3C cooling tower which only uses
water for evaporation when ambient conditions are
extreme and loads are high. This is fed by non-pota-ble,
treated borewater and rainwater.
Evidence / Assessment / Rating:
‘6 Star Green Star Design’ rating (World Leadership) for an
Education facility by the Green Building Council of Australia.
Size of implementation: Approx. 15,000 sqm facility
Cost of implementation (US $): Approx. $81.6 million
Year of implementation (construction): February 2010 –
February 2012
Funding partners:
Education Investment Fund Initiative of the Australian Gov-ernment
($75 million),
Sir William Tyree, who donated $1 million and pledged a
further bequest of $10 million
Source:
UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES. n.d. Key Projects: Tyree
Energy Technologies Building [Online]. Available: http://
www.keyprojects.unsw.edu.au/project/tyree-energy-tech-nologies-
building [Accessed 18 March 2012].
UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME (UNEP)
2011. Innovations and Best Practices on Education for Sus-tainable
Development and Sustainability in Universities –
Success Stories from Around the World.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-40-320.jpg)
![CASE STUDY: CANADA
GLOBAL EXEMPLARS GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
69
Centre for Interactive Research on
Sustainability (CIRS),
University of British Columbia (UBC)
Vancouver Campus
General Description:
The Vancouver Campus of the UBC educates
more than 47,000 students each year in hun-dreds
of academic programs through 12 facul-ties
and 14 schools
CIRS will house more than 200 inhabitants from
several academic disciplines, including applied
science, psychology, geography, forestry and
business
CIRS is also the home of the UBC Sustainability
Initiative (USI), which promotes and integrates
UBC’s sustainability efforts in teaching, learning,
research and campus operations
Major features of the four-storey, 60,000 square-foot
facility include: a four storey atrium and
lobby areas for display and demonstrations, BC
Hydro Theatre with advanced visualization and
interaction technologies to engage audiences
in sustainability and climate change scenarios,
Policy Lab, Building Simulation Software Lab,
Solar Simulation Daylighting Lab, Sustainability
Education Resource Centre, Building Monitor-ing
and Assessment Lab with a building man-agement
system that shares building perfor-mance
in real-time, 450-seat CIRS Lecture Hall,
CIRS Inhabitants’ space, and the Loop Café that
uses no disposable packaging and serves local
and organic food.
Target beneficiaries:
Community largely at university and regional level, but
also at global level.
70
UNEP thematic priority area:
Climate change; Resource efficiency (sustainable con-sumption
and production).
Project/Innovation area:
Research & Development
Greening of University infrastructure/facilities/
operations
Community collaboration
University management
Student participation/engagement
Identified issues:
Urban population explosion; unprecedented demand
for housing, amenities and necessities in the coming
decades; increased consumption of natural resources;
although working hard to find and implement solu-tions,
the public, private and not-for-profit sectors are
largely working in isolation, not benefiting from each
other’s discoveries.
Outcomes:
North America’s greenest building by being net
positive on energy, water self-sufficient, having
100% access to daylight and superior natural
ventilation amongst many other sustainability
features
It will be an international centre for research, part-nership
and action on sustainability issues, includ-ing
green building design and operations, environ-mental
policy and community engagement.
CIRS is used as a platform to test and showcase
the technical performance and usability char-acteristics
of the building’s technologies and
systems, and to generate new knowledge about
how to construct and maintain sustainable
buildings using building itself as the lab
All of the CIRS building systems, as well as the
behaviour of its inhabitants, will be the subject
of extensive and ongoing research, to study
building performance and how people interact
with the space over time making it a ‘living labo-ratory’
CIRS will be the only place in the world combin-ing
three activities – sustainable building design
and operations, sustainability-focused partner-ships
and the development of interactive com-munity
engagement processes – under one um-brella.
Evidence / Assessment / Rating:
LEED Platinum rating. Aims to achieve ‘The Living Build-ing
Challenge’ certification with the help of its various
regenerative features that create ‘Net Positive’ environ-mental
impacts.
Size of implementation: Approx. 5,600 sqm (60,000
square-foot) facility
Cost of implementation (US $): 37 million (less than
10% over equivalent LEED Gold rated building)
Year of implementation (construction): March 2009 –
August 2011
Funding partners:
Major funding partners include British Columbia
Knowledge Development Fund (BCKDF), British Colum-bia
Ministry of Advanced Education, British Columbia
Ministry of the Environment, Canada Foundation for In-novation
(CFI), Federation of Canadian Municipalities,
Kresge Foundation, McCall MacBain Foundation, Metro
Vancouver, National Research Council - Institute for
Fuel Cell Innovation, Natural Resources Canada, Real
Estate Foundation, Sustainable Development Technol-ogy
Canada (SDTC), etc.
Source:
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Sustainabil-ity
[Online]. Available: http://www.sustain.ubc.ca/ [Ac-cessed
15 January 2012].](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-41-320.jpg)
![CASE STUDY: DENMARK
University of Copenhagen
GLOBAL EXEMPLARS GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
71
General Description:
The University of Copenhagen was founded in 1479
The University has about 1,000,000 sqm premises
on four campus areas in central Copenhagen. The
University consists of 8 faculties and more than
100 departments and research centres. It has more
than 7,000 employees and over 37,000 students
The University is working towards becoming one of
the Europe’s most green campus areas
The University’s Green Lighthouse, Denmark’s first
carbon-neutral public building, is located at the
Faculty of Science. It has been built in less than a
year and it houses the Student Service Centre. The
Green Lighthouse also hosts The Copenhagen In-novation
and Entrepreneurship Lab (CIEL). It is the
place of work of 19 people.
Target beneficiaries:
Community largely at university and regional level, but
also at global level.
UNEP thematic priority area:
Climate change; Resource efficiency (sustainable consump-tion
and production).
Project/Innovation area:
Research & Development
Greening of University infrastructure/facilities/opera-tions
Community collaboration
72
University management
Student participation/engagement
Identified issues:
The university, considering its size and research pro-file,
recognises its ‘green responsibility’ and wishes to
become one of the greenest campuses in Europe.
Outcomes:
The university aims to reduce its energy con-sumption
and greenhouse gas emissions by
20% between 2006 and 2013
Ongoing engagement and collaboration with
both internal and external partners to achieve
more sustainable campus; active involvement
of faculties and student organisations
Improving thermal performance of existing
buildings, energy smart installations in build-ings,
facilitating energy smart conducts by
employees and students, and energy efficient
purchases
The energy savings projects are expected to
result in annual reduction of 1700 tons of CO2
emissions and annual saving of DKK 4.6 million
Global collaboration to communicate and
share own experiences with the sustainability
efforts with other universities such as through
International Alliance of Research Universities
(IARU) collaboration and International Sus-tainable
Campus Network (ISCN)
By 2013, at least 75% of all purchases via pur-chase
agreements to require sustainability.
The University develops an annual Green
Campus Action Plan.
Partnered in creating the Green Lighthouse,
Denmark’s first carbon-neutral public building,
which provides for its total energy needs with
35% of solar energy and 65% of district heat-ing
with heat pump. 76m2 of solar cells on the
roof power the building’s lighting, ventilation
and pumps.
Evidence / Assessment / Rating:
Green Lighthouse is a CO2 neutral building in opera-tion.
Size of implementation: 1,000,000 sqm for all prem-ises
and 950 sqm for Green Lighthouse.
Cost of implementation (US $): Approx. $6.6 million
(DKK 37 million) for Green Lighthouse; Approx. $1.8
million (DKK 10 million) for energy and climate ef-forts;
Approx. $45,000 (DKK 250,000) for student sus-tainability
initiatives.
Year of implementation (construction): 2008
–2009 (Green Lighthouse)
Funding partners:
The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation
(DKK 33 million); VELUX, VELFAC, Windowmaster and
Faber (DKK 3.5 Million); and Rockwool, Veksø, Knauf
and Danogips (DKK 500,000).
Source:
UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN. n.d. Green Campus
[Online]. Available: http://climate.ku.dk/green_cam-pus/
[Accessed 18 March 2012].
VELUX. n.d. Experiment # 2 - Green Lighthouse [On-line].
Available: http://www.velux.com/sustainable_
living/model_home_2020/green_lighthouse [Ac-cessed
24 March 2012].](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-42-320.jpg)
![GLOBAL EXEMPLARS GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
73
CASE STUDY: KENYA
University of Nairobi
General Description:
The University of Nairobi, the only institution of
higher learning in Kenya, has so far offered academ-ic
programs and specialisation in approximately
200 diversified programs on its seven campuses in
the capital city
The University recognizes that it has a responsibil-ity
to manage its activities in a way that reduces
the negative environmental impacts and enhances
positive impacts
Inspired by the above, the key aspects of its green-ing
include: Strategic planning and implementa-tion;
Education and Awareness; Safety and Health;
Monitoring and Reporting; Communication; Pur-chasing
Policy and; Environmental Management
System
The University is committed to developing and
sustaining an Environmental Management System
(EMS) based on the International Standard ISO
14001. The EMS, together with the ISO 9001- 2000
Standard, have been adopted for achieving the Uni-versity’s
Environmental Policy, including compli-ance
with legislative requirements and the meas-urement
of continual improvement targets and
outcomes. An environmental audit was carried out
in 2008 as per the requirements of the Environmen-tal
Management and Coordination Act 1999, and
the Environmental Impact Assessment and Audit
Regulations 2003
The audited areas include Waste management; En-ergy
management; Water management and econo-my
of use; Noise evaluation and control; Indoor air
quality; Emergency prevention and preparedness;
Staff/student environmental awareness and train-ing;
environmental management system, and a
University Environmental Policy.
Target beneficiaries:
The University and local communities as well as the global
community.
74
UNEP thematic priority area:
Climate change; environmental governance; harmful
substances and hazardous waste; and Resource effi-ciency
(sustainable consumption and production).
Project/Innovation area:
Greening of University infrastructure/facilities/
operations
Community collaboration
University management
Student participation/engagement
Identified issues:
The environmental audit highlighted that;
The University does not have an Environmental
Policy to guide its operations;
The measurement culture at the University is
weak as far as resource use and waste genera-tion
are concerned;
Although there is a procurement policy which is
informed by the Government Act, environmen-tal
considerations do not seem to be important
in the procurement of goods and services for the
different University units;
The University does not have an asbestos man-agement
plan despite having buildings with as-bestos
roofing;
No recycling takes place at the University;
There has been no air quality or noise monitor-ing
at any site in the University;
There is need for staff awareness and training in
environmental matters.
Outcomes:
The University developed its environmental
policy in 2009; and a maintenance policy for all
assets owned by the University in 2010 main-streaming
environmental considerations.
Following the initiative, top management in the
University are now aware, supportive and com-mitted
to improving the environmental perfor-mance
of the University.
All units of the university, as well as to some de-gree
the students, have embraced environmen-tally
sustainable practices.
The University intends to appoint a Standing En-vironmental
Policy Steering Committee and al-locate
budgets for environmental management
as stated in the Environmental Policy.
Evidence / Assessment / Rating:
Only university in Kenya to conduct an environmental
audit of its products and services.
Size of implementation: Information not publicly
available
Cost of implementation (US $): Information not
publicly available
Year of implementation (construction): 2008 –
Ongoing
Funding partners: Information not publicly available
Source:
UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
(UNEP) 2011. Innovations and Best Practices on Ed-ucation
for Sustainable Development and Sustain-ability
in Universities – Success Stories from Around
the World.
UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI. 2011. Introduction [On-line].
Available: http://www.uonbi.ac.ke/about [Ac-cessed
24 March 2012]
UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI. 2010. Annual Report 2010
[Online]. Available: http://www.uonbi.ac.ke/sites/
default/files/UON%20AR%202010%20WEB.pdf [Ac-cessed
24 March 2012].](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-43-320.jpg)
![GLOBAL EXEMPLARS GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
75
CASE STUDY: TURKEY
Middle East Technical University (METU)
General Description:
The Middle East Technical University (METU) is located
on a 4500 hectare Campus about 20 km from the cen-tre
of Ankara; it includes 3043 hectare of forest area
and the Lake Eymir;
ETU runs about 206 programs serving over 24,500 stu-dents
including more than 1,700 students from over
85 different countries;
METU plays a key role in the greening of Ankara
through its comprehensive re-forestation program.
Preliminary planning for the METU Re-forestation
and Landscaping Program began in 1958 in response
to two major incentives: First, being that the capital
city Ankara, which is surrounded by hills, suffers from
heavy air pollution. Second was that, the Turkish law
supports for green zone next to Ankara. This law states
that forest land cannot be expropriated, thereby en-couraging
the creation of newly planted woods to
limit urban sprawl;
The Re-forestation Program has led to the successful
planting of some ¾ of the campus area. Every year,
over 20,000 trees are planted by students, staff and
alumni;
The initiative was further inspired by the fact that 4500
hectares were available for this purpose. The area
was formerly a degraded, barren pasture of wheat
fields once covered with primal forests. By 1960, the
university’s department of landscaping had tested
tree species that would be appropriate, and in 1961,
the re-forestation program commenced.
Target beneficiaries:
Community largely at university and the residents of the city
of Ankara.
76
UNEP thematic priority area:
Climate change; Ecosystem management; Environmental
governance; Resource efficiency (sustainable consump-tion
and production).
Project/Innovation area:
Greening of University infrastructure/facilities/op-erations
Community collaboration
University management
Student participation/engagement
Identified issues:
Disappearance of wilderness, degradation of biodiversity
and extinction of species due to urbanisation and other
human processes.
Outcomes:
The area with non-irrigational plants now covers 3000
hectares. Plants that require irrigation cover 800 hec-tares,
and are located within the built environment of
the Campus where they form a beautiful landscape
along the pedestrian network. The remaining 500
hectares consist of lakes and ponds. The flora at METU
consists of more than 250 species, some of them na-tive,
others from other parts of Turkey;
The forest area created not only contributes to the
quality of campus life for the users, but also to the
urban quality of life for the entire Ankara region. Ad-ditionally,
and more importantly, it provides a broad
range of other environmental services;
The METU green area helps purifying Ankara’s air, fil-ters
wind and noise, stabilizes the microclimate; i.e.
makes the city much more sustainable and livable.
In 1995, the Re-forestation Program received the
Aga Khan Award for Architecture. The habitats cre-ated
by the planted area, step and lake-shore areas
provide living conditions for many species of mam-mals,
birds, fish and butterflies. A recent research
found out that two endemic butterfly species are
living on the METU Campus;
The built environment in METU has been created in
line with sustainable design principles and includes
the use of local construction materials. One of the
buildings under construction is designed to include
photovoltaic panels that will provide energy for the
operation of the basic equipments within the build-ing;
The University, with an active participation of stu-dents,
staff and alumni, organises an annual affor-estation
festival on the Campus;
The University has an Afforestation and Landscape
Department which provides maintenance and im-plementation
strategy for plants. Decision-making
on the sustainable development of the Campus be-longs
to the Presidency and its related offices. The
Commission for University’s Spatial Strategy and De-velopment
focuses on the preservation of greenery,
while responding to the spatial development needs
of the Campus.
Evidence / Assessment / Rating:
Specific research on heat island in and around Ankara has
shown beneficial cooling effect around METU campus.
Size of implementation: Approx. 4,500 hectare campus
Cost of implementation (US $): To be provided
Year of implementation (construction): 1958 – Ongoing
Funding partners: National government’s Ministry of
Forestry provided trees during the 1960s; General Directo-rate
of Afforestation and Erosion Control annually provids
20000-25000 tree seedlings; and Business and Industry
provides grants for new energy-efficient buildings.
Source:
MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY. n.d. General Infor-mation
[Online]. Available: http://www.metu.edu.tr/gener-al-
information [Accessed 21 March 2012].
UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME (UNEP)
2011. Innovations and Best Practices on Education for Sus-tainable
Development and Sustainability in Universities –
Success Stories from Around the World.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-44-320.jpg)
![GLOBAL EXEMPLARS GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
77
CASE STUDY: USA
Princeton University
Before After
General Description:
Princeton University was originally established in 1746;
The university’s main campus in Princeton Borough
and Princeton Township consists of approximately 180
buildings, spanning more than four centuries, on 500
acres. The university follows a residential college sys-tem
and 98% of the undergraduate students live on the
campus;
The university’s more than 1,100 faculty members edu-cate
more than 7,500 students each year in 34 depart-ments
and 46 interdisciplinary certificate programs;
The campus is expected to serve as a model for ad-vanced
practices and as a laboratory for students and
faculty to test new approaches;
The Princeton Sustainability Committee consist-ing
of students, faculty, and staff was established
in 2002, and the Office of Sustainability was set up
in 2006, which prepared a Sustainability Plan in
2008 identifying three priority areas for the cam-pus:
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction, Resource
Conservation, and Research, Education and Civic
Management
Target beneficiaries:
Community largely at university, but also at regional and global level.
UNEP thematic priority area:
Climate change; Resource efficiency (sustainable consump-tion
and production).
Project/Innovation area:
Research & Development
Greening of University infrastructure/facilities/opera-tions
Community collaboration
University management
Student participation/engagement
Identified issues:
University’s environmental impacts; responsibility as a major
research university to contribute to shaping the national sus-tainability
agenda, to promote the development of sustain-ability
on its campus, and to prepare its students.
78
Outcomes:
The university aims to reduce its greenhouse gas
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, while expanding its
campus by 185,000 m2;
All non-laboratory buildings are expected to be 50%
more energy-efficient than required by regulations.
Implementation of its Energy Master Plan has result-ed
in annual savings of $1.7 million in energy costs
and 10,000 metric tons of CO;
The university will provide incentives to the faculty
and students to reduce the number of cars coming to
the campus by 10%;
All residence halls have low-flow water fixtures, which
are estimated to have cut water use from 2006 by
30%;
The university purchased 29% less paper in 2011
than in 2008. A total of 83% of the paper purchased in
2011 was of 100% post-consumer recycled chlorine-free
paper;
Various resource conservation initiatives have in-creased
sustainable food purchases to about 66%,
and about 59% of the food served in the dining halls
comes from within 250 miles radius;
In the past one year more than five acres of wood-lands
were restored with 215 new trees and 197 new
shrubs;
Greening of the curriculum has resulted in over 50
classes having a sustainability component. There has
been an increase in the number of students receiving
Environmental Studies certificates by 300%.
Evidence / Assessment / Rating:
Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA), including a CO2 tax, informed
decision making process is applied to new construction and
major renovations on the campus. It strives for LEED Sil-ver
equivalency wherever applicable. About 30 staff mem-bers
are LEED-Accredited Professionals. The University has
signed on to the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and
Rating System (STARS), a transparent, self-reporting frame-work
for colleges and universities to measure their sustain-ability
performance
Size of implementation: Approx. 500 acres campus
Cost of implementation (US $): $45 million between 2009
and 2017 under its Energy Master Plan initiative. Since 2008
$5.3 million have been invested in energy saving and emis-sion
reduction projects.
Year of implementation: 2008 – 2020
Funding partners:
High Meadows Foundation
Source:
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY. Sustainability at Princeton [On-line].
Available: http://www.princeton.edu/sustainability/
[Accessed 12 February 2012].
THE PRINCETON REVIEW. 2011. Guide to 311 Green Colleg-es
[Online]. The Princeton Review. Available: http://www.
princetonreview.com/uploadedfiles/sitemap/home_page/
green_guide/princetonreview_greenguide_2011.pdf [Ac-cessed
12 February 2012]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-45-320.jpg)
![Technical Appendix Section 7
TECHNICAL APPENDIX GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
83
The sustainability literature documents a wide variety of
methods for selecting indicators, setting objectives and
targets and other quantitative aspects of sustainability
management. In addition, many universities have de-veloped
their own approaches. This Appendix sets out
some models which may offer additional guidance. It is
envisaged that as with the case studies presented in this
Toolkit, universities will be able to submit examples of
their own models and methods, by way of contributing
to continual improvement in university sustainability
management practice. This may also provide a useful
framework to support learning and teaching in sustain-ability
and to stimulate research.
7.1 Selecting indicators
In general, an optimal indicator set can be described
in terms of several desirable characteristics (for exam-ple
the five characteristics comprising the well-known
“SMART” model (Simple, Measurable, Accessible, Rel-evant
and Timely). A more detailed consideration of in-dicator
selection is given in the Bellagio Principles con-cerning
selection of sustainability indicators [80]. Table
8.1 outlines a set of five characteristics of an optimal
indicator set derived from a synthesis of the SMART test
and the Bellagio Principles, together with the detailed
criteria which define these characteristics.
Multi-criteria analysis has proved to be a useful meth-od
to achieve broad agreement around a suitable indi-cator
set. A typical definition of multi-criteria analysis is
“a decision-making tool developed for complex multi-criteria
problems that include qualitative and/or quan-titative
aspects of the problem in the decision-making
process” [81] or simply, a tool for comparative assess-ment
of options, accounting for several criteria simulta-neously.
The key advantages of MCA are that it directly
involves stakeholders in decision making, obliges users
to think holistically as well as within their discipline, and
enables consideration of a large number of criteria.
The characteristics of a good indicator are not neces-sarily
equally important, hence each is given a percent-age
weight to indicate its relative importance – i.e. the
higher the weighting, the more significant the particular
characteristic in helping to select an optimal indicator
set. The combined weights must add up to 100%, and
the first task of the indicator selection team is to identify
the relative (weighted) importance of each characteris-tic.
Note that in MCA these characteristics are often re-ferred
to as categories.
These characteristics/categories tend to be multi-di-mensional,
therefore each is best described in terms of
a number of specific criteria which together provide
a full explanation of the given category. So the next
stage is to score each potential indicator against the
individual criteria associated with each category. This
involves the application of a numerical rating from 1
to 5, where the higher the score, the more closely the
indicator aligns with the given criterion.
84
Table 8.1: Characteristics and criteria to inform selection of sustainability indicators.
Characteristics of an
optimal indicator set Criteria which qualify and explain the categories
Purposefulness
Focused Guided by and contributes to a clear vision of “triple bottom line” sustainability
Implementable Can be linked to discrete objectives and targets
Meaningful Able to provide pertinent feedback to decision makers
Efficiency
Simple Easily interpreted and monitored
Accessible Data are already collected or institutional capacity exists for easy collection
Practical Measurement is standardised to facilitate comparison
Effectiveness
Measureable Statistically verifiable, reproducible and shows trends
Relevant Directly addresses agreed issues of concern
Timely Able to capture change at the relevant timescale to determine trends
Communicability
Clear The information conveyed can be understood by a wide range of users
Transparent Data collection and analysis methods are readily comprehensible
Explicit Uncertainties in data and interpretation can be made apparent and minimised
Responsiveness
Adaptable Responds to change and uncertainty
Scalable Aggregated city scale data are valid at State and national scale
Replicable Data collection and analysis methods can be repeated across different urban jurisdictions
The MCA method proposed here is a simplified weighted
sum model which assigns a numerical value to each in-dicator
based on multiplying the category weights by
the sum of the scores for each of the criteria. The weight-ed
category values are then summed to give a final nu-merical
value for the indicator:
where V(q) is the numerical value for indicator q,
W(q) is the category weight and S(q) is the criterion
score for each indicator.
When these calculations have been completed for all in-dicators,
the final stage of the process is to rank the indi-cators
from highest to lowest priority according to their
numerical values. A cut-off point may then be applied,
with indicators falling below this point being discarded.
Note that the calculated numerical values are relative
(i.e. to enable ranking), not absolute.
7.2 Quantifying indicators,
objectives and targets
Section 3 of the Toolkit, Tools for delivering transforma-tion,
notes that what gets measured, gets managed. Ener-gy,
water, materials and ecosystem services represent four
critical dimensions of sustainability which are amenable
to measurement – in the last-mentioned case, through
“proxy” metrics such as vegetation coverage or leaf area
index (defined as the leaf area of a plant divided by the
projected canopy area). Some straightforward methods
for setting and quantifying indicators, objectives and
targets to support the transition towards sustainability
across these four areas are discussed below.
7.2.1 Operational energy
Identify current operational stationary energy use Eo in-cluding
both conventional (Ec) and renewable energy (Er):
Eo = Er + Ec
Identify year to achieve 100% renewable energy goal (zero
net operational greenhouse emissions):
Eo = Er](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-48-320.jpg)
![Σ =Σ +
CONSTRUCTION
REFURBISHMENT
MAINTENANCE
OPERATION
Stocks:
Infrastructure
CONSTRUCTION
REFURBISHMENT
MAINTENANCE
OPERATION
DEMOLITION
⎞
⎛
Σ =Σ − Σ +Σ
= = = =
j j
Rr R
= ⎛
j
⎞
+
1 1 1
j
R
n
n
n
Cr R S S S S R R R
j = j j j =
n
j j
j
j
j
j j
j
TECHNICAL APPENDIX GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
85
Set intermediate percentage targets (annual, biannual
etc) for the proportion of energy derived from renew-able
sources towards the final goal of 100%, where:
and
7.2.2 Water use
Identify current operating water use Wo including exter-nal
potable supply We and any recycled/reused water
Wr (i.e. captured rainwater, greywater and blackwater)
Wo = We + Wr
Water sustainability is most appropriately assessed at
the watershed (catchment) level, so the next step is
to identify the catchment in which the university is lo-cated,
determine its spatial extent and human popula-tion,
and the average precipitation rate (which controls
the basic rate of supply) [82]. Sustainable use may be
defined as staying within the sustainable yield of the
catchment Ys such that
Ys ≤ R
where R = recharge rate for the watershed (precipitation
minus evapotranspiration).
For a given catchment the amount available for non-residential
usage N is:
N = R – CP
where C = adequate minimum standard of per capita
water use, and P = population.
Several different amounts have been proposed to meet
the basic needs for drinking, sanitation, bathing and
cooking, ranging from 50 litres per person per day [83]
to 100 L/p/d [84]. Users of this toolkit should enter a
value appropriate to the location and context of their
university.
As disaggregated data for non-residential water uses
(agricultural, industrial, etc) are frequently unavailable,
land area may be used as a proxy for non-residential
water allocation. Thus the external sustainable water
allocation Ws for a university may be calculated based
on the land area occupied by the university Au minus the
area occupied by university housing Ah, divided by the
total non-residential land area of the catchment An:
Where L represents the number of students living on
campus.
The final step is to identify the year to achieve sustain-able
operational water use such that:
Wo ≤ Ws + Wr
As this goal can be achieved by a combination of re-ducing
consumption of externally sourced water and
increasing the proportion of internally reused/recycled
water, intermediate targets may be set for either or both
of Ws/We and Wr/Wo as per the methodology outlined
above for operational energy.
7.2.3 Material flows
A university’s use of materials may be defined in terms of
inputs (procurement of equipment, consumables, build-ing
materials etc), stocks (the existing inventory of such
items) and outputs (solid waste and recyclables). Inputs
and outputs are collectively regarded as material flows.
Material flow analysis (MFA) is “the systematic assess-ment
of the flows and stocks of materials within a sys-tem
defined in space and time” [85] to help quantify the
environmental impacts of human activities. It developed
out of mass balance (input-output) methods tradition-ally
used in chemical and process engineering. MFA is
predicated on the conservation of matter when sub-jected
to physical or chemical transformative processes:
S
k
O
k
mI m m
I O
where m represents mass, k represents the number of
flows, I refers to input, O to output, and S to storage (ac-cumulation
or depletion of materials).
86
A bulk MFA typically requires collection of an extensive
materials inventory. On the other hand, a “stream-lined”
MFA, restricted to quantification of the stocks
and flows of selected, representative goods (defined
as substances of positive or negative economic value),
can supply sufficient data to enable an initial estimate
of environmental impact [86], and support the devel-opment
of targets to reduce that impact.
Applying MFA to built form, stocks equate to the total
mass of construction materials, which may be disag-gregated
by material type – concrete, steel, glass etc.
This may be quantified in relation to building volume,
gross floor area, number of occupants, activities etc
for a given time period. Inputs include raw materials
and prefabricated or manufactured components, and
outputs include wastes and pollutants, some of which
may be recycled (Figure 8.2).
Figure 8.2: Simplified model for the material flows and stocks relating to built form. The system boundary (dashed line) is the
“campus economy”.
REUSE & RECYCLING
INPUTS
Buildings &
Waste
OUTPUTS
Raw materials
Manuf. products DISPOSAL
The building life cycle can thus be characterised as a set
of mass balance equations [86]:
For the construction phase,
⎟⎟
⎠
⎜⎜
⎝
n
j
n
j
n
j
j
n
j
j S I R W
1 1 1 1
con con
where stocks = inputs minus outputs; Srepresents the
j stock of material j in the building fabric, Ij is the input of
j to the new building project, Rconis the output of j as
j construction waste which is recovered, and Wconis the
j output of j as construction waste to landfill.
For the demolition phase,
n
Σ = Σ +
Σ
= = =
j
n
j
j
n
j
S R dem W dem
j
j 1 1 1
where stocks = outputs; Rdemj and Wdemj refer to dem-olition
waste which is recycled and landfilled respec-tively.
The construction and demolition (C&D) recycling rate
Rrj (i.e. the mass of material j recovered as a proportion
of total waste) is given by:
Σ Σ Σ
= = =
= ⎟⎠
⎜⎝
n
j j
n
j j j
n
j
j R W
S
where Rj represents the mass of the combined C&D re-cycling
stream and Wj represents the combined mass of
C&D waste to landfill.
Finally, the composition of the C&D recycling stream Crj
is estimated by multiplying the percentage recovery of
specific building materials by their proportionate con-tribution
to the overall mass of the given building type:
Σ Σ Σ Σ
= = = =
j
1 1 1 1
For each of the above equations, material densities per
square metre of floor space are obtained by dividing by
the gross floor area (GFA) for a given building or for the](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-49-320.jpg)
![99
TECHNICAL APPENDIX GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
87
totality of buildings on the site. Where multiple build-ings
are selected this assumes a linear mathematical
relationship, which holds only where the buildings are
of similar surface area to volume ratio and share similar
construction characteristics.
Application of these equations enables calculation of
the volume or mass of selected materials embodied
in campus buildings, the average annual addition to
and subtraction (via demolition) of materials from the
existing stock of buildings, C&D recycling and landfill
disposal rates and the proportional composition of the
waste stream. The construction/demolition cycle also
provides useful information on the durability or persis-tence
of campus built form. Knowing the annual addi-tion
to and subtraction from the building stock enables
calculation of the percentage turnover each year, and
hence the average service life of the campus buildings.
The material intensity of built form may be measured
against the relevant services provided by campus
buildings [87]. “Units of service” may be defined in
terms of student numbers, degrees awarded, research
income etc. In other words, how much concrete, steel,
glass, aluminium, etc is required to support the core
business of the university?
Given that concrete and steel have been estimated
to be responsible for about two-thirds of the life cycle
environmental impacts of buildings [88, 89], a “stream-lined”
approach limited to these two materials offers a
relatively straightforward way to establish performance
indicators and set objectives and targets in relation to
material intensity per unit of service, average building
service life and C&D waste management. The analysis
is based on basic building science and on readily ob-tainable
information on building typology, floor area
and construction and demolition dates. A corollary to
this form of analysis is that the role of the building as
intermediary in delivering a given service becomes the
focus of attention, raising the obvious questions: can
the service be delivered without the mediation of any
building at all? And if not, what is the minimum mate-rial
intensity necessary to do the job? For example, to
what extent can a combination of online learning, im-proved
space utilisation/scheduling, use of outdoor
spaces and small group teaching in preference to large
lecture theatres help to “dematerialise” the university
campus [86]?
7.2.4 Ecosystem services
The positive impacts of urban vegetation, of which cam-pus
vegetation may be considered a subset, covers the
full spectrum of environmental, economic, social and
cultural benefits, or ecosystem services. The amount
of vegetation in a given space has typically been meas-ured
in terms of canopy coverage. Boon Lay Ong of
Melbourne University in Australia has proposed a new
architectural and planning metric for urban greenery,
which is well suited to application on university cam-puses.
The green plot ratio (GPR) is based on leaf area
index (LAI): the GPR is simply the average LAI of the
greenery on site and can be presented as a ratio similar
to the building plot ratio (BPR) currently in use in many
cities to control maximum allowable built-up floor area
in a development [90]. LAI is an indicator of vegetation
primary productivity [91], hence a more meaningful
measure of the ecosystem services provided by vegeta-tion
than simple canopy coverage.
The LAI values recommended in this Toolkit, as with those
proposed by Ong, are based on global LAI data compiled
from field measurement over a period of nearly 70 years
[92]. But whereas Ong sets his measures at 1:1 for grass,
3:1 for shrubs and 6:1 for trees, the metrics recommended
here are expressed as decimal numbers rather than ratios,
include paved surfaces (LAI = 0) and introduce a distinc-tion
between shrubs (LAI = 2) and small trees (LAI = 4). This
gives five potential values for LAI.
The GPR method may be applied to a university campus
as a whole, or to defined sites within the campus. The
LAI value for each site LAIS is calculated from the formula:
( ) ( )
A(S)
LAI A LAI i LAI i
S Σ ×
= ,
i = {0, 1, 2, 4, 6}outreach
where LAIS = average LAI for the given site, A(LAIi) = area
covered by elements of leaf area index i, and A(S) = total
area of the site.
In similar manner to the other metrics examined in this
section of the Toolkit, the green plot ratio method may
be used to define performance indicators for campus
green space, and to set quantified objectives and tar-gets
for the step-by-step greening of the campus.
Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia
© SHUTTERSTOCK](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-50-320.jpg)
![Section 8
REFERENCES GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
89
References
[1] M’Gonigle, M. and J. Starke, Planet U, sustaining the world, reinventing the university. 2006, Canada: New
Society Publishers.
[2] Smith, A., Campus Ecology: A Guide to Assessing Environmental Quality and Creating Strategies for Change.
1993, Los Angeles: Living Planet Press.
[3] Keniry, J., Ecodemia: Campus Environmental Stewardship at the Turn of the 21st Century. 1995, Washington:
National Wildlife Federation.
[4] Creighton, S.H., Greening the Ivory Tower. 1998, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
[5] Leal Filho, W., ed. Sustainability and University Life. 2nd ed. 2000, Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main.
[6] Sharp, L., Green campuses: the road from little victories to systemic transformation. International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, 2002. 3(2): p. 128-145.
[7] UNESCO, Educating for a sustainable future: A transdisciplinary vision for concerted action, in Proceedings,
International Conference on Environment and Society: Education and Public Awareness for Sustainability.
1997, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation: Thessaloniki, Greece.
[8] UN, Report on the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. 1972, United Nations: Stockholm.
[9] (IUCN), World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development. 1980, Gland,
Switzerland: International Union for the Conservation of Nature.
[10] World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), Our Common Future. 1987, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
[11] Diesendorf, M., Sustainability and sustainable development, in Sustainability: The corporate challenge of the
21st century, D. Dunphy, et al., Editors. 2000, Allen & Unwin: Sydney, Australia. p. 19-37.
[12] Harding, R., ed. Environmental Decision-making. The roles of scientists, engineers and the public. 1998,
Federation Press: Sydney.
[13] Daly, H.E., Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development. 1996, Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon
Press.
[14] Meadows, D., Indicators and information systems for sustainable development: A report to the Balaton Group.
1998, The Sustainability Institute: Vermont.
[15] Costanza, R., et al., An Introduction to Ecological Economics. 1997, Boca Raton, FL: St Lucie Press.
[16] Costanza, R., et al., Quality of life: An approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective well-being.
Ecological Economics, 2007. 61(267-276).
[17] Orr, D.W., The Nature of Design: Ecology, Culture and Human Intention. 2002, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[18] Bekessy, S., et al., Universities and Sustainability, in TELA: Environment, economy and society, D. Yencken,
90
Editor. 2003, Australian Conservation Foundation: Melbourne.
[19] Pollock, N., et al., Envisioning helps promote sustainability in academia: A case study at the University of
Vermont. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2009. 10(4): p. 343-353.
[20] ULSF, The Talloires Declaration. 1990, University Leaders for a Sustainable Future: Washington DC.
[21] Wright, T., Definitions and frameworks for environmental sustainability in higher education. International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2002. 3(3): p. 203-220.
[22] Lukman, R. and P. Glavič, What are the key elements of a sustainable university? Clean Technologies and
Environmental Policy, 2007. 9: p. 103-114.
[23] Flint, K., Institutional ecological footprint analysis: A case study of the University of Newcastle, Australia.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2001. 2(1): p. 48-62.
[24] Ferrer-Balas, D., et al., An international comparative analysis of sustainability transformation across seven
universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Educatiob, 2008. 9(3): p. 215-316.
[25] Koester, R.J., J. Eflin, and J. Vann, Greening of the campus: a whole-systems approach. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 2006. 14: p. 769-779.
[26] Levy, J.I. and K.M. Dilwali, Economic incentives for sustainable resource consumption at a large university: Past
performance and future considerations. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2000.
1(3): p. 252-266.
[27] Christensen, P., et al., Sustainable development: Assessing the gap between preaching and practice at Aalborg
University. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2009. 10(1): p. 4-20.
[28] Spellerberg, I.F., G.D. Buchan, and R. Englefield, Need a university adopt a formal environmental
management system? Progress without an EMS at a small university. International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education, 2004. 5(2): p. 125-132.
[29] Rauch, J.N. and J. Newman, Institutionalizing a greenhouse gas emission reduction target at Yale.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2009. 10(4): p. 390-400.
[30] Krick, T., et al., The Stakeholder Engagement Manual Volume 2: The practitioner’s handbook on stakeholder
engagement. 2005, AccountAbility, United Nations Environment Programme, Stakeholder Research
Associates Canada Inc.: Cobourg, Ontario.
[31] Meinshausen, M., et al., Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2°C. Nature, 2009.
458: p. 1156-1162.
[32] Thaman, K., Shifting sights: The cultural challenge of sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education, 2002. 3(3): p. 233-242.
[33] Bekessy, S., K. Samson, and R.E. Clarkson, The failure of non-binding declarations to achieve university
sustainability: A need for accountability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2007. 8
(3): p. 301-316.
[34] Hunt, C.B. and E.R. Auster, Proactive environmental management: avoiding the toxic trap. Sloan Management
Review, 1990. Winter: p. 7-18.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-51-320.jpg)
![REFERENCES GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
91
[35] Lozano, R., Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities: breaking through barriers to change.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2006. 14: p. 787-796.
[36] Velazquez, L., et al., Sustainable university: what can be the matter? Journal of Cleaner Production, 2006. 14:
p. 810-819.
[37] Cramer, W., et al., Comparing global models of terrestrial net primary productivity (NPP): overview and key
results. Global Change Biology, 1999. 5 (Suppl. 1): p. 1-15.
[38] Moore, J., et al., Recreating the university from within: Collaborative reflections on the University of British
Columbia’s engagement with sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,
2005. 6(1): p. 65-80.
[39] Deming, W.E., Out of the Crisis. 1986, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
[40] Grindsted, T.S., Sustainable universities – from declarations on sustainability in higher education to national
law. Environmental Economics, 2011. 2(2): p. 29-36.
[41] ISCN-GULF, Implementation Guidelines to the ISCN-GULF Sustainable Campus Charter: Suggested reporting
contents and format. 2010, International Sustainable Campus Network and Global University Leaders Forum:
Boston.
[42] Partridge, K., et al., The Stakeholder Engagement Manual Volume 1: The guide to practitioners’ perspectives on
stakeholder engagement. 2005, Stakeholder Research Associates Canada Inc., United Nations Environment
Programme, AccountAbility: Cobourg, Ontario.
[43] Simpson, W., Cool Campus! A How-To Guide for College and University Climate Action Planning. 2009,
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education: Lexington, USA.
[44] ULSF, Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) for Colleges and Universities. 2009, University Leaders for
a Sustainable Future: Wayland, USA.
[45] ISO, ISO 14001 Environmental management systems - Requirements with guidance for use. 2004, International
Organization for Standardization: Geneva.
[46] ISO, ISO 14004 Environmental management systems - General guidelines on principles, systems and support
techniques. 2004, International Organization for Standardization: Geneva.
[47] ISO, ISO 26000 Guidance on social responsibility. 2010, International Organization for Standardization:
Geneva.
[48] ISO, ISO 19011 Guidelines for auditing management systems. 2011, International Organization for
Standardization: Geneva.
[49] GRI, Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. 2011, Global Reporting Initiative: Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
[50] Vitousek, P.M., et al., Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science, 1997. 277: p. 494-499.
[51] Palumbi, S.R., Humans as the world’s greatest evolutionary force. Science, 2001. 293(5536): p. 1786-1790.
[52] World Resources Institute, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) Synthesis Report. 2005, United Nations
Environment Programme: New York.
[53] Kingsford, R.T., et al., Major conservation policy issues for biodiversity in Oceania Conservation Biology, 2009.
23(4): p. 834-840.
92
[54] Dahle, M. and E. Neumayer, Overcoming barriers to campus greening. International Journal of Sustainability
in Higher Educatiob, 2001. 2(2): p. 139-160.
[55] BP, BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2011. 2011.
[56] Fisher, R.M., Applying ISO 14001 as a business tool for campus sustainability: A case study from New Zealand.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2003. 4(2): p. 138-150.
[57] Comm, C.L. and D.F.X. Mathaisel, A case study in applying lean sustainability concepts to universities.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2005. 6(2): p. 134-146.
[58] Clarke, A., The campus environmental management system cycle in practice: 15 years of environmental
management, education and research at Dalhousie University. International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education, 2006. 7(4): p. 374-389.
[59] Standards Australia, HB 206 Initial Environmental Review (IER). 2004, Standards Australia: Sydney.
[60] Shriberg, M., Institutional assessment tools for sustainability in higher education: Strengths, weaknesses and
implications for practice and theory. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2002. 3(3): p.
254-270.
[61] Von Schirnding, Y., Health in sustainable development planning: The role of indicators. 2002, World Health
Organization: Geneva.
[62] McCool, S. and G. Stankey, Indicators of Sustainability: Challenges and Opportunities at the Interface of
Science and Policy. Environmental Management 2004. 3(3): p. 294-305.
[63] Wackernagel, M. and W.E. Rees, Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on Earth. 1996,
Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.
[64] White, S.S., Early participation in the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2009. 10(3): p. 215-227.
[65] Roy, R., S. Potter, and K. Yarrow, Designing low carbon higher education systems: Environmental impacts of
campus and distance learning systems. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2008.
9(2): p. 116-130.
[66] UNSW, Water Savings Action Plan. 2006, University of New South Wales: Sydney.
[67] Costanza, R., et al., The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 1997. 387: p. 253-
260.
[68] Alberti, M. and J.M. Marzluff, Ecological resilience in urban ecosystems: Linking urban patterns to human and
ecological functions. Urban Ecosystems, 2004. 7: p. 241-265.
[69] Mitsch, W.J. and S.E. Jørgensen, Ecological Engineering and Ecosystem Restoration. 2004, New Jersey: John
Wiley and Sons.
[70] Woolliams, J., M. Lloyd, and J.D. Spengler, The case for sustainable laboratories: first steps at Harvard
University. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2005. 6(4): p. 363-382.
[71] Labs21, Labs21 Environmental Performance Criteria 3.0. 2010, Laboratories for the 21st Century.
[72] IEEE Standards Association. 1680-2009 - IEEE Standard for Environmental Assessment of Electronic Products.
2011 [04/01/2012]; Available from: http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/1680-2009.html.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-52-320.jpg)
![REFERENCES
93
[73] Green Electronics Council. EPEAT. 2011 [04/01/2012]; Available from: http://www.epeat.net/.
[74] Federal Electronics Challenge. Electronics Environmental Benefits Calculator. 2011 [04/01/2012]; Available
from: http://www.federalelectronicschallenge.net/resources/bencalc.htm.
[75] Kolb, D., Experiential Learning. 1984, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
[76] Hansman, C.A., Context-based Learning, in New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, S. Merriam,
Editor. 2001, Jossey-Bass: San Francisco. p. 43-52.
[77] Bould, D. and G. Felletti, eds. The Challenge of Problem-Based Learning. 1991, St. Martin’s Press: New York.
[78] ISO, ISO 14063 Environmental management -- Environmental communication -- Guidelines and examples.
2006, International Organization for Standardization: Geneva.
[79] Carpenter, D. and B. Meehan, Mainstreaming environmental management: Case studies from Australasian
universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2002. 3(1): p. 19-37.
[80] Hardi, P. and T. Zdan, Assessing sustainable development: Principles in practice. 1997, International Institute
for Sustainable Development: Winnipeg, Canada.
[81] Mendoza, G.A., P. Macoun, and R. Prabhu, Guidelines for applying multi-criteria analysis to the assessment of
criteria and indicators. 1999, Center for International Forestry Research: Bogor, Indonesia.
[82] Graedel, T.E., Quantitative sustainability in a college or university setting. International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, 2002. 3(4): p. 346-358.
[83] Gleick, P., Basic water requirements for human activities: Meeting basic needs. International Water 1996. 21(2):
p. 83-92.
[84] Falkenmark, M. and C. Widstrand, Population and water resources: A delicate balance. Population Bulletin
1992. 47(3): p. 1-36.
[85] Brunner, P.H. and H. Rechberger, Practical Handbook of Material Flow Analysis. Advanced Methods in
Resource and Waste Management. 2003, Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press/Lewis Publishers.
[86] Osmond, P., Application of “streamlined” material accounting to estimate environmental impact. World
Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 2010. 6(668-678).
[87] Schmidt-Bleek, F., MIPS - a universal ecologic measure. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 1993. 2(8): p. 407-412.
[88] Yau, R. and V. Cheng. Developing life cycle assessment tool for buildings in Hong Kong. in Sustainable Building
Conference 2004. 2004. Shanghai: International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and
Construction.
[89] Asif, M., T. Muneer, and R. Kelley, Life cycle assessment: A case study of a dwelling home in Scotland. Building
and Environment, 2007: p. 1391–1394.
[90] Ong, B.L., Green plot ratio: an ecological measure for architecture and urban planning. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 2003. 63 p. 197–211.
[91] Asner, G.P., J.M.O. Scurlock, and J.A. Hicke, Global synthesis of leaf area index observations: implications for
ecological and remote sensing studies. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 2003. 12: p. 191-205.
[92] Scurlock, J.M.O., G.P. Asner, and S.T. Gower, Global Leaf Area Index Data from Field Measurements, 1932–2000.
2001, University of Colorado: Oak Ridge.
[93] United Nations Global Compact, A practical guide to the United Nations Global Compact for Higher
Education Institutions: Implementing the Global Compact Principles and Communicating on Progress,](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greeninguniversitytoolkit1-140910114503-phpapp01/85/GREENING-UNIVERSITIES-TOOLKIT-53-320.jpg)
GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
- 1. GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT TRANSFORMING UNIVERSITIES INTO GREEN AND SUSTAINABLE CAMPUSES
- 2. UNEP promotes environmentally sound practices globally and in its own activities. This report is printed on paper from sustainable forests including recycled fibre. the paper is chlorine free and the inks vegetable-based. Our distribution policy aims to reduce UNEP’s carbon footprint. Director of Publication: Nick Nuttall Coordinator: Mohamed Atani Editor: Jonathan Clayton Design & Layout: Virginia Njoroge Printing: Tongji University ISBN: 978-92-807-3345-7 Job Number: DEP/1687/NA © United Nations Environment Programme, 2013 This publication may be reproduced in whole or part and in any form for educational or nonprofit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder provided acknowledgement of the source is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this workbook as a source. No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from UNEP. The contents of this book do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNEP or the editors, nor are they an official record. The designations employed and the presentation do not imply the expressions of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP concerning the legal status of any country, territory or city or its authority or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT TRANSFORMING UNIVERSITIES INTO GREEN AND SUSTAINABLE CAMPUSES: A TOOLKIT FOR IMPLEMENTERS
- 3. Acknowledgements Project Team Mahesh Pradhan Chief, Environmental Education and Training Unit, UNEP Pablo Fuentenebro Associate Programme Officer, Environmental Education and Training Unit, UNEP Gregory Odeko United Nations Volunteer, Environmental Education and Training Unit, UNEP Authors Paul Osmond University of New South Wales Malay Dave University of New South Wales Deo Prasad University of New South Wales Fengting Li Tongji University Additional acknowledgements We would like to thank the different individuals and institutions who in way or another have contributed to the successful completion of this project. The Greening Universities Toolkit has been developed by the UNEP Envi-ronmental Education and Training in collaboration with the University of New South Wales, Australia. In addition to the authors listed above, we would like to thank the UNEP Publishing Board, which approved the publication of the Toolkit on 15 May 2013 and the Division of Communication and Public Information, for its assistance with the design and editing of the manuscript. The authors are grateful for the support of the Environmental Education and Training Unit throughout the differ-ent stages of this project and review of the final draft. Suggestions for textual edits have been incorporated into this published version of the Toolkit.
- 4. Preparation of this Toolkit was inevitably and appropriately an exercise in international collaboration. The au-thors in particular would like to thank participants of the GUPES workshop for university leaders held at Univer-sidad Andrés Bello, Santiago, Chile in September 2011, where the draft Toolkit framework was introduced and discussed; and those involved in the GUPES Green Room event on Universities and Sustainability in Nairobi in February 2012, where a “work in progress” version was reviewed and critiqued. A draft version of the Toolkit was presented during the GUPES launch in Shanghai in June 2012, where numerous suggestions and additional case studies were provided and incorporated. We would like to thank as well Jean Christophe Carteron, for his suggestions and ideas on the text, and Iain Patton for his review of an earlier version of the manuscript. In addition, the following Universities are acknowledged for providing the authors with the content and illustra-tions for the inspiring case studies included in this report: Bond University Mirvac School of Sustainable Development, Australia Harvard University, USA Middle East Technical University, Turkey Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre (city), Brazil Princeton University, USA TERI University, India Tongji University, China University of British Columbia, Canada University of Copenhagen, Denmark University of Nairobi, Kenya University of New South Wales, Australia University of Northern British Columbia, Canada University of Sao Paulo, Brazil University of Texas at Dallas, USA Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, USA Our sincere thanks also go to Bayer for their generous support to this publication. Finally, we would like to point out that this Toolkit aims to be a “living document” that will be updated on a regu-lar basis. For this purpose, we plan to have an electronic online version, were universities are able to incorporate and share their experiences in the greening of university campuses. Foreword As we near the end of the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014), we are reminded that education is central to UNEP’s mandate of “inspiring, informing and enabling nations and peoples to improve their quality of life without compromising that of future generations.” In particular we are reminded that education is not about “doing as I say”, but learning to “do as I do” – given that what we do is pivotal to how the world’s communities deal with the multiple challenges of climate change, resource efficiency, biodiversity protection and management of our growing legacy of waste and environmental pollution. Universities, as the pinnacle of formal, organised education, thus have a particular responsibility both to help define and also to become exemplars of environmental best practice. The former aspect is generally well understood. Worldwide, Universities teach, conduct research and contribute to the global knowledge base across every aspect of sustainability, from photovoltaic engineering to ecological ac-counting. Yet when it comes to the University’s own fabric and operations, there is frequently a significant discon-nect… “do as I say” all too often reasserts itself. The focus of this Toolkit is to help address that gap – to provide University staff and students with a selection of strategies, tools and resources, gleaned from the literature, from global case studies and from practice which are intended to inspire, encourage and support Universities to develop and implement their own transformative strategies for establishing green, resource-efficient and low carbon campuses. In turn, it is hoped the “green campus” will help inform the “green curricu-lum”, and extending beyond institutional boundaries, help to catalyse more sustainable communities. This Toolkit is part of a wider Greening Universities Initiative established through UNEP’s Environmental Education and Training Unit, in collaboration with other UN agencies, under the umbrella of the recently formed Global Uni-versities Partnership for Environment and Sustainability (GUPES). GUPES brings together over 100 Universities from across Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, West Asia, Europe, and North America. At its core is the role Universities can foster for critical thinking, for example on emerging ethics and values towards the next generation of planetary leadership. We commend this Toolkit to our GUPES partner Universities and the wider global university community, and wish you every success in putting into practice the initiatives expounded therein – while remaining cognisant of the magnitude of the tasks ahead. In concluding these introductory remarks, it is important to emphasise that this is a living document. Continual quali-tative improvement, as distinct from unlimited quantitative growth, is the essence of sustainable development. So we welcome your feedback, examples and case studies for inclusion in the web-based version of the Toolkit, and to update future editions of the published version. Ibrahim Thiaw Director Division of Environmental Policy Implementation United Nations Environment Programme
- 5. Foreword This June marks the one year anniversary of two remarkable events. One is the officially establishment of the Global Universities Partnership on Environment and Sustainability (GUPES) by UNEP and participating universities in Shanghai, China. And the other is the UN Conference on Sustainable Development – Rio+20 – in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The overall goal of GUPES is to promote the integration of environment and sustainability concerns into teaching, research, community engagement, the management of universities including greening of university infrastructure, facilities and operations, as well as to enhance student engagement and participation in sustainability activities both within and beyond universities. While contributing to the innovative education on sustainable development, reaction to climate change and further cooperation of faculty training and student exchanging within partner universities and UNEP, one of concrete work of GUPES is to promote the construction of green campus. The Future We Want, as the outcome document of Rio+20, is a starting point of launching global processes to integrate the sustainability into economic development. Universities could play a critical role in developing metrics for measuring progress in green economy initiative, and the efforts made for greening university campus and the wider community can be seen as the pilot practice which demonstrates the intensive collaborations between different disciplinary, scholars, frontier workers and students. This toolkit serves not only as the guidelines for green campus implementation, but also including unique cases from the real practice of universities around the world, among which most are GUPES partners. With seamless cooperation inside the campus and beyond, each case represents the differentiated approaches according to local natural and social conditions. Last year, Tongji University was honored to be awarded with Excellence in Campus Award by the International Sustainable Campus Network (ISCN) for its Living Laboratory Initiative. And all the cases included are aiming to spurring ideas and practices in local and global context. As universities are playing more and more essential role in realizing the future we want, greener campuses will contribute greater in the wider effort for it. We hope this toolkit will bring about more successful practices and further improvement of itself. I also want to express appreciation to Bayer AG for contributing to the publication of this toolkit. Prof. WU Jiang Chair, GUPES Steering Committee Vice President, Tongji University, China Dean, UNEP-Tongji Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development
- 6. CCoonntteennttss THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THIS TOOLKIT introduction SECTION 1: UNIVERSITIES AND SUSTAINABILITY: DEFINITIONS, ISSUES, RISKS AND CHALLENGES 14 1.1 What do we mean by “sustainability”?.......................................................................................................14 1.2 Sustainability and sustainable development...........................................................................................15 1.3 The four capitals and the four bottom lines..............................................................................................15 1.4 What does a “sustainable university” look like?.......................................................................................16 1.5 Sustainability issues, risks and associated challenges in universities.................................................18 1.5.1 Environmental..............................................................................................................................................18 1.5.2 Economic.......................................................................................................................................................19 1.5.3 Socio-cultural...............................................................................................................................................20 SECTION 2: STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION..................................................22 2.1 Where to begin?...............................................................................................................................................22 2.2 Making the commitment – visions, missions, values and declarations...............................................24 2.3 Engaging the university (and wider) communities..................................................................................26 2.3.1 Initiating engagement for sustainable development...........................................................................27 2.3.2 Levels and methods of engagement.......................................................................................................28 SECTION 3. STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION..................................................32 3.1 Sustainability policy, governance and administration...........................................................................35 3.1.1 The sustainability committee...................................................................................................................36 3.1.2 The sustainability team..............................................................................................................................37 3.2 Determining the baseline: initial environmental/sustainability reviews.............................................38 3.3 Selecting and defining indicators................................................................................................................39 3.4 Setting objectives and targets......................................................................................................................43 3.5 Developing and implementing sustainability action plans...................................................................43 3.5.1 Energy, Carbon and Climate Change.......................................................................................................44 3.5.2 Water..............................................................................................................................................................46 3.5.3 Waste..............................................................................................................................................................47 3.5.4 Biodiversity and ecosystem services.......................................................................................................49 3.5.5 Planning, Design and Development........................................................................................................50 3.5.6 Procurement.................................................................................................................................................51 3.5.7 Green Office..................................................................................................................................................52 3.5.8 Green Laboratories......................................................................................................................................52 3.5.9 Green IT..........................................................................................................................................................54 3.5.10 Transport.....................................................................................................................................................54 3.6 Awareness and training.................................................................................................................................55 THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THIS TOOLKIT introduction SECTION 1: UNIVERSITIES AND SUSTAINABILITY: DEFINITIONS, ISSUES, RISKS AND CHALLENGES 5 1.1 What do we mean by “sustainability”?.........................................................................................................5 1.2 Sustainability and sustainable development.............................................................................................6 1.3 The four capitals and the four bottom lines................................................................................................6 1.4 What does a “sustainable university” look like?.........................................................................................7 1.5 Sustainability issues, risks and associated challenges in universities...................................................9 1.5.1 Environmental................................................................................................................................................9 1.5.2 Economic.......................................................................................................................................................10 1.5.3 Socio-cultural...............................................................................................................................................11 SECTION 2: STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION..................................................13 2.1 Where to begin?...............................................................................................................................................13 2.2 Making the commitment – visions, missions, values and declarations...............................................15 2.3 Engaging the university (and wider) communities..................................................................................17 2.3.1 Initiating engagement for sustainable development...........................................................................18 2.3.2 Levels and methods of engagement.......................................................................................................19 SECTION 3. STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION..................................................23 3.1 Sustainability policy, governance and administration...........................................................................24 3.1.1 The sustainability committee...................................................................................................................27 3.1.2 The sustainability team..............................................................................................................................28 3.2 Determining the baseline: initial environmental/sustainability reviews.............................................29 3.3 Selecting and defining indicators................................................................................................................30 3.4 Setting objectives and targets......................................................................................................................34 3.5 Developing and implementing sustainability action plans...................................................................34 3.5.1 Energy, Carbon and Climate Change.......................................................................................................35 3.5.2 Water..............................................................................................................................................................37 3.5.3 Waste..............................................................................................................................................................38 3.5.4 Biodiversity and ecosystem services.......................................................................................................40 3.5.5 Planning, Design and Development........................................................................................................41 3.5.6 Procurement.................................................................................................................................................42 3.6.1 Student and staff development................................................................................................................46 3.6.2 The campus as living laboratory..............................................................................................................47 3.7 Communications and documentation.......................................................................................................48 3.8 Emergency preparedness and response...................................................................................................49 3.9 Closing the loop: monitoring, evaluating and communicating progress............................................49 3.9.1 Internal audit................................................................................................................................................49 3.9.2 Management review....................................................................................................................................51 3.9.3 Preparing a sustainability report..............................................................................................................51 3.9.4 Marketing, promotion and celebrating success....................................................................................53 SECTION 4: RECOGNISING AND REWARDING PROGRESS....................................................................... 55 SECTION 5: RESOURCES FOR CHANGE......................................................................................... 57 5.1 International associations............................................................................................................................57 5.2. International agreements and declarations............................................................................................58 5.3 Online tools and resources...........................................................................................................................59 5.4 Books and journals.........................................................................................................................................62 SECTION 6: GLOBAL EXEMPLARS............................................................................................................... 65 Case Study: Australia............................................................................................................................................67 Case Study: Canada..............................................................................................................................................69 Case Study: Denmark...........................................................................................................................................71 Case Study: Kenya.................................................................................................................................................73 Case Study: Turkey................................................................................................................................................75 Case Study: USA.....................................................................................................................................................77 Case Study: China.................................................................................................................................................79 Additional case studies:.......................................................................................................................................81 SECTION 7: TECHNICAL APPENDIX............................................................................................................. 83 7.1. Selecting indicators.......................................................................................................................................83 7.2. Quantifying indicators, objectives and targets........................................................................................84 7.2.1. Operational energy.....................................................................................................................................84 7.2.2. Water use......................................................................................................................................................85 7.2.3 Material flows...............................................................................................................................................85 7.2.4 Ecosystem services......................................................................................................................................87 8. REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................................89
- 7. 12 Public-garden of the warsaw university library in poland TRANSFORMING UNIVERSITIES INTO GREEN AND SUSTAINABLE © SHUTTERSTOCK The Design and Development of this Toolkit The Toolkit was conceived in 2011 as part of the Greening Universities Initiative set up by UNEP’s En-vironmental Education and Training Unit (EETU) in partnership with other UN agencies and leading “green universities” experts and researchers, under the umbrella of the Global Universities Partnership for Environment and Sustainability (GUPES). UNEP’s approach to this project involves: Developing criteria for green/sustainable campuses, including infrastructural, managerial and operational considerations; Supporting the development and implementa-tion of strategies for transforming Universities into green/sustainable campuses; Advocacy, lobbying and publicity activities for greening Universities; Developing and launching a global award scheme for green Universities. Publication of this Toolkit addresses the first of these four objectives. The University of New South Wales (UNSW) Faculty of the Built Environment was engaged to prepare the draft Toolkit for review by UNEP. This process involved four stages: An extensive review of the green University lit-erature, including both academic research and the so-called “grey” literature of reports, web-sites and operational material produced by individual Universities and international and national associations relevant to University sustainability; Two international workshops auspiced by GUPES, held in Santiago, Chile in September 2011 and in Nairobi, Kenya in February 2012, which reviewed and discussed work in pro-gress and provided input and direction to the final document. An additional consultation meeting took place during the GUPES launch in Shanghai, China in June 2012, where partici-pants provided input for case studies; Collection of a substantial body of best prac-tice case studies from Universities worldwide both to inform the content of the Toolkit over-all and to include as a standalone section on global exemplars; and Final review by the EETU to ensure currency, consistency and alignment with the objectives of the UNEP Greening Universities Initiative. Objectives and Expected Outcome of this Toolkit The objective of this Toolkit is to inspire, encourage and support universities to develop and implement their own transformative strategies for establishing green, resource-efficient and low carbon campuses. It will provide an opportunity to build stakeholder capacity to deliver systemic, institution-wide integra-tion of sustainability principles into all aspects of uni-versity business. This initiative is intended to improve the sustainability performance of universities globally and to provide support to other stakeholders embark-ing on their own sustainability journeys. Further, it will enhance the practical relevance of universities to sus-tainable development and by extension, the new para-digm of the “green economy”. In short, the aim is to en-courage and promote the contribution of universities to the overall sustainability of the planet. We cannot have a sustainable world where universities promote unsustainability [1] – conversely, the sustainable uni-versity can help catalyse a more sustainable world. Using this Toolkit This Greening Universities Toolkit is designed to pro-vide universities with the basic strategies and tactics necessary to transform themselves into green, low carbon institutions with the capacity to address cli-mate change, increase resource efficiency, enhance ecosystem management and minimise waste and pollution. To effectively support this journey and other transformative processes in Universities, the Toolkit is structured in such a way that the focus is on the sustainable planning, design, development and management of the university campus. This is
- 8. linked to the core business of teaching, research and outreach, which are the subject of a separate initiative by UNEP’s Environmental Education and Training Unit (EETU)[ Higher Education Guidelines for Curriculum Review and Reorientation Towards Sustainable Devel-opment], Aspects of teaching, research and outreach are addressed here only insofar as they intersect/inter-act with the fabric and operations of the campus. Overview of this Toolkit The first section, Universities and sustainability: definitions, issues, risks and challenges; estab-lishes the context with a brief introduction to sustainability and sustainable development, and the elements expected of a sustainable uni-versity. The second section, Strategies for initiating transformation; addresses the strategic infrastructural, managerial, operational and cultural issues to be considered in setting up a framework for sustainability planning and management. The third section, Tools for implementing transformation; sets out generic guidance on the tactical aspects – step-by-step methods and procedures, checklists, performance indicators and monitoring, evaluation, reporting and communication tools. Hyperlinks to a variety of existing online resources and organisations are provided to enable universities to access information pertinent to their particular circumstances, and brief examples of best practice are described to encourage emulation. The fourth section, Recognising and rewarding progress; outlines a methodology and potential criteria for a global award scheme to facilitate continual improvement in university sustainability performance, and introduces a university sustainability scorecard. The fifth section, Resources for change; lists a variety of books, journals, associations and websites which can provide further information and guidance on university sustainability topics. The sixth section, Greening your University; is an introductory brochure which presents a brief outline of the overall project and a concise summary of the outcomes. The seventh section, Global exemplars; presents a series of best practice case studies from universities around the world. Finally, a technical appendix is included which sets out the full list of references drawn on and the methods and calculations used to inform the development of the Toolkit. Each section has been prepared as a stand-alone document which can be read and used on its own, or be combined with the other sections to constitute the full Toolkit. The emphasis is on practical guidance, drawn from mainstream, proven systems, techniques and tools and illustrated by examples of what works, and why. Universities have long been agents of change – cata-lysts for social and political action as well as centres of learning. Universities not only educate most of the world’s leaders, decision-makers and teachers and advance the boundaries of knowledge, but as major employers and consumers of goods and services they play a significant economic role nationally and glob-ally. Given the ascribed role of Universities in society, and the prevailing environmental and sustainability chal-lenges, Universities are coming under increasing pres-sure to engage with and respond to climate change and other sustainable development issues and the as-sociated risks and opportunities. They are expected to be the engines and innovation centres for sustainable development through teaching and learning, research and knowledge transfer. Critically, universities’ edu-cational role does not end with undergraduate and postgraduate learning; it extends to the plethora of activities which support and extend the teaching and research core: campus management and operations; campus planning, design, construction and renova-tion; purchasing; transport; and engagement with the wider community. Awareness is also growing in the higher education sector that universities can teach and demonstrate the theory and practice of sustain-ability through taking action to understand and re-duce the unsustainable impacts of their own activities. Linkage of curricula and campus operations under the aegis of sustainability can create a powerful “shadow curriculum” which emphasises the nexus between theory and practice [2-5]. Evidence, however, shows that many universities are struggling with the concept and agenda of university “greening”; achievements to date have been scattered and unsystematic. Completion of a showcase green building is not the same as embracing a university-wide commitment to ensure all future buildings are built green – the former is a project success, the latter a systemic transformation [6], which is more desirable for sustainability. However, sustainability needs not be considered only from perspectives extrinsic to univer-sities, but also from more intrinsic perspectives. These should motivate universities to adopt sustainable/ green university strategies which should demonstrate sustainability principles. Education has been described as humanity’s best hope and most effective means in the quest to achieve sustainable development [7]. In this context, universi-ties have a special responsibility to help define and also to exemplify best practice. The steady growth of higher education in both the de-veloped and the developing world has created a surge of competing priorities, of which sustainability is one of the more recent. The most successful green campus initiatives are those which acknowledge these shift-ing priorities and welcome the emerging opportuni-ties which growth and development can generate [6]. While some noteworthy exemplars of university sus-tainability initiatives exist around the world, there is a need to maximise the potential benefits by encourag-ing their replication in as many universities as possible globally. Introduction
- 9. SECTION 1 1.3 The four capitals and the Universities and sustainability: definitions, issues, risks and challenges 1.1 What do we mean by “sustainability”? The World Conservation Strategy was launched in 1980 by the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources), UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) and WWF (the World Wildlife Fund) and introduced not only the concept of sustain-able development but also the term “sustainable” in relation to human use of the biosphere. However, the antecedents of the sustainability debate are evident in the discussions of ‘limits to growth’ in the early 1970s, whilst the concept itself was developed at the United Nations Conference on the Environment in Stockholm in 1972 [8]. The World Conservation Strategy was significant for stressing that rather than conservation and develop-ment being mutually exclusive activities, as had gener-ally been argued up to that time, they are interdepend-ent. The WCS stressed that development requires the conservation of the living resource base on which it ul-timately depends; in the longer term development will not be able to take place unless we conserve our living resources. Likewise conservation will not occur unless at least minimal standards of development are met, i.e. basic needs of food, shelter and clean water [9]. Subsequent definitions of “sustainability” and “sustain-able development” run into the hundreds and reflect a wide range of perspectives. Despite lack of agreement on an unequivocal interpretation of the concept, there is general agreement that it involves simultaneous sat-isfaction of economic, environmental and social goals. Meeting environmental criteria in a society which fails to meet economic and social goals concerning justice and equity does not make for sustainability. The most emblematic definition of sustainable devel-opment is that set out in Our Common Future, the 1987 “Brundtland Report” of the World Commission on Envi-ronment and Development [10], which states: Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable – to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The WCED go on to say (p 8): The concept of sustainable development does imply limits – not absolute limits but limitations imposed by the present state of technology and so-cial organization on environmental resources and by the ability of the biosphere to absorb the effects of human activities. But technology and social or-ganization can both be managed and improved to make way for a new era of economic growth. And (p 46): In essence, sustainable development is a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional change are all in harmony and enhance both the current and future potential to meet human needs and aspirations. This statement of sustainable development is one which we would probably all endorse. It captures the key tem-poral prerequisite of sustainability – persistence into the long-term future – through its explicit reference to inter-generational equity. On the other hand, the Brundtland formulation can be seen as enigmatic as well as em-blematic – by expressing a qualified consensus reached by a UN Commission charged with reconciling the goals of environmental protection and economic growth it epitomises the contestability of the territory. The price of consensus commonly is ambiguity; the positive as-pect is that ambiguity can encourage discussion and de-bate, an essential part of the practical process of work-ing towards sustainability [11]. 1.2 Sustainability and sustainable development The terms “sustainability” and “sustainable develop-ment” have been used interchangeably above – but is this appropriate? The following distinction [12] offers a useful guide: Sustainability is the ultimate goal or destination. Exactly what defines the state of being, of what is sustainable (whether it be a society, logging, fishing, etc.), is informed by science but ultimately depends on personal values and world views. To achieve a state of environmental sustainability, a framework or process is needed. Certain condi-tions have to be met and steps in the process toward ‘sustainability’ have to be made. The framework of sustainable development is the means for achieving sustainability. So, in brief, “sustainability” refers to the goal and “sustainable development” is the path or framework to achieve it. As with the term “sustainability”, what is considered as a necessary path and time frame will vary amongst individuals. Further, it must be emphasised that development is not synonymous with growth. Growth is about becoming quantitatively bigger; development on the other hand is about becoming qualitatively better [13]. Sustainable development, then, may be defined as the intentional means whereby humans strive towards sus-tainability, the co-evolution of human and natural sys-tems to enable adaptation to change indefinitely, which: Is based on qualitative development/im-provement, not quantitative growth; Conserves and enhances natural capital stocks, which cannot sustainably be substi-tuted by other forms of capital; Combines social equity in improving present quality of life with intergenerational equity in meeting the needs of the future; and Acknowledges cultural development and cultural diversity (as with biodiversity) as central to the adaptive process of realising sustainability. four bottom lines Ecological economists generally recognise four distinct “capitals” [14-16] which are necessary to support the real, human welfare producing economy: Natural (the land, sea, air and ecosystems from which the human economy derives its materials and energy and to which it ultimately returns its wastes); Built (buildings and cities, the physical infrastruc-ture which produces economic outputs and the human artifacts thus obtained); Human (the health, skills, knowledge and values of the human population); and Social (the web of formal and informal interper-sonal connections and institutional arrangements which facilitate human interactions). This taxonomy provides a useful model to help articulate the structures, processes and relationships which are fundamental to the transition to sustainability. The expectation of tripartite satisfaction of economic, environmental and social goals referred to above can also be expressed in terms familiar to the business world; the triple bottom line refers to satisfaction of not just the acknowledged bottom line of meeting economic goals (profits) but also the need to now simultaneously meet environmental and social goals (or “bottom lines”) in car-rying out their business. This also provides a practical framework for the development of policies and strategies to drive institutional change. When the objective is trans-formation rather than mere observation, the rationale for including governance as a fourth bottom line is rein-forced (Figure 1.1). Governance is defined in the present context to include both the formal regulatory, business, administrative and political processes of the university which determine or influence decision-making and ac-tion, and the informal networks, traditions and cultural and behavioural norms which act as enablers or disa-blers of sustainable development. 5 6 UNIVERSITIES AND SUSTAINABILITY GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT
- 10. SUSTAINABILITY UNIVERSITIES AND SUSTAINABILITY GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 7 1.4 What does a “sustainable university” look like? It seems pretty clear that there can be no sustainable world where universities promote unsustainability [1]. Moreover, “…no institutions in modern society are better situated and more obliged to facilitate the transition to a sustainable future than colleges and universities” [17]. A “fully mature” approach to university sustainability may be summarised as “one in which the activities of a university are ecologically sound, socially and culturally just and economically viable” [18]. How the transition towards sustainability is expressed in a particular uni-versity must inevitably reflect the social, cultural, eco-nomic and ecological circumstances of the nation and region in which that university is situated. Nevertheless, although they can be expressed in different ways, there are well-defined foundational principles which charac-terise university sustainability [18-22]. In general terms, a university consciously choosing the path of sustainable development would exemplify the following principles: Clear articulation and integration of social, ethical and environmental responsibility in the institu-tion’s vision, mission and governance; Integration of social, economic and environmen-tal sustainability across the curriculum, commit-ment to critical systems thinking and interdis-ciplinarity, sustainability literacy expressed as a universal graduate attribute; Dedicated research on sustainability topics and consideration of “quadruple bottom line” sustain-ability aspects in all other research; Outreach and service to the wider community, in-cluding partnerships with schools, government, non-governmental organisations and industry; Campus planning, design and development structured and managed to achieve and surpass zero net carbon/water/waste, to become a regen-erative organisation within the context of the local bioregion; Physical operations and maintenance focused on supporting and enabling “beyond zero” envi-ronmental goals, including effective monitoring, reporting and continual improvement; Policies and practices which foster equity, diversity and quality of life for students, staff, and the broad-er community within which the university is based; The campus as “living laboratory” – student in-volvement in environmental learning to transform the learning environment; Celebration of cultural diversity and application of cultural inclusivity; and Frameworks to support cooperation among uni-versities both nationally and globally. Universities by definition have accepted the challenge of leadership and aspiration to best practice, in the creation and dissemination of knowledge. The transi-tion to sustainability opens up new challenges, but also tremendous opportunities. Governments, businesses, NGOs and individuals – and a growing number of uni-versities – have already made significant progress, and the road ahead is well illuminated in terms of tested and evidenced strategies. The following Section of the Toolkit introduces those strategies which have shown the greatest capacity to enable systematic institutional transformation, and are also internationally recognised and readily available. These include the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) environmental management standards and social responsibility guide-lines, the Global Reporting Initiative framework and uni-versity- specific resources which have been developed by several international sustainable campus associations and intergovernmental organisations (see also Section 5, Resources for change). ECONOMIC SOCIAL GOVERNANCE ENVIRONMENT Figure 1.1: The quadruple bottom line. 8 Source: From A practical guide to the United Nations Global Compact For Higher Education Institutions, p.9. adapted from Euromed Management /Kedge 2009 [93] www.unprme.org/resource-docs/APracticalGuidetotheUnitedNationsGlobalCompactforHigherEducationInstitutions.pdf
- 11. UNIVERSITIES AND SUSTAINABILITY GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 9 1.5. Sustainability issues, risks and associated challenges in universities Universities are complex, multi-faceted entities with di-verse organisational subcultures, traditions and concerns [6], and the transitory nature of university life for the bulk of the campus community can mean the real impacts of the institution remain unacknowledged [23]. There may be in-dividual high quality initiatives aimed at addressing these impacts, but where these are restricted to one or a handful of organisational units they inevitably end up ad hoc and uncoordinated. In addition, limited funding and multiple calls on capital budgets favour short-term fixes over green investments with long-term paybacks. Staff and students have heavy workloads; limited time and multiple expectations as to how that time is used can make it problematic to initiate, maintain, complete and evaluate projects, and compound natural resist-ance to change. Moreover, universities generally lack the incentive structures necessary to promote changes at the individual level [24]. Universities are located in a sea of competing and inter-acting social processes whereby decisions on growth and direction are often made outside the immediate institutional community [25]. Structural change in re-sponse to new research priorities and societal educa-tional demands combined with the loss of corporate memory through staff turnover and the transience of the student population can mean mistakes are repeated, previous high performing initiatives are not emulated and it becomes difficult to build on progress or initiate continual improvement cycles. Sometimes failure to de-velop appropriate performance measures limits direct feedback on the benefits of sustainability actions – the environmental, social and financial value of achieve-ments is not understood or promoted [26-28]. Two common denominators across all of these well-recog-nised risks and challenges are lack of commitment by university leadership, and lack of awareness and en-gagement of staff and students. However, some of the same characteristics of univer-sities which tend to hinder progress towards sustain-ability – for example the tradition of decentralisation and autonomy – have a dual nature, and can equally act as enablers of change. In particular, the university has historically provided a safe haven for the innovator and the activist. Early-adopter sustainability champi-ons, whatever their substantive role in the organisation, can be critical change agents. And where cross-campus interdisciplinary networks already exist, they can con-tribute to the critical mass for the dissemination of new ideas. There are also important external drivers, for ex-ample pressure from peer institutions, particularly those which have already made worthwhile progress towards sustainability; and pressure from society at large – com-munity aspirations for a cleaner, greener world, and corporations and government bodies keen to support sustainability-focused research, or to hire graduates with the relevant skills [24]. In discussing the issues, risks and challenges of university sustainability it is helpful to separately review the “triple bottom line” dimensions of environment, economy and society / culture, recognising both their inter-relationships, and the crucial role of the fourth “bottom line” – govern-ance – across these three dimensions. 1.5.1 Environmental Universities embody the environmental issues, risks and challenges of the wider communities in which they are situated, but also express their own unique characteris-tics. On one level, a university may be likened to a small town, with all the associated issues of spatial planning, management of physical growth and development, maintenance of buildings and open spaces, supply of electricity, water and other utilities, and often provision of residential accommodation and ancillary services. In addition, there are the typically corporate functions of finance, procurement, human resources, etc. However, the distinguishing feature of a university is its core purpose of teaching, research and community out-reach. This generates a plethora of distinctive environ-mental issues on top of those typical of the small town or the corporate office, which often include significant (indeed semi-industrial) levels of resource consump-tion, carbon emissions, waste and pollution. Risks here include the reputational and financial – linked to legal compliance – which on their own are enough to moti-vate some institutions towards sustainable develop-ment. The broader challenge is to minimise the legally compliant but environmentally unsustainable impacts 10 of the university’s activities while maintaining and ex-tending its teaching / research / outreach core. To meet this challenge requires an understanding of the particularities of the university’s activities as well as its environmental impacts, in other words, the key areas for intervention: in relation to environmental parameters such as energy, carbon and climate change, water, waste, and biodiversity; and management parameters such as the planning, design and development of the campus; and the “greening” of specific operational activities such as offices, laboratories, information technology, trans-port and procurement. Both sets of parameters are ad-dressed in Section 3, Tools for delivering transformation. 1.5.2 Economic Universities are major employers, major investors and major purchasers of goods and services. There are op-portunities across all these areas for intervention, in terms of direct and indirect support for local jobs, ethi-cal/ sustainable investment and “green” procurement strategies which can help integrate sustainability along the supply chain (for example by specifying standards of environmental performance in tender documentation). One challenge common across many nations is a declin-ing level of public funding. Cost is a significant factor in most sustainability investment, and in some cases may appear insurmountable. However, even in situations where natural disaster or difficult economic conditions limit university budgets to the minimum necessary to keep their doors open, options to address sustainability imperatives are available. Typically these will involve the capture of savings around management of the key flows (inputs and outputs) of energy, water and materials, which can provide a buffer for future capital and opera-tional investment in sustainability initiatives. The risk is that senior management may welcome the savings, but be reluctant to channel any (let alone all) into new greening endeavours, thereby relinquishing the opportunity for continual improvement. The key here is management buy-in – which means a shift from a “command and control” mentality to a shared vision [29], discussed in Section 2, Strategies for initiating trans-formation. Nevertheless, universities in different parts of the world, and at different stages of their life cycles, are not directly comparable – there is no “one size fits all” approach to addressing the economic dimension of sustainabil-ity. The intent of this Toolkit is to provide a conceptual framework which allows participating universities to take from it what is appropriate to their circumstances, from effectively zero cost behaviour change “house-keeping” measures to reduce energy consumption to development of institution-wide sustainable investment and procurement strategies. Indeed for any university, whatever its circumstances, logic supports a step by step approach which starts with initiatives able to gener-ate immediate monetary savings (and gain staff, student and management support) before tackling more com-plex, costly or contentious matters. These opportunities are discussed in some detail in Section 3. PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT BY CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES The Coalition of Universities for Responsible Investing was founded in 2009 to identify constructive, new ap-proaches to bring environmental, social and govern-ance concerns into the management of university en-dowments and pension funds. Focusing on Canadian universities, CURI aims to help resolve the responsible investment gap by: Providing multi-stakeholder solutions for invest-ment policy development and the proactive man-agement of beneficiary interests, through the pro-vision of best practices, sample policies and other relevant guidance material; Serving as a forum where relevant stakeholders – including industry experts, students, alumni, trus-tees and academics – are invited to participate in innovative and collaborative initiatives including conferences, web-based discussions, outreach campaigns and networks; and Supporting curriculum development to advance knowledge and expertise in the field of responsi-ble investing. CURI is also committed to building an interna-tional movement to connect dispersed efforts to incorporate responsible investment in universities, for example through facilitating collaboration be-tween universities and investor coalition groups such as the Social Investment Organization, the UN Principles for Responsible Investing, and the Responsible Endowments Coalition. http://www.curi.ca/
- 12. 23 UNIVERSITIES AND SUSTAINABILITY GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 11 1.5.3 Socio-cultural The socio-cultural dimension of sustainability needs to be considered at two levels: internally with respect to the university’s own formal and informal organisational structures; and externally with respect to the university’s relationships with the wider community. Regarding the former, the key issue is gaining support and commit-ment from students, academic staff, operational staff and senior management, groups whose motivations, priorities and ways of thinking and doing may be on some issues not just unaligned, but diametrically op-posed. Section 2 provides a detailed explanation of stakehold-er engagement strategies to promote cross-university participation in sustainability action – and in particular, commitment from senior management. Absence of top management support precludes long-term gains. Simi-larly, if the university’s leadership is not “walking the talk”, then employees will disregard any change initia-tive as just “talk” [29]. Some remarks on avoiding greenwash are pertinent at this point. Greenwash refers to the not uncommon situation where an organisation makes serious claims to “green” credentials but does little or nothing to act on them. Even before making a formal commitment to sustainable development, there must be a sufficient level of organisational maturity to give confidence to the university community that decisions will be followed through. In particular: Is there evidence that the university has the re-sources to commit to implementation of sustain-ability programme (budget, people, time, knowl-edge and skills)? Is there a history of following up internal and external engagement with action on the issues raised? Does the university have efficient and effective governance and administration systems (finance, facility management, human resources, teaching and research management)? Are there effective, day-to-day internal and ex-ternal communications channels (newsletters, websites)? Is the university open and transparent in its deal-ings with staff, students and the wider commu-nity? A university is by definition a teaching organisa-tion, but is it also a learning organisation (staff development programs, internal and external benchmarking and quality systems)? Answers to these questions may provide a useful check-list of the capacity of the institution to deliver on its promises. A lot of negative answers would suggest there are more deep-seated management issues to be ad-dressed before taking on the additional challenge of sustainable development. Yale campus © SHUTTERSTOCK
- 13. Strategies for initiating transformation STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 13 Having established the destination, the next step is to decide how to get there. Fortunately, there is no need to “reinvent the wheel” – given the intent of this Toolkit as a resource relevant to universities worldwide, strategies and frameworks with evidenced global applicability are adopted where possible, and adapted where necessary. The focus of this Section is on the high level strategies needed to initiate a university’s transition to sustain-ability – understanding barriers and drivers, making the commitment, establishing a vision and engaging with the university and external communities to bring it to fruition. The sources drawn on for this Section include the International Organization for Standardization, the UNEP Practitioner’s Handbook on Stakeholder Engage-ment [30] and work done over the past two decades by organisations such as the University Leaders for a Sus-tainable Future (ULSF), International Sustainable Cam-pus Network (ISCN), and Association for the Advance-ment of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE). Details for these and other similar international organi-sations are provided in Section 5, Resources for change. It is stating the obvious that the transition to global sus-tainability requires conscious, long-term, directed ef-fort, but the message bears repeating. It will not happen through wishful thinking. The time scale for such trans-formational change is frequently cited as 40-50 years, or between one and two generations. If, for instance, worldwide CO2 emissions were halved by 2050 com-pared to 1990 (suggesting a reduction of at least 80% by developed countries), there is a high probability that global warming could be stabilised below two degrees [31]. The strategies introduced in this Section reflect this long-term perspective. 2.1 Where to begin? Strategies for organisational change are often character-ised as top down (management driven) or bottom up (staff driven). The best strategies usually involve a combination of both approaches; for example, adoption of a high level vision statement or policy, and initiation of low cost, high impact project(s) at a grass roots level. Improving energy efficiency is a typical example of such “low hanging fruit”. Experience worldwide has demonstrated time and again that leadership from university management at the highest level is essential to integrate sustainabil-ity into mainstream practice. Bottom-up action by staff and students is necessary, but is not in itself sufficient to bring about inclusion of sustainability in the univer-sity’s core business. For development to be sustainable, it must be rooted in cultural values [32] – the bottom-up approach alone is unlikely to achieve the cultural shift which is a precondition for institutional sustainability transformation [33]. However, the top-down approach by itself is also insuffi-cient. The decentralised and semi-autonomous nature of university entities such as departments, schools and research centres tends to encourage responsibility to the unit rather than the university, so initiatives driven solely from the top may be seen as an imposition and will be difficult to implement successfully [34]. There are three distinct constituencies in any university – students; academic staff; and administrative / opera-tional staff. Any sustainability programme which aims to achieve widespread participation must take account of the varying roles, experiences and expectations of these separate subcultures as the starting point. The evidence suggests the greatest leverage in achieving institution-al change occurs when all three groups share a vision and a perception that they are working to the same end [6]. Further, once an idea has been accepted and incorporated into the system’s culture and day-to-day operations it becomes difficult to dislodge, even with a change of top management [35]. Another way to manage change is to think of a univer-sity as a complex ecosystem composed of interdepend-ent components which must be considered in their totality, together with their web of connections. This “whole systems” approach implies a condition of dy-namic equilibrium in which goals, objectives, and activi-ties are adjusted and fine-tuned in the organisation and SECTION 2 14 day-to-day practical delivery of campus sustainability programs [25]. This model is consistent with the con-tinual improvement cycle discussed in Section 3, and is the hallmark of a learning organisation. In summary, experience worldwide confirms that a combination of top management commitment and staff and student engagement offers the best opportu-nity both for successful initiation and long-term perfor-mance of university sustainability programs. The follow-ing sections discuss some practical strategies to bring this about, while Section 3, Tools for delivering transfor-mation, addresses the substantive “tactical” aspects of making it happen, broadly in line with the ISO 14001 En-vironmental Management System standard as adapted for the higher education context Table 2.1: Process overview – summary of Sections 2 and 3 of the Toolkit. ACTIVITY COMMENTS Making the commitment This commonly includes developing a sustainability vision and/or mission statement, and/or signing a third party declaration or charter on university sustainability. Engaging the university and wider community Includes strategies and tactics for engaging with and securing the participation of university stakeholders (academic and operational staff and students) as well as the wider community of alumni, industry partners, government agencies, local schools and residents, etc. Developing a sustainability policy The university’s sustainability policy is the high level driver for its short- and long-term sustainability goals. Establishing a sustainability committee The committee, representing staff and students and chaired by a member of senior management, is responsible for input to and review of the university’s sustainability policy, objectives, targets and action plans, for final management approval. Setting up the sustainability team Top management should appoint a sustainability manager with sufficient authority, resources and freedom to act, who may head a professional sustainability unit and/or coordinate a team of staff and student volunteers, depending on the size and resources of the particular university. Determining the baseline: initial environmental / sustainability reviews This provides the starting point for prioritising issues for action (for example through application of risk assessment methods) and setting objectives and targets. Selecting and defining indicators Indicators enable tracking of progress towards achievement of objectives and targets. Suggested indicator themes are: energy, carbon and climate change; water use; land use; material flows; sustainability in research; education for sustainability; governance and administration; and community outreach. Setting objectives and targets Objectives are overall goals arising from the university’s sustainability policy; targets are detailed performance require-ments set to achieve the objectives. Targets should be “challenging but achievable”, and should reflect the university’s commitment to sustainable development and the ultimate achievement of a sustainable university. Developing and implementing sustainability action plans Sustainability management programs or action plans are the engine room for change. Plans are time-bound, and developed and reviewed on a regular basis in line with the sustainability targets. The plans set out in this Toolkit address the following substantive areas: Energy, Carbon and Climate Change; Water; Waste; Biodiversity and ecosystem services; Planning, Design & Development; Procurement; Green office; Green lab; Green IT; Transport Awareness and training Awareness building and training opportunities need to be built into every sustainability action plan. Communications and documentation Each sustainability action plan will need to incorporate a communications strategy to facilitate engagement of the university community and maximise the chances of success. Documentation of all aspects of the system minimises the loss of “corporate memory”. Closing the loop: monitoring, evaluating and communicating progress This system requirement includes establishment of internal audit and management review cycles, annual sustainability reporting, and marketing promotion and celebration of successes.
- 14. STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 15 2.2 Making the commitment – visions, missions, values and declarations Terms such as “vision” and “mission” may be dismissed as management jargon, and sustainability is not ad-vanced through uncritical adherence to textbook pre-scriptions. Fundamentally, universities should define their own concept and definition of what a sustainable university is about [36]. However, all universities have strategic planning processes, which commonly include some kind of vision of what the university leadership (in most cases), or the university community more gener-ally, want to see their institution become. Typically this will be some version of “the best” [37]. Envisioning exercises are sometimes conducted by local governments, universities still rely predominantly on more traditional and hierarchical methods [19] where-by vision statements are generally handed down from above. A more robust process, and certainly one which encourages ownership of the outcome, is to involve the university community through seminars, workshops, surveys, etc. in the same way as local residents may be engaged in the process of developing a vision for their city’s future. ENVISIONING THE SUSTAINABLE UNIVERSITY Universities are increasingly aspiring to be both models and catalysts of change, leading the world to a more sustainable future. Yet complex and ineffective governance, traditional disciplinary boundaries, and the lack of a shared vision often hinder progress towards this goal. In 2007, the University of Vermont in Burlington, USA initiated an envisioning process to develop a plan to transform the university into a leader in whole systems thinking and sustainable design. The process involved 1,500 participants from the campus and the Burlington community. Participants’ visions of a sustainable and desirable university were gathered through two community events and three on-line surveys. Analysis of the results led to the formation of a vision narrative, a sustainability charter, and guided the creation of a range of initiatives. The results suggest that when provided with sufficient and well-structured opportunities, university community members will become active participants in initiatives aimed at fostering institutional change. By focusing on shared values and long-term goals, envisioning exercises can achieve a surprising amount of consensus while avoiding the divisiveness and polarization that often plague open-ended discussions and university governance. Pollock, N., Horn, N, E., Costanza, R. & Sayre, M. (2009). Envisioning helps promote sustainability in academia: A case study at the University of Vermont. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 10, 343-353. While a vision statement represents a commitment to the future rather than a decision to do something now, it provides a good starting point for policy development and a motivational focus for the university community, if the staff and students have been actively involved from the start. They must own it. A strong strategic vi-sion helps focus attention on opportunities which sup-port that vision [38] – beginning with the end in mind and working to achieve it step by step. A vision statement should by definition be future orient-ed and ambitious [22], but it also needs to be specific enough that it is not simply a promise to be “the best”. It should reflect the organisation’s values and culture, and also its activities and context. Where is the university lo-cated? Is it big or small, primarily a research institution or mainly teaching focused? What are its particular teach-ing/ research strengths? Is the campus part of a heavily built-up urban area, or spread out across a “greenfields” site? Is it a centuries old university, steeped in tradition, or was it founded in the past decade? What are its rela-tionships with the wider community? All these present-day issues (and more) can contextualise and inform where and how the university sees itself positioned in terms of an envisioned sustainable future. 16 DEVELOPING A VISION STATEMENT – UNIVERSITY OF MARIBOR The University of Maribor in Slovenia is leading the nation’s universities in introducing sustainability prin-ciples into its everyday performance, guided by its in-stitutional vision. The number of tertiary students in Slovenia more than doubled between 1995 and 2005, coinciding with its evolution as an independent country and admission to the European Union. In 2006 the University of Mari-bor established a Sustainability Council, including representatives from most departments, in response to growing interest from the university community. The Council adopted a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches to promote the sustainability agenda, and in June 2006 proposed the following vi-sion statement: “To become an institution that integrates sustaina-ble development principles into everyday activities, from achieving research and educational excellence (ranking within the first third of European universi-ties) and to foster local, regional, and international cooperation, and spread cultural awareness and values.” The University adopted the Plan-Do-Check-Act con-tinual improvement “Deming cycle” [39] to drive its sustainability initiatives (see also Section 3). The Sus-tainability Council continues to bring together stake-holders from across the University to coordinate and foster sustainability projects. Lukman, R. & Glavič, P. (2007). What are the key elements of a sustainable university? Clean Tech-nologies and Environmental Policy, 9: 103-114. Many organisations, including many universities, adopt a mission statement as well as (or instead of) a state-ment of their vision for the future. A mission statement helps explain the motivation for the vision; it should answer (in general terms) the questions who, what, and why, and lay the foundation for future action [36]. A mis-sion is more pragmatic than a vision. It is about what the organisation plans to do rather than what it wants to be. It uses “doing words” (lead, educate, plan, develop…) to identify actions, and defines those areas in which action will be taken (curriculum, research, fabric and opera-tions...). VISION, MISSION AND VALUES With more than 300 member, the Environmental Asso-ciation for Universities and Colleges (EAUC) www.eauc. org.uk strives to lead the way in bringing sustainability to the business management and curriculum of insti-tutions across the UK and further afield. As well as its vision and mission, the EAUC website sets out the As-sociation’s foundational values: Our Vision Our vision is a tertiary education sector where the prin-ciples and values of environmental, economic and so-cial sustainability are embedded Our Mission The EAUC will lead, inspire and support Members and stakeholders with a shared vision, knowledge and the tools they need to embed sustainability and facilitate whole institution change through the involvement of everyone in the institution. Our Values Leadership and Service for Sustainability Leading, as a role model, we inspire change and chal-lenge unsustainable practice Partnership and Independence Benefiting from our independent position we value collaborative networks and partnerships Commitment and Creativity As one team, we bring a potent mix of optimism, deter-mination, innovation and dynamism to solving prob-lems Listening, Understanding and Learning We continually learn, account for and improve our or-ganisation through the knowledge and initiative of our members, staff, trustees and other stakeholders Since the launch of the Talloires Declaration in 1990 [20], regional and international conferences, higher education associations and intergovernmental organi-sations such as UNESCO have developed a variety of agreements, declarations and charters on university sustainability (See Section 5). These represent another strategic tool available to universities choosing the path of sustainable development. As at 2011 there were more than 30 such international agreements, signed by more than 1400 universities globally [40].
- 15. Figure 2.1: The “virtuous cycle” of stakeholder engagement. Modified from The Guide to Practitioners’ Perspectives on Stakeholder Engagement [42] Framework for establishing sustainability dialogue Focus for initiating action Program implementation Buy-in and influence of senior management Support and resources STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 17 Similar to a vision or mission statement, a sustainabil-ity declaration represents a high level commitment to achieving a sustainable future; as such it can offer gen-eral guidance, but is not designed to provide specific direction. Institutions pledge to implement broadly de-fined actions around core issues such as environmental literacy, institutional culture change, interdisciplinary collaboration and stakeholder participation. These ac-tions may be staged for ease of implementation, for ex-ample the International Sustainable Campus Network – Global University Leaders Forum Sustainable Campus Charter [41] structures commitments into a nested hier-archy encompassing individual buildings, campus-wide planning and target setting, and integration of research, teaching, outreach and facilities for sustainability. Of course signing a declaration does not of itself guar-antee implementation of its commitments. Voluntary agreements by definition provide no mechanisms to enforce accountability. On the other hand, commit-ment to an external agreement can provide the basis for a university to develop its own internal sustainability vision and policy. Arguably, international declarations and charters have also helped to shape the growing consensus on the role of universities in sustainable de-velopment, and even national legislation [40]. 2.3 Engaging the university (and wider) communities Section 2.2 above introduced the notion of top-down, bottom-up and combined strategies. In all cases, genu-ine engagement of academics, administrative / opera-tional staff and students in the early stages is crucial to the successful initiation of the sustainability agenda. In-deed the organised participation of students and staff in every aspect of the sustainability transition is essential to success. Hence the strategies presented below can be employed to support and reinforce any of the practi-cal sustainability initiatives and interventions discussed in Section 3 of this Toolkit at any stage of the journey, involving different people at different stages. The topic of community engagement and participation is an important focus for research and teaching, and an issue for practical application in governance and the corporate sector, but universities can sometimes be reticent about practicing what they teach. But as with other aspects of greening the university, tested and ef-fective strategies exist for motivating, informing and engaging the involvement of the university and wider communities, discussed below. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT INTERNAL COMMITMENT VALUE CREATION EXTERNAL CREDIBILITY Public awareness catalyst for change integration Renewed engagement 18 2.3.1 Initiating engagement for sustainable development The primary stakeholders are the staff and students, but within these constituencies there are of course particu-lar groups and individuals whose involvement is critical [43]: University leadership – the office of the President / Vice Chancellor and the governing Council or Board, academic and operational executives; Key operational departments – facilities manage-ment, purchasing, IT, marketing and media, stu-dent housing, etc.; Academic experts in various aspects of sustain-ability; Academic and operational staff associations; The student association and student clubs. In addition, the web of groups and individuals who af-fect, or are affected by the university and its activities [30] extends well beyond the immediate university com-munity to include: Alumni, who may be scattered across the world; Public and private sector funding bodies, which have their own agendas and objectives; Government and corporate research partners, as above; National and international associations to which the university may belong; External suppliers of goods and services, for whom the university may represent a major eco-nomic development opportunity; School students and their families, as prospective university students; and The local community within which the university is situated. The precise composition of the wider “secondary com-munity” of university stakeholders will vary from place to place, and will certainly include members not specifi-cally identified above. It is worth noting too that usually it is better to cast the net more widely than is absolutely necessary rather than inadvertently exclude an impor-tant group. However, it is also necessary to define and adhere to the time and resources available for the task. How extensive the engagement process needs to be will be determined by its purpose and scope – initia-tion of an institutional sustainability vision or policy, or It should be emphasised that the present discussion is about engagement to inform and promote institutional sustainability, not what is referred to as “civic engage-ment” or “outreach” whereby the university is promot-ing sustainability beyond its own institutional bounda-ries. The latter interpretation is outside the scope of this toolkit – although the strategies for accomplishing it are much the same as for the former. “Engagement” describes the full scope of an organisa-tion’s efforts to understand and involve stakeholders in its activities and decisions. It includes basic communi-cation strategies consultation exercises and deeper lev-els of dialogue and collaboration [42]. Stakeholder en-gagement in the wider world is progressing from simple informing to discussing to partnering. A similar progres-sion is necessary in the higher education sector to drive sustainable development. Engagement of staff and students in creating a sustain-ability vision or mission or around signing a declara-tion or developing a policy provides both a framework for dialogue and a focus to initiate action. This in turn generates credibility, encourages commitment and ul-timately facilitates the integration of sustainability into institutional culture – a “virtuous cycle” (Figure 2.1). INTERNATIONAL CAMPUS NETWORK DISCUSSES COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT The International Sustainable Campus Network Sym-posium Better Campus, Better City: Learning for a Sustainable Future took place in Shanghai during the World Expo 2010. The conference session on “Green buildings and beyond” prompted some insightful discussion on the effective integration of sustainable buildings, technologies and design elements on cam-puses. First and foremost, stakeholder engagement was identified as critical. Frequently difficult and complex choices must be made which impact stake-holders right across a campus. For example, at the National University of Singapore, a decision was made to air-condition common spaces and classrooms but not the dormitory rooms. As an energy saving meas-ure, the benefits of this decision were clear; however, students needed to understand why the choice was made. Sometimes the impacts of campus develop-ment spread well beyond the physical boundaries. For example when campus transportation and mobility options are developed, the neighbourhoods around the campus will be affected, necessitating honest dia-logue with local residents. ISCN (2010). “Better Campus, Better City: Learning for a Sustainable Future”, International Sustainable Campus Network Symposium, Shanghai, July 27-28.
- 16. STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 19 the launch of an individual programme or project. So a stakeholder “mapping” exercise represents a good start-ing point. Aspects to consider are: Who needs to be involved? Why do they need to be involved? How should they be involved? Equally, who from the university is managing the en-gagement process – if it is initiated by staff and/or stu-dents (bottom-up), has senior management been in-vited to the table? And if initiated by management, has it been organised so that staff (or students) do not see it as an imposition on their already busy schedules? In either case, clear objectives are essential, and also a clear explanation of the baseline position (whether with respect to overall policy, or to a specific project, depend-ing on the purpose of the engagement) from which it is intended to progress. Those who are being asked to get involved need to be adequately briefed. Finally, in relation to capacity, community engagement requires resources too. Those being asked to contribute their time and energy will respond to the time and ener-gy put into the participatory process. Whether engaging with internal or external stakeholders, those involved need to be both good listeners and good advocates. It can often be a useful strategy to utilise the services of an independent specialist facilitator where the issues are complex and often poorly defined [30], as is the case with sustainable development. 2.3.2 Levels and methods of engagement The stakeholder engagement spectrum ranges from informing through to empowering. The table below is adapted to the university context from The Practitioner’s Handbook on Stakeholder Engagement, published by UNEP, AccountAbility and Stakeholder Research Asso-ciates to promote the use of stakeholder engagement worldwide as a way of advancing sustainable develop-ment goals [30]. While the focus of the Handbook is on the corporate sector and external engagement, strate-gies are easily modifiable to suit other types of organisa-tions. Table 2.2: Levels and methods of stakeholder engagement, modified from The Practitioner’s Handbook on Stakeholder Engagement [30]. LEVEL GOAL COMMUNICATION RELATIONSHIP TYPICAL METHODS Inform Inform or educate stakeholders. One-way. “We will keep you informed.” Newsletters, brochures, displays, websites, presentations. Consult Gain information and feedback from stakeholders to inform decisions made by management. Limited two-way – views solicited and provided. “We will keep you informed, listen to your concerns, consider your insights, and provide feedback on our decision.” Surveys, focus groups, workshops, “toolbox” meetings, standing advisory committee, online feedback and discussion. Involve Work directly with stakeholders to ensure their views are understood and considered in decision making. Two-way, learning takes place on both sides. “We will work with you to ensure that your views are understood, to explore options and provide feedback about how stakeholders’ views influenced the decision making process.” Multi-stakeholder forums, advisory panels, consensus building processes, participatory decision making processes. Collaborate Partner with or convene a network of stakeholders to develop mutually agreed solutions and joint plan of action. Two-way, or multi-way between the university and stakeholders. Learning, negotiation, and decision making on both sides. Stakeholders work together to take action “We will look to you for direct advice and participation in finding and implementing solutions to shared challenges.” Joint projects, voluntary two-party or multi-stakeholder initiatives, partnerships. In the university context this may involve partnerships with student or staff associations, local NGOs, etc. Empower Delegate decision making on a particular issue to stakeholders. New organisational forms of accountability: stakeholders have formal role in governance or decisions are delegated to stakeholders. “We will implement what you decide.” Integration of stakeholders into governance structure (note that many universities already include staff and student representatives in governing bodies, but their influence may be nominal). 20 Higher level engagement makes for greater opportunities for transformation. In practice, the three lower levels – In-form, Consult and Involve, and their associated methods – are most appropriately applied during the early stages of consolidating commitment, articulating a vision and formulating a policy. The two higher levels – Collaborate and Empower – are more relevant to the implementation of a comprehensive sustainability programme. In particu-lar empowerment necessitates governance structures of a distinctly new type, appropriate for an organisation well advanced along the transition to sustainability. Table 2.1 demonstrates that methods of engagement should reflect the intended objectives [30]. They must also take into account local circumstances, and acknowledge that each method has both strengths and weaknesses. For example web or email based feedback or discussion facilities may be convenient for engaging with staff and students, but online approaches may exclude members of the external community without internet access. Sur-veys (verbal, written or online) are very helpful to estab-lish a baseline and identify issues of concern. However, they are essentially a one-way means of communication and must be well designed and the results carefully ana-lysed if they are to elicit useful information. Focus groups are effective for in-depth investigation of a particular topic but may favour expertise over representativeness, while larger public meetings can encompass a variety of issues but may feel intimidating for some participants. A useful “hybrid” method is the single-issue forum, which enables a wider group of participants to focus on more tractable subsets of a complex whole. Once the university’s sustainability commitment and vi-sion have been defined, a SWOT analysis may be used to identify institutional strengths, weaknesses, oppor-tunities and threats which can help or hinder progress towards achievement [43]. Advisory panels or commit-tees are particularly valuable during the practical imple-mentation stage, and are discussed further in Section 3. These methods are best understood as complementary – they are designed to achieve different outcomes and are applicable at different stages, but appropriately combined can present a comprehensive and trans-formative approach. The Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (ULSF) has developed a university Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire [44], which is discussed fur-ther in Section 4 in relation to the development of a performance “scorecard”. The issues raised in the ques-tionnaire can also serve as helpful prompts during the early stages of establishing a commitment and vision, to initiate engagement around what constitutes best practice. Table 2.2 summarises the main sustainability criteria targeted by the ULSF. One of the most perceptive questions / prompts is: “What do you see when you walk around campus that tells you this is an institution committed to sustainability?” [44]. Equally it could be asked: “What do you see when you walk around campus that suggests opportunities for improvement and action?” A guided campus walk is simple and instructive engagement strategy for observ-ing and assessing (at a very general level) what is, as a guide to considering what could and should be.
- 17. 33 Table 2.3: University sustainability prompts for community engagement, adapted from ULSF Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire [44]. DIMENSION TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION Curriculum STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 21 Courses which address topics related to sustainability Integration of sustainability into traditional disciplines Learning about the campus as a socio-environmental system Research and scholarship Staff and student research and scholarship relating to sustainability Interdisciplinary structures for sustainability research, education and policy development Fabric and operations Building construction and renovation Energy and water conservation Waste minimisation Sustainable food programs Sustainable landscaping Sustainable transportation Green purchasing Minimisation of toxic materials Environmental / sustainability auditing Integration of operational practices with learning and teaching Staff development and rewards Sustainability criteria for hiring and promotion Staff development opportunities Outreach and service Sustainable community development at regional, national and international levels Partnerships with schools, local government and local business Student opportunities Orientation on sustainability for students Student environmental centre Student groups with sustainability focus Career counselling focused on sustainability Student involvement in campus sustainability initiatives Administration, mission and planning Commitments to sustainability in terms of reference for university organisational units Positions and committees dedicated to sustainability issues Staff orientation programs Socially responsible investment practices Regular environmental audits Sustainability related events Heinz chapel on the campus of the university of pittsburgh in pittsburgh pennsylvania © SHUTTERSTOCK
- 18. Tools for delivering transformation STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 23 This Section of the Toolkit sets out step by step guid-ance for universities seeking to translate their commit-ment to, and vision of sustainable development into re-ality. The format follows the familiar Plan-Do-Check-Act “Deming cycle” of continual improvement [39] which re-flects the globally acknowledged management system models developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) [45-48]; the Global Reporting Ini-tiative guidelines [49]; and a range of best practice initia-tives drawn both from practical experience and from the literature. An important “bridging” stage between initial commit-ment as an institution to take the sustainable develop-ment path and the development of detailed policies and strategies to effect delivery is to adopt a time scale for the transition to sustainability. Definition and adoption of a time scale which is both challenging and appropri-ate to a particular university requires serious engage-ment with the members of that university, for example as part of a visioning process, as discussed in Section 2. It is arguable that objective reality is defining the time scale for us. Over the past few decades it has become obvious that anthropogenic environmental impacts are global in scope [50, 51]. The landmark Millennium Eco-system Assessment [52] revealed that some 60% of eco-system services which provide the basis for life on Earth have been degraded or are being used unsustainably, and emphasised that humans have changed ecosys-tems more rapidly and extensively in the past 50 years than at any other period. Increasing evidence of global warming, predicted “peaking” of oil, phosphorus and other natural resources and an extinction rate which rivals the great extinctions of the deep geological past [53] reinforce the need to take action now. Universities have been described as microcosms of the environmental problems which face society as whole [54], from greenhouse emissions to noise pollution. The previous sections of this Toolkit have emphasised that achievement of a sustainable campus represents a par-adigm shift in institutional thinking and practice. While as noted in Section 2, “little victories” can pave the way for “systemic transformation” [6], it is necessary to keep the destination in mind. From that perspective, setting long term stretch goals can provide a framework for nec-essary action. Campus sustainability integrates the cultural/institu-tional and the biophysical, and different strategies – and stretch goals – are required in each case. In relation to the quantitative, there are four broad categories for which both long and short-term targets can be defined and presented: Energy, carbon and climate change; Water consumption; Use of land – campus ecology, planning, design and development; and Material flows – procurement, toxicity and pollu-tion, waste disposal and recovery. Taking energy consumption as an example, the propor-tion of energy derived from renewable sources (hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels) globally was approxi-mately 8% in 2010 [55]. A university which is genuinely sustainable in terms of its energy consumption is one which derives 100% of its energy needs for heating, cooling and transport from renewable sources. The difference between 100% and 8% (or perhaps a higher baseline, if the university is already using more than 8% renewable energy) represents the “sustainability gap” for energy which the university can close by setting an ultimate target date and meeting a step-by-step sched-ule of intermediate targets until the final goal is achieved (Figure 3.1). The Technical Appendix describes a math-ematical model for deriving these targets from baseline energy consumption. SECTION 3 24 Figure 3.1: Example of planning the transition to 100% renewable energy consumption through staged application of 5-year targets. Each university needs to set its own targets and timelines. Similar transitional strategies can be defined for water consumption (not exceeding the sustainable yield of the catchment within which the university is located), land use (campus planning and development), and management of material flows (zero net waste). For present purposes, the primary issue is to establish agreed stretch goals and target dates; the methodology is explained in detail in the Technical Appendix. Energy, water, land and materials are defined in terms of direct biophysical outcomes. Other aspects of sus-tainable university practice are characterised by their social and cultural outcomes. The biophysical impact of embedding sustainability in research and teaching, governance and administration and community out-reach is long term and indirect. Suitable stretch goals in these areas may be qualitative or quantitative, and will be more closely linked to management decisions – 100% of goods and services procured by the university to meet some sustainability accreditation target, 100% of students to have completed an introductory sustain-ability course, and so on. The question of a sustainability policy has not been dis-cussed to this point. Policy development represents the first stage of implementing the university’s vision. While still articulated at the “overview” level (for example, referencing the stretch goals mentioned above) an or-ganisation’s policy should be the driver for setting inter-mediate objectives and targets, and giving the context for action plans around the issues identified through community engagement. Policies in general apply to the medium term, and are subject to regular review.
- 19. STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 25 Figure 3.2: The university sustainability continual improvement cycle [45-49, 56-58]. The red spiral represents the main plan-do-check-act sequence, the blue arcs indicate secondary feedback loops and information inputs. Figure 3.2 maps the structure of the continual improve-ment cycle, synthesised from a variety of sources [45-49, 56-58] and including a set of management programs (ISO 14001 terminology) or action plans specific to this toolkit. In summary: The university’s sustainability policy (Section 3.1) drives the cycle. Also discussed in this Sec-tion are the structures necessary to ensure deliv-ery: a cross-campus sustainability committee and the dedicated personnel assigned the task of managing implementation – the sustainability team. An initial environmental review ((ISO 14001 ter-minology) or sustainability review determines the baseline conditions and enables issues to be prioritised for action (Section 3.2). The policy (“where do we want to be?”) and the initial review (“where are we now?”) informs the planning phase (“how do we get from where we are to where we want to be?”). This includes identification of appropriate performance in-dicators (Section 3.3), objectives and targets (Section 3.4) and sustainability action plans (Section 3.5). Planning as per ISO14001 also in-cludes awareness and training (Section 3.6), communications and documentation (Sec-tion 3.7) and emergency preparedness and re-sponse (Section 3.8). The implementation phase refers to the “doing” element of the plan-do-check-act cycle. This en-tails carrying out the context-specific action plans prepared during the previous phase of the cycle, and also taking advantage of any unforeseen op-portunities which may have emerged [58] since the original plans were prepared. In addition, de-fects in existing plans can be identified in imple-mentation, and this information fed back into the planning process. The checking phase represents the closing of the loop: monitoring and measurement of pro-gress, internal audits and management review (Section 3.9) enables rejuvenation of the entire cycle. Outcomes from benchmarking against best 26 practice and any planned actions which have not been achieved inform the next round of plan-ning; the policy is re-assessed for relevance and currency; and the progress to date is document-ed in the university’s sustainability report. 3.1 Sustainability policy, governance and administration ISO 14001 specifies environmental management sys-tem elements applicable to all types and sizes of or-ganisations under diverse geographical, cultural and social conditions. Success depends on commitment from all levels of the organisation. There must be dem-onstrated dedication to establishing and assessing the effectiveness of environmental policy, objectives and procedures, and to achieving conformance and dem-onstrating it to others. Thus the aim of ISO 14001 is to support environmental protection in balance with socio-economic needs. It should be emphasised that ISO 14001 does not establish absolute requirements for environmental performance beyond commitment to compliance with applicable legislation and regulations and to continual improvement. ISO 14001 also does not address the broader social, economic or cultural issues pertinent to a holistic approach to university sustain-ability; these aspects, however, may be incorporated into the relevant sections of the EMS Standard (policy, objectives and targets, action plans, training, etc.) with only minor adjustments required to facilitate imple-mentation. An organisation’s sustainability policy is the essen-tial tool for setting short- and long-term sustainability goals against which all subsequent actions will be judged. ISO 14001 requires an organisation’s environ-mental policy to: Be developed by top management and cover the scope of the EMS (in the university context, “top management” refers to the President / Vice- Chancellor and those senior executives who re-port directly to him/her); Be appropriate to the nature, scale and environ-mental impacts of the organisation’s activities, products and services (i.e. linked to the overall mission of the university); Include a commitment to continual improve-ment and prevention of pollution; Commit to compliance with applicable legal requirements and with other requirements to which the organisation subscribes which relate to its environmental aspects; Provide the framework for setting and reviewing environmental objectives and targets; Be documented, implemented and maintained; Be communicated to all persons working for or on behalf of the organisation (which includes contractors, temporary staff, etc. – and in the case of universities, students); Be available to the public. Adaptation of the above points to address a universi-ty’s sustainability policy (i.e. to explicitly include social, economic and cultural elements) will not substantially change the structure of the policy statement, although it will obviously affect the content.
- 20. STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 27 UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY STATEMENT The University of Nairobi is firmly committed to protection of the environment as an integral part of good institutional prac-tice. To enable us to do this, we shall develop and sustain an En-vironmental Management System that will lead to sustainable development and will advance positive effects on both human health and the environment for the university community and our neighbours. Believing this goal to be fully achievable, at the University of Nairobi: We are totally dedicated to preventing pollution by mini-mizing waste generation through enhanced adoption of Cleaner Production methods and development and imple-mentation of effective programs and practices We are committed to reducing our energy consumption, implementing energy conservation programmes and pro-moting energy efficiency We are committed to increasing water use efficiency in our campuses and reducing the quantity of waste water re-leased to the environment We are committed to improving indoor and outdoor air quality by implementing effective programmes where appropriate to mitigate negative effects, use of materials in building construction and renovation that protect and improve indoor air quality and minimizing greenhouse gas emissions from University-related activities. We will examine the operations of University-owned vehi-cles and identify and implement alternatives that will re-duce environmental impacts We are committed to maintaining all noise within national guidelines We will ensure that we comply with, and where possible exceed, applicable environmental laws and regulations. We will review our environmental objectives and targets from time to time in order to minimize resource consump-tion and improve our environmental performance We will review and revise this Policy, if necessary, every two years to ensure that our activities, products and services are appropriate and have no adverse effects on human health and the environment We will ensure through education and training that each employee and student is aware of our environmental ob-jectives and can fulfill them We will communicate our Environmental Policy to all our stakeholders Prof. G.A.O Magoha VICE-CHANCELLOR 01 October 2009 Apart from these broad criteria, the contents of a uni-versity’s sustainability policy can include any matters which the institution wishes to emphasise and address. Policies are “high level” documents; hence they should deal with the general rather than the specific (“The Uni-versity of XYZ will minimise energy consumption” rather than “The University of XYZ will replace its incandescent lamps with compact fluorescents”). As noted in ISO 14001, the policy provides a framework for setting objec-tives and targets, it is not itself a list of objectives and tar-gets. As high level documents, university sustainability policies should also be brief and to the point. 3.1.1 The sustainability committee It has been stressed throughout this Toolkit that top management commitment is a prerequisite for the tran-sition to a sustainable university. An objective assess-ment of the budgetary implications of waste disposal and energy consumption, and the potential financial risks associated with environmental accidents or legis-lative non-compliance seems to be a useful exercise for convincing senior managers of most organisations. Most importantly, ISO 14001 requires management not just to commit, but to ensure the availability of resources to develop and implement a sustainability management system. While not a requirement of the EMS standard, creation of a sustainability steering committee with representation (in the case of a university) from students, academic and operational staff is for all practical purposes essential. The steering committee may also include representa-tion from external stakeholders – for example the local community, government bodies and/or significant local employers of the university’s graduates. The actual title of this group is of course a matter for the particular institution; the main issue is its function. The terms of reference for the steering committee should include as a minimum, responsibility for input to and review of the policy, objectives and targets and sustain-ability action plans, for final approval by senior manage-ment. Depending on the level of stakeholder engage-ment practiced by the university (see Section 2.4 of the Toolkit), the committee may play a formal role in the uni-versity’s governance structure, with delegated powers to approve policy and related high level documentation. 28 Irrespective of the extent of delegated powers, the com-mittee should be chaired by a member of senior man-agement, with the person directly accountable for im-plementation of the sustainability management system in an executive role. In addition, the committee should act as a conduit from the university community to senior management in relation to overall sustainability issues. 3.1.2 The sustainability team A member of the university’s top management group should maintain overall oversight of the sustainability “portfolio”, and top management should assign respon-sibility for the overall implementation and effectiveness of the system to a competent senior person with suffi-cient authority, resources and freedom to act. This per-son – the “management representative” in the language of ISO 14001 (or in other words, sustainability manager) – should be accountable for: Ensuring that environmental management sys-tem requirements are established, implemented and maintained in accordance with the standard, and any additional social / economic / cultural sustainability aspects adopted by the university are also addressed within the overall manage-ment framework provided by the system; Reporting on the performance of the system to top management for review and as a basis for continual improvement. The sustainability manager – depending on the size and resources of the university – may head a professional sustainability unit and/or coordinate a team of staff and student volunteers. In many universities the environment or sustainability manager / team is organisationally located in a major operational area such as the Estates / Facilities Manage-ment unit; less commonly, the role is embedded in an academic unit. An operational location provides direct access to the university’s day-to-day campus manage-ment and administrative activities – on the other hand, an academic role can facilitate the nexus between edu-cation for sustainability and practical campus sustain-ability. In either case, the key criterion is the position’s level of authority, accountability and ability to deliver on approved sustainability policies and plans. While this is certainly linked to the adequacy of budgetary and other resources, it is fundamentally an organisational rather than financial issue. Ideally, the sustainability manager will report directly to a member of the top management group, a situation which is still quite rare, but is charac-teristic of those universities which take the transition to sustainability seriously. OFFICE OF THE PRO VICE-CHANCELLOR (SUSTAINABILITY) LA TROBE UNIVERSITY, AUSTRALIA In 2010 the University announced the creation of the Office of the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Sustainability) head-ed by Professor Carol Adams. Replacing the Sustain-ability Taskforce that had existed in 2009, the Office is the driver behind La Trobe’s determination to make sustainability central to everything we do. Climate Change, unsustainable resource use and in-creasingly inequitable access to the benefits of eco-nomic development are some of the major challenges that have to be tackled on a global scale. Issues of Sustainability and social responsibility will af-fect everyone’s career in the future. La Trobe and the Office of the PVC (Sustainability) will make a difference. Reproduced from http://www.latrobe.edu.au/ sustainability/governance A sustainability team’s workload may be structured on the basis of particular impact areas (energy and climate change, water, biodiversity, transport, etc.), university functional areas (green office, green lab, procurement, IT, etc.) or some combination of the two – there is no “right way” or “wrong way”, it is a question of ensuring alignment with the way the particular university is gov-erned, its vision and mission. Section 3.5 below, which deals with sustainability action plans, covers both im-pact and functional aspects but is not intended to imply a particular organisational template. Economic sustainability is conventionally a matter for the university’s Finance Department, and the function of sustainable procurement may either sit there, or with the sustainability team. The objective is to ensure integration of triple bottom line criteria in the univer-sity’s financial management, which can be tackled or-ganisationally in a variety of ways. Similarly, universities frequently address social and cultural aspects of sus-tainability through policies and personnel involved in
- 21. STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 29 student services, human resources, equal opportunity and the like. Again, it is critical to ensure appropriate alignment and communication between those charged with delivering outcomes across the different facets of sustainable development, whether these have been explicitly identified as “sustainable” or simply as part of good management practice. 3.2 Determining the baseline: initial environmental/ sustainability reviews The ISO 14001 EMS standard offers flexibility to organi-sations to develop their own means of identifying the significant environmental impacts of their activities. ISO 141001 does not stipulate the method to be used, only that it has to be applied systematically. Standards Australia’s HB [Handbook] 206 Initial Environmental Review (IER) provides structured guidance to organisa-tions seeking to determine their current baseline envi-ronmental status [59], and may be adapted to include additional sustainability aspects beyond the specifical-ly environmental. The results of the review can be used to assist the organisation in developing or improving its environmental policy, setting the scope of its environ-mental / sustainability management system, establish-ing its sustainability objectives and targets, and deter-mining the effectiveness of its approach to maintaining compliance with applicable legal and other require-ments. Less formally, an initial review will answer the question “Where are we now and what do we have to do to get where we want to be”? The review is intended to provide sufficient informa-tion for a preliminary identification of the significant environmental (and other sustainability) aspects and impacts associated with the activities of, and services provided by, the university. “Environmental aspects” are identified as elements of an organisation’s activities, products or services which can interact with the envi-ronment, for example energy consumption or waste generation. An impact, on the other hand, is any change to the environment (positive or negative) resulting from this interaction. In addition, the review identifies how these aspects are currently being managed, including legal compliance and emergency response, and can also reveal opportunities for improvement. A systematic initial sustainability review of a university will entail five phases: Planning – setting the scope and objectives, schedule, resources and personnel; Review of existing information (i.e. documen-tation review) – organisational, physical (site) and functional (detail of activities, including teaching, research and operations); Confirmation of existing information and collection of new information – site inspec-tions, questionnaires, interviews, discussions; Evaluation of the information, for example in relation to potential environmental risks, compli-ance with legal requirements and adequacy of existing policies, procedures and management practices (gap analysis); Reporting and recommendations – summary of the methods and findings and presentation of opportunities for improvement (how to get from “where we are” to “where we want to be”). The review can be conducted using checklists, process flowcharts, interviews, direct inspection, past and cur-rent measurements, and where available, the results of previous audits or reviews. An initial review does not involve site contamination audits, direct sampling and analysis of environmental media (soil, water, air) or detailed life cycle assessment of products or services. However, if a need for any such investigations is identi-fied, it should be flagged in the recommendations. 3.2 1 Prioritization of issues to be addressed Not all environmental or sustainability aspects and im-pacts are equally important – determination of their significance is necessary to enable prioritisation of responses, for example through sustainability action plans. Qualitative evaluation of the significance of envi-ronmental aspects and impacts is commonly achieved through application of risk assessment techniques, which identify the consequences of a particular impact (severity, spatial and temporal scale), and the probabil-ity (likelihood) of it occurring, to determine the overall risk (Figure 3.3). The particular criteria used to define the consequences may include effects on people, prop-erty and ecosystems, monetary value and reputation. 30 Figure 3.3: Probability / consequences matrix, indicating Extreme, High, Medium and Low risk. In the case of readily quantifiable aspects such as en-ergy and water consumption, waste production and procurement of high volume goods such as paper or construction materials, the significance of the associ-ated environmental impacts may be ascertained more directly. Typical methods include calculation of opera-tional greenhouse gas emissions, embodied energy and material balances for particular goods (e.g. the amounts of paper purchased, used, recycled and disposed of to landfill). These figures can also be used to generate sus-tainability indicators (Section 3.3), particularly when coupled with appropriate denominators (e.g. tonnes CO2 per square metre of floor space, or per student). Given the wide range of universities at which this Toolkit is aimed, it is impossible to set out a checklist of ac-tivities, aspects, impacts, management responses and levels of significance relevant to all; the methodology is the critical factor here. To take one common (but by no means universal) activity: grounds maintenance – Table 3.1 outlines some potential (but again, not universal) sustainability issues to consider in an initial review. The matrix format can provide a useful template to assess the vast variety of activities relevant to any given univer-sity, which may encompass anything from student hous-ing to research on genetically modified organisms. 3.3 Selecting and defining indicators What gets measured gets managed. Measurement of pro-gress against agreed performance indicators enables a uni-versity to benchmark against others, but more importantly, against the sustainability targets it sets for itself [60]. Indicators provide the mileposts on the journey to sus-tainability. As such, they need to fulfill certain criteria. The World Health Organisation [61] points out that the criteria used to select a particular indicator depend on the purpose of that indicator. Indicator selection is thus both a technical and a normative decision; linking the two provides an opportunity to facilitate dialogue and learning, which “provides the foundation for developing shared meanings of sustainability, the role of indicators, and how they will function” [62]. Sustainability indicators need to incorporate, but go be-yond, considerations of “eco-efficiency” (or environmental performance). An eco-efficiency energy indicator, for exam-ple, would measure energy conservation – a sustainability indicator would record total greenhouse gas emissions against a goal of zero. The difference is between incremen-tal and systemic change; eco-efficiency ends with the in-cremental, sustainability integrates both [60].
- 22. Table 3.1: Sustainability aspects and impacts, significance and potential management responses in relation to the maintenance of campus grounds. ACTIVITY ASPECT IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 31 Indicators may also be grouped and weighted to form indices of environment or sustainability performance. Ecological footprint analysis (the amount of land neces-sary to provide the necessary resources and assimilate the wastes and pollutants generated by a population [63]) is a well-known index which has been extended from its original role in comparing national and regional impacts to include application to public and private sector organisations, households and the comparison of consumer products. It has also been adapted to focus on specific criteria of environmental concern, for example carbon and water footprints. The advantage of the ecological footprint lies in the com-prehensibility and educative value of the measure; the disadvantage is that despite extensive data collection and analysis requirements, the end result is a metric which enables comparability between places, but not a high degree of accuracy. It is not discussed further here – a wide range of online and other resources is available for those wishing to explore and apply footprint analysis in their institutions. The development of an indicator set typically proceeds from the general to the particular: from the overall con-cepts to the main themes, to the specific, measurable indicators. The themes serve to organise and contextu-alise the indicators. More detail on the process of indica-tor selection, which as suggested above, should involve a participatory dialogue with the university community – is given in the Technical Appendix. The biophysical aspects of university sustainability can be condensed into four key themes, as noted above: energy use, water use, land use and material flows. Al-though climate change crosses multiple themes, for ease of data collection and reporting it is included here with energy, to create a theme of “Energy, carbon and climate change”. In addition to the themes where physical out-comes are directly measureable, there are a further four themes which relate to more qualitative (but indirectly measurable) aspects of change: research, learning and teaching (education for sustainability), governance and administration and community outreach (Table 3.2). The “range of variables” column indicates potential areas for the definition of quantitative or qualitative indicators. 32 Grounds maintenance Water use Resource depletion Depends on climate and geography – will be of major significance for some sites Use recycled water and/or captured rainwater Select low water requirement plants Fuel use Resource depletion GHG emissions Air pollution Depends on extent of mechanised maintenance, impacts likely to be moderate Substitute biofuels for fossil fuels Purchase fuel-efficient equipment Reduce use of mechanical equipment Improve equipment maintenance, training Fertiliser use Resource depletion Damage to soil structure Runoff / eutrophication Impacts generally moderate, but may be more significant where a university is located near sensitive natural ecosystems Replace artificial fertilisers with organic products Herbicide / pesticide use Resource depletion Effects on non-target species Runoff / water pollution Spillage Generally as above; however the impact of a spill may represent a major risk Reduce chemical use Substitute non-persistent for persistent chemicals Improve chemical safety – storage, handling, training Biodiversity and ecosystem services Biodiversity and ecosystem services may be maintained, enhanced or reduced, depending on maintenance regime Positive or negative impacts range from relatively low to high, depending on location (urbanised vs. natural ecosystems) Specify local native species Preserve significant vegetation during building works Avoid monocultures Avoid environmental weeds Soil disturbance Erosion Compaction Dust Generally low, but may be moderate, again depending on location Apply mulch Use no-till methods Garden organics (green waste) Reduction of landfill space GHG emissions Impacts of transport to landfill Land and aquifer contamination Production / use of compost Moderate negative impacts from landfill, but these will increase as landfill space runs out in many regions Moderate positive impact of composting Process garden organics to generate mulch and compost Campus amenity Impact on work/study environment, productivity, quality of life Moderate positive impacts Continually improve maintenance standards, training Local employment Impact on local economy Range from low to relatively high, depending on location Hire grounds staff from local area Table 3.2: Potential themes and indicative measurable variables relating to university sustainability. THEME INDICATIVE RANGE OF VARIABLES Sustainability in research Grant funding, publications, conferences and seminars, commercialisation Education for sustainability Cross-disciplinary courses, sustainability literacy, curriculum integration Governance and administration Sustainability policies, environmental management plans and systems, environmental auditing, recruitment and staff development, ethical investment, local economic development, student access and equity Community outreach Service learning, collaboration with other institutions, community development projects Energy, carbon and climate change Operational energy, embodied energy, transport energy, greenhouse gas emissions Water use Potable water, water reuse, rainwater collection Land use Green buildings, space planning, ecosystem services, biodiversity Material flows Contract specification and evaluation, supply chain management, life cycle assessment, waste minimisation, air and water pollution
- 23. STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 33 The focus of this Toolkit is on the sustainable plan-ning, design, development and management of the university campus as distinct from the core business of teaching, research and outreach, which is the subject of a separate initiative by UNEP’s Environmental Educa-tion and Training Unit (Higher Education Guidelines for Curriculum Review and Reorientation towards Sustain-ability). Hence the indicators proposed here will be re-stricted to the four themes which encompass the physi-cal aspects of university sustainability, together with the critical enabler – governance and administration. Every university has its individual goals and priorities, and every university exists in a national and regional context, as has been emphasised throughout the Toolkit. Hence to suggest a “one size fits all” indicator set would be inappropriate and unworkable. However, there are clearly a number of core indicators – such as carbon emissions – which are relevant to all universi-ties. Each university can supplement these core indica-tors with additional metrics which measure particular attributes which the university community deems are worth tracking on its journey towards sustainability. Table 3.2 lists a recommended core set of indicators of environmental performance, which are identified as rel-evant and applicable to almost all universities, irrespec-tive of size or location (one minor exception include use of natural gas, which will be irrelevant to some). The task of collecting the initial baseline data should be used to develop an effective procedure for regular data collection to inform action planning and target setting – annually for most indicators, and typically monthly for energy, water and waste. Table 3.3: Recommended core university environmental performance indicator set. ELEMENT METRIC UNITS* COMMENTS Energy, carbon and climate change Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions tCO2e/capita Measurement of Scope 1 & 2 emissions disaggregated to source is regarded as the minimum requirement. Best practice will include Scope 3. Electricity consumption kWh/m2 floor space kWh/capita In most cases, this will be the largest contributor to a university’s GHG emissions. Proportion of electricity derived from onsite and/or renewable sources should be separately recorded. Natural gas consumption GJ/m2 floor space GJ/capita Any natural gas used in cogeneration and trigeneration should be separately recorded. Transport energy consumption kL fuels Passenger kilometres Minimum requirement for measurement is the university vehicle fleet. Best practice will include air travel and commuter travel modal split. Water use Potable and non-potable water consumption kL/m2 floor space kL/capita Should include consumption of collected rainwater and any other sources of water reuse. Wastewater production kL/capita Volume of greywater and blackwater which is reused is captured by the previous indicator Land use Proportion of certified green buildings by floor area m2/m2 This indicator is assumed to integrate the workplace health, environmental and productivity benefits of green buildings. Proportion of pervious / impervious surfaces m2/m2 Proxy metric for anthropogenic impact on hydrological cycles and urban microclimate. Vegetation cover m2/m2 Proxy estimate of vegetation ecosystem services. May be supplemented by measurement of leaf area index (LAI) which enables a more refined estimate (see Technical Appendix). Material flows Solid waste disposal kg/capita Can be disaggregated into categories, e.g. municipal solid waste, construction and demolition, hazardous, e-waste, etc. Solid waste recovery kg/kg (diversion rate) Can be disaggregated into material types where required. Material use kg/capita Typically one or a few representative materials such as paper will be selected. Best practice will require a more comprehensive material balance. *Given as SI units here, actual units employed will depend on country. Note that “per capita” refers to the total population of the university (staff + students). 34 In addition to these biophysical metrics, the following management indicators are recommended as a basic core on which individual universities can build. These are adapted from the University Leaders for a Sustain-able Future Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire for Colleges and Universities [44]. Existence of a university Sustainability Policy Existence of a Sustainability Management Plan Existence of a Sustainability Steering Committee or equivalent institution-wide strategic body Responsibility for oversight of sustainability mat-ters allocated to member of senior management Appointment of a Sustainability Manager or equivalent position Orientation programs on sustainability for aca-demic and operational staff Existence of socially responsible purchasing and investment practices and policies Regularly conducted environmental audits A new initiative to be launched at the Rio + 20 Conference, the Higher Education Sustain-ability Initiative, sets out similar core criteria with respect to teaching and research, campus greening, community outreach and also sharing knowledge through international frameworks such as the UN’s education and training struc-tures. (http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/index. php?page=view&nr=341&type=12&menu=35) 3.4 Setting objectives and targets ISO 14001 defines an environmental objective as an overall goal, arising from the environmental policy, which an organisation sets itself to achieve and which is quan-tified where practicable. An environmental target is de-fined as a detailed performance requirement, quantified where practicable, applicable to the organisation or parts thereof, which arises from the environmental objectives and which needs to be set and met (annually, five yearly, etc.) in order to achieve these objectives. Similar criteria will apply to objectives and targets which address the eco-nomic, social and cultural dimensions of sustainability. Objectives and targets are typically linked to indicators, to enable tracking of progress. Targets should be “chal-lenging but achievable”, and should reflect the univer-sity’s commitment to sustainable development and the ultimate achievement of a sustainable university. The introduction to this Section proposes a combina-tion of stretch goals (e.g. zero net imported energy and water, zero net waste) and staged transitional strate-gies to achieve them – see for example Figure 3.1. To support the implementation of sustainability action plans, objectives and targets should be set and regular-ly reviewed for each relevant function and level of the university; for example an overall objective to reduce energy use may be disaggregated to include individual annual targets for specific buildings or services such as lighting or HVAC. Objectives and targets must be relevant to the univer-sity’s significant environmental / sustainability aspects and impacts, discussed in Section 3.2 above. Priorities will vary according to the economic, social, geographic, etc. circumstances for each university, although it is clear that carbon emissions and climate change will represent a common priority for the great majority of institutions. ISO 14001 also requires organisations to consider legal, financial, operational and business re-quirements in setting its objectives and targets, and the views of “interested parties”. In the university context, the interested parties are students, staff and the wider community, who should be purposely engaged in the target setting process (see Section 2, Strategies for initi-ating transformation). 3.5 Developing and implementing sustainability action plans Sustainability management programs or action plans are the engine room for change. Plans are time-bound, and developed and reviewed on a regular basis in line with the sustainability targets. Each university will have its own targets and its own organisational structures for delivery. The structure developed for this Toolkit inte-grates models from many individual universities, uni-versity associations and other organisations reported in the literature, and practical experience in preparing and implementing environmental / sustainability action plans. It is designed to address:
- 24. Figure 3.4: Sustainability themes mapped onto management programs. on minor GHGs is available from the Intergovernmen-tal Panel on Climate Change website). Emission offsets such as tree planting and renewable energy credits also need to be included in the inventory. Inclusion of Scope 3 emissions will require significantly more detailed data collection – and rather than attempting to evaluate the emissions from all goods and services procured by the university, it is more practicable to start with one or a small number of high visibility examples, such as paper. A climate action plan limited to Scopes 1 and 2 will focus mainly on energy use; inclusion of Scope 3 will extend the system boundary to include solid waste management, transport (air travel, commuting) and procurement. The Cool Campus climate planning guide [43] produced by the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) describes suitable meth-ods for collecting and calculating Scope 3 emissions, and another NGO, Clean Air-Cool Planet, has produced a free downloadable campus carbon calculator. The major source of campus emissions in most cases will be purchased energy, hence the primary focus of a univer-sity climate action plan will generally be on energy man-agement. Energy management can be split into three discrete categories, which provide the framework for the energy-related elements of the climate action plan: Energy conservation – policy interventions and behaviour change programs; Energy efficiency opportunities – maintenance and capital works; Renewable and alternative energy solutions. The specific detail of the actions identified under each of these headings will of course depend on the context of the individual university. Table 3.4 outlines some sig-nificant opportunities under the headings listed above, adapted from the Cool Campus climate planning guide [43] and practical experience. Note also that there will be some overlap with other action plans. STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 35 The core biophysical aspects – energy, carbon and climate change; water consumption; waste generation; and biodiversity protection and en-hancement – which are pertinent to the great majority of the university’s operations and activi-ties; The main activity-specific aspects – campus planning, design and development, procure-ment of goods and services, sustainability of of-fices, laboratories and IT services, and transport (university related and commuter). Figure 34 maps four of the five sustainability themes – energy/climate, water, land and materials – against the portfolio of management programs / action plans. The depth of the shading indicates the strength of the connection between the theme and the plan, in other words the extent to which each plan addresses the objectives and targets set under each theme. The fifth theme – governance and administration – is implicit across all plans. Action plans for learning, teaching and research and community engagement are outside the scope of this Toolkit. The remainder of this Section summarises the possible content of action plans under the categories set out above – acknowledging also that some actions logically could be placed under more than one plan. Guidance is kept general, and is provided as a set of “prompts” (in tabular format) to initiate discussion rather than a blue-print. Examples and sources of further information are given where relevant. Most of the plans suggest employ-ment of a dedicated position (Energy Manager, Green Procurement Manager, etc.) – depending on the size of the university and available resources, some or all of these roles may be combined. 3.5.1 Energy, Carbon and Climate Change The challenge of climate change can serve as a fulcrum for institutional transformation. The ultimate necessity for carbon neutrality anticipates myriad opportunities for organisational learning across all aspects of higher education [64]. As noted above in Section 3.3 Selecting and defining indi-cators, measurement of Scope 1 and 2 emissions disag-gregated to source is regarded as the minimum require-ment to support climate change action planning. Best practice will address at least some Scope 3 emissions1. Development of a climate action plan – assuming the necessary policy, governance and administrative struc-tures are in place (see Section 3.1) will commence with the development of a GHG inventory. Where the focus is limited to Scope 1 and 2, this will include reference to utility billing data, and measurement or modelling of fu-gitive emissions of minor greenhouse gases such as re-frigerants used in air-conditioning systems and methane produced by any farm animals on campus (information 1 Scope 1 refers to direct emissions, e.g. CO2 released by burning fossil fuels on site or in university vehicles, and fugitive emissions of minor greenhouse gases; Scope 2 refers to indirect GHG emissions, resulting from purchased electricity, heat or steam; and Scope 3 refers to indirect emissions other than those covered by Scope 2, such as emissions associated with the production of goods and services purchased by the university, waste-related emissions and emissions from business travel or employee commuting in vehicles not owned or controlled by the university. SUSTAINABILITY MANAGEMENT THEMESPROGRAMS Energy & Climate Change Water Land Materials Energy, Carbon and Climate Change Water Waste Biodiversity and ecosystem services Planning, Design & Development Procurement Green Office Green Lab Green IT Transport Learning, Teaching and Research Community Engagement 36 Table 3.4: Climate action planning – some common energy-related actions. CATEGORY ACTION Energy conservation (policy and behaviour change) Employment of Energy Manager. Energy efficiency standards for new construction and refurbishments. Energy efficiency purchasing standards. Staff energy conservation training. Improved space utilisation to avoid new construction or heating/cooling of underutilised space. Thermal comfort policy (e.g. widening heating/cooling temperature settings). Financial strategies to assign energy costs incurred – and savings achieved – to the responsible cost centres. Energy / climate change awareness programs – posters, stickers, events and competitions, websites, awards and incentives for switching off, reporting waste etc. Establishment of “energy champions” network across campus buildings. Energy efficiency (maintenance and capital works) Detailed energy audit to identify priority areas. Periodic recommissioning and building tuning to optimise energy efficiency. Building retrofitting – installation of external shading devices, sealing, insulation, double glazing, low emissivity window film, light coloured paint. Lighting – delamping, installation of high efficiency lighting fixtures, use of task lighting, lighting controls (timers/ sensors). Heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) – high efficiency chillers, boilers, motors, pumps and air handling units, variable speed drives, variable air volume fan systems, recommissioning, tuning and regular maintenance, heat recovery systems. Laboratory ventilation and fume hoods – ventilated storage cabinets for storage, variable air volume and low-flow hoods. Installation of building management and control systems (BMCS) and sub-metering for major building energy uses, energy use displays. Renewable and alternative energy Purchase of certified “green power”. Installation of photovoltaic, wind, biomass, etc. systems. Installation of cogeneration and trigeneration. Fuel switching – conversion of electric space or water heating to natural gas. University managed revegetation program to offset greenhouse emissions.
- 25. STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 37 University energy management probably offers the best opportunities for achieving the “little victories” necessary to enable “systemic transformation” [6]. An important consideration here is developing a business case which itemises costs and savings. Many energy ac-tions (like switching off lights and equipment when not in use) are effectively cost free. Others will involve up-front cost which are paid back over time – and payback calculations should take account of energy price infla-tion, project life span and other monetary and non mon-etary savings such as reduced maintenance, impacts on health or comfort and pedagogic value (life cycle cost analysis) [43]. One useful method is to establish a revolving loan fund, whereby savings accruing from energy conservation and efficiency actions (and other sustain-ability initiatives) are placed in an account to fund other projects. Other potential actions to save energy and reduce greenhouse emissions can include outreach pro-grams such as collaboration with schools, local government and community organisations; service learning activities for students; engagement in the public policy process; and programs to support stu-dents and staff to reduce their own residential energy consumption [43]. The above recommendations focus on reducing emis-sions from stationary energy – electricity and gas. Universities may wish to combine a suite of emission-reducing actions around transport, waste, building de-sign, procurement, office and laboratory practices and IT into a single climate action plan, or include them in separate action plans around the abovementioned is-sues (which is the format given here). Either option is entirely valid. DISTANCE LEARNING AND GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS In the UK, distance learning requires 87% less energy and generates 85% fewer CO2 emissions than full-time courses on campus, and part-time campus-based courses reduce energy and CO2 emissions by 65 and 61% respectively compared with full-time [65]. The lower impacts of part-time and distance learning is due mainly to a reduction in student travel, elimina-tion of significant energy consumption from students’ housing and more efficient campus site utilisation. E-learning appears to offer only relatively small ener-gy and emission reductions (20 and 12% respectively) compared with mainly print-based distance learning courses, mainly because online learning requires more energy for computing and paper for printing. The most striking finding from this project was that distance learning can dramatically reduce the energy and emissions involved in studying to only 13-15% of those arising from an equivalent full-time, face-to-face campus-based course [65]. While these outcomes are specific to a particular time and place, they suggest that university sustainability programs should be ex-tended beyond addressing campus site impacts and greening the curriculum, and that the role of distance education should be further evaluated as a potential sustainability initiative. 3.5.2 Water Depending on location and climate, availability and conservation of adequate supplies of clean drinking water may be the most critical sustainability issue for a university. As well as conservation (policy and behav-iour change) and efficiency measures (maintenance and capital works), water management for sustainabil-ity generally includes actions to reuse and recycle po-table water for potable or non-potable purposes. Table 3.5 outlines some typical opportunities for managing campus water use, adapted from the University of New South Wales Water Savings Action Plan [66]. 38 Table 3.5: Actions for water conservation, efficiency, reuse and recycling. CATEGORY ACTION Water conservation (policy and behaviour change) Employment of Water Manager (can be combined Energy / Water Manager position). Water efficiency standards for new construction and refurbishments. Water efficiency purchasing standards. Staff water conservation training (can combine with energy conservation training). Financial strategies to assign water costs incurred – and savings achieved – to the responsible cost centres. Water conservation awareness programs – posters, stickers, events and competitions, websites, awards and incentives. Extension of “energy champions” network to incorporate water conservation. Water efficiency (maintenance and capital works) Detailed water audit and campus water balance to identify priority areas. Active maintenance program of early detection and repair of faulty plant, equipment and fixtures. Retrofitting of water saving devices – timed flow taps, waterless urinals, dual flush cisterns, eater efficient shower heads. Underground pipework leak detection and repair. Use of pervious paving. Specification of low water use species for campus grounds. Laboratory water use – mechanical vacuum infrastructure to replace use of aspirators, closed loop cooling water systems, water efficient reverse osmosis plant. Installation of building management and control systems (BMCS) and sub-metering for major building water uses, water use displays. Water reuse and recycling Capture and reuse of rainwater from roofs and other hard surfaces for non-potable uses (irrigation, laboratories, toilet flushing, cooling towers, construction works, swimming pools, etc.) – may also be treated to potable standard. Substitution of borewater for non-potable uses, when combined with managed aquifer recharge to ensure more water is returned to the aquifer than extracted (see also Section 7 of the Toolkit, Global exemplars). Installation of greywater recycling system for treatment of kitchen, laundry and shower water for non-potable uses. Composting toilets and urine recovery for fertiliser. Installation of blackwater recycling system to treat sewage for non-potable uses. Recovery and reuse of fire system test water, vehicle washdown water, etc. 3.5.3 Waste The central objective of a university solid waste action plan is to maximise resource recovery (i.e. the propor-tion of solid waste stream recovered for high resource value use), with the corollary that this minimises waste disposal to landfill. The main strategy is to apply the “waste hierarchy” – avoid purchasing products which will end up as waste, repair and reuse, then recycle, and finally if there are no other options, dispose. This also recognises that environmentally preferred pro-curement is a major factor in avoiding waste in the first place. Since the environmental impact of responsible waste management is inherently beneficial, continually im-proving the delivery of the service itself represents a positive sustainability action. Waste management is data intensive – but unlike energy and water, there are no “waste meters” to track performance. Hence regu-lar data collection and audits are necessary. The first step will usually be a full waste characterisation study to describe the waste stream, evaluate existing waste management practices and identify gaps, with the aim of informing the development of additional systems for avoidance, reuse and recovery.
- 26. UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA FOOD COMPOSTING PROGRAM March 3, 2010 – The University of Virginia plans to expand its pioneering food composting program to two more dining halls. Food waste from the Observatory Hill Dining Hall has been composted since November 2008. A student-run operation hauls about 2.5 tons of organic waste from the dining hall to Earlysville’s Panorama Farms each week, where it is composted and sold locally as a fertilizer and soil amendment. “We’ve reduced Observatory Hill’s trash service by half,” said Bruce “Sonny” Beale, recycling superintendent for the University. “We were picking up six to 10 tons a week. Now we are getting six to eight tons every two weeks.” A second food pulper has been installed in Newcomb Dining Hall. The pulp is placed in special 30-gallon containers, which the recycling office hauls to Panorama Farms. “This takes landfill material and turns it into a useful product,” said Jeff Sitler, environmental compliance manager at the Office of Environ-mental Health and Safety. “And it reduces greenhouse gases because food waste in a landfill generates methane gas. When you compost it is broken down by different microbes and does not produce methane.” He also noted that the material is composted locally and used locally in growing food and flowers. “This is a student-initiated learning tool,” Sitler said. “They collect the data and write all the reports.” Report edited from http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=11152, accessed 25/3/2012 Engagement with the university community requires a focus on best practice, accountability and transparency. Waste management systems must be more convenient to use than the alternative of throwing things away – because there is no “away”. So adequate information is crucial to progressing “towards zero waste”, and where dedicated off-site processing is available, it will reduce the need for user-unfriendly source separation systems on site. The university solid waste stream is usually extremely diverse, ranging from food organics to electronic waste and laboratory glassware, and actions to deal with these varied components need to be prioritised according to impact. Table 3.6 lists some common elements of a waste management action plan. STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 39 Table 3.6: Actions to maximise resource recovery and minimise waste to landfill. CATEGORY ACTION Policy and behaviour change Employment of Waste Manager. Sustainable procurement standards which address longevity, durability, repairability recyclability and recycled content. Financial strategies to assign waste costs incurred – and savings achieved – to the responsible cost centres. Waste management awareness programs – posters, stickers, events and competitions, websites, awards and incentives. Programs targeting teaching and research to minimise generation of hazardous wastes. Waste management Waste characterisation study to identify waste stream components and prioritise response. Individual staged and prioritised programs for waste minimisation which address each component of the university waste stream according to environmental impact. Performance-based waste management contracts to specify resource recovery targets. In-house collection of recyclables (e.g. paper / cardboard) where practicable, to support local job creation. Provision of adequate storage spaces for waste and recyclables. Secure storage spaces for hazardous wastes to minimise risk of spillage / leakage. Closing the loop Campus based exchange and reuse programs – e.g. office furniture, stationery, lab equipment, computers and office equipment. On-site composting of food and garden organics for reuse on campus grounds. Campus based programs to process collected recyclables – e.g. shredding of food-contaminated paper, broken furniture, etc. for compost and mulch. 40 3.5.4 Biodiversity and ecosystem services University campuses are located in practically every bi-oregion on the planet. Even in the most urbanised set-ting, a campus usually contains some greenery – trees, lawns and garden beds. Costanza et al identify 17 major categories of services provided by natural ecosystems, from climate regula-tion to pollination and recreation [67]. They estimate these services (via economic valuation methods, which they stress are hedged by uncertainties) as worth at least $US33 trillion annually worldwide. Their valuation was in 1994 US dollars, equivalent to at least $50 trillion in today’s money. Greater biodiversity enhances the resilience and productivity of these ecosystem services. Urban spaces in particular import ecosystem services from vast areas; “Eventually, human services in urban-ized areas decline as ecosystem services locally and globally are reduced by the increasing pressure posed by urbanization” [68]. Objectives for the design and management of campus green space should therefore address three distinct aspects: extending the area of vegetation where pos-sible (which may include, for example, the installation of green roofs; increase the density of vegetation, e.g. as measured by leaf area index, i.e. available photo-synthetic surface; and enhance the diversity of vegeta-tion. Targets can be set for all three aspects. “Ecologi-cally engineered” green infrastructure systems [69] (of which green roofs and walls are two examples) provide a means of addressing these aspects simultaneously. Similarly, development of productive landscape sys-tems to provide food, fibre and/or timber (e.g. through permaculture design) can address the economic, social and environmental bottom lines of sustainability at the same time. Finally, the specifically human element cannot be ig-nored – the design of the campus landscape should acknowledge the restorative effect of green spaces, and incorporate opportunities for quiet contemplation and relaxation, community interaction and more active rec-reation, to enhance health and wellbeing in an environ-ment which can often be intense and stressful. In relation to green infrastructure management, the key is to design in such a way as to minimise the ongo-ing impacts of maintenance (material and energy inputs and waste outputs). Table 3.1 discusses a range of sus-tainable management and maintenance opportunities. Table 3.7 outlines some potential action plan responses relating to biodiversity and ecosystem services policy, design and development. Table 3.7: Actions to preserve and enhance campus biodiversity and ecosystem services. CATEGORY ACTION Policy, design and development Survey and evaluation of campus biodiversity and ecosystem services. Extension of campus green space (consolidation / intensification of campus buildings over time, installation of green roofs / walls). Increase density of campus vegetation, e.g. through additional tree planting. Enhance diversity of campus vegetation. Green infrastructure / ecological engineering projects (green roofs / walls, designed wetlands for wastewater treatment, phytoremediation of contaminated land, indoor landscapes for biofiltration / indoor environmental quality). Development of productive landscape systems (permaculture, aquaponics) to provide food / fibre / timber. Restorative and enabling landscapes for contemplation, recreation and wellbeing. Campus grounds and green infrastructure used in teaching and research. Management and maintenance Refer to Table 3.1 for typical management and maintenance actions. Note that specialised green infrastructure (green roofs, designed wetlands, etc.) require specialised maintenance, which can both provide opportunities for local job creation and valuable student learning experiences.
- 27. STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 41 3.5.5 Planning, Design and Development Sustainability action plans relating to the planning, de-sign and development of the university campus provide the greatest opportunity to support the transition to sustainability over the longer term. Campus planning enables consideration of the effective campus-wide use of space to optimise the efficiency of built form, climate-appropriate location and orientation of new buildings, the extent and overall configuration of campus green space, interaction between the campus and the wider community, and many other criteria central to sustain-able development. The design of individual buildings and infrastructure offers the chance to implement and showcase best practice principles and technolo-gies and address the university’s largest single source of greenhouse emissions and other environmental im-pacts. Although not of the same scale, the construc-tion process itself is a significant generator of emis-sions, wastes and other adverse impacts, which can be minimised through appropriate actions. The physical, climatic and other attributes of university campuses vary enormously, but while recognising site specificity it is equally important, in facilitating imple-mentation, not to “reinvent the wheel”. So the starting point – especially for buildings – is to design and con-struct to the relevant “green building” rating system which applies in the given jurisdiction. The pertinent term here is “starting point”. With every new university building or major refurbishment the aim should be to include at least one feature which goes beyond the re-quirements of the rating system, ideally drawing on the expertise of the university itself, and thereby serving to extend the definition of a “green building” within the built environment industry. Table 3.8 sets out some generic actions for planning, design and development; detailed actions will be site-specific. Note that actions relating to biodiversity and ecosystem services may be equally appropriately in-cluded in an overall planning, design and development action plan, or (as in Section 3.5.4) treated separately – the main criterion should be efficiency of implementa-tion in the given context. Table 3.8: Actions to support sustainable campus planning, design and development. CATEGORY ACTION Campus planning Campus-specific sustainability objectives included in all campus planning instruments (i.e. considering climate and weather patterns, topography, geology/soils, hydrology, urban design context). Space planning at campus, precinct and building scale to optimise flexibility, adaptability, diversity and multifunctionality of spaces. Investigation of non-building solutions to accommodate university growth. Physical accessibility of the campus to the external community, different age groups and people with a disability. Campus building design Design to the appropriate green building rating system as the minimum starting point. Each new building / major refurbishment to incorporate at least one innovative sustainability feature beyond the requirements of the green building rating system. Campus construction management Construction contractors certified to ISO 14001. Contractor staff inducted to the university’s sustainability management system. Management of campus construction/demolition to minimise on- and off-site impacts. 42 3.5.6 Procurement Sustainable procurement is a major driver for sustain-able development. It also makes good business sense and is good risk management. Strategic procurement aligns supply contracts with the university’s strategic aims, thus embedding sustainability into procurement embeds it into the university’s core business. Sustainable procurement specifications may be perfor-mance based (e.g. incorporating an outcome driven target for reducing energy use) or technical (e.g. requirement for a particular certification or eco-label). In practice, specifi-cations for goods or services frequently combine both ap-proaches. In summary, sustainable procurement is about preference for purchased goods and services which mini-mise life cycle environmental impacts, meet ethical and OHS criteria and provide value for money. GLOBAL ECOLABELLING NETWORK The Global Ecolabelling Network (GEN) applies the Vol-untary Environmental Performance Labelling ISO (1420 –1425) definitions to a range of goods and services: TYPE I: a voluntary, multiple-criteria based, third party program that awards a license that authorizes the use of environmental labels on products indicating overall environmental preferability of a product within a particular product category based on life cycle con-siderations TYPE II: informative environmental self-declaration claims TYPE III: voluntary programs that provide quantified environmental data of a product, under pre-set cate-gories of parameters set by a qualified third party and based on life cycle assessment, and verified by that or another qualified third party. Reproduced from the Global Ecolabelling network, http://www.globalecolabelling.net/what_is_ecolabel-ling/ accessed 25/3/2012 The procurement process can usefully be divided into three main stages: the initial tendering process (speci-fication writing), tender evaluation; and contract man-agement. Sustainability criteria need to be addressed in all three stages. Specifications for provision of goods or services will necessarily include details specific to the product or service in question. Tender evaluation in ad-dition will usually seek to identify more general sustain-ability information. Best practice contract management will often utilise target-driven “service level agreements” which provide incentives for improved performance and disincentives for poor performance. Standard sustainability criteria for tender evaluation in-clude: Internal sustainability management prac-tices – ISO 14001(environmental) / 9000 (quality) certification; existence of signed sustainability policy; any actions or findings against the sup-plier in past 2 years. Fair employment practice – initiatives promot-ing women and/or minorities to senior roles; any employment related convictions or actions in past 2 years, including OH&S. Public reporting – corporate social responsibil-ity / Global reporting Initiative / greenhouse gas and energy reporting, including activities, strate-gies, plans. Sustainability strategies and plans – must include objectives, targets, actions and time-frames); examples of achievements; waste, water, energy, transport reduction strategies and action plans. Services / goods sustainability attributes – certification to a robust environmental label; pro-viders who offer eco-design /eco-manufacture in the use of recycled content, tight management of GHG emissions, , design for disassembly and recy-cling, best practice e-waste management, prod-uct / packaging take-back, recyclable packaging. Table 3.9 lists the “framework” actions necessary for a sustainable procurement action plan –actions relating to individual goods and services will fit within these frame-works.
- 28. Table 3.9: Core elements of sustainable procurement action planning. CATEGORY ACTION STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 43 Table 3.10: Actions to reduce the impacts of office work. CATEGORY ACTION Policy and behaviour change Employment of Green Office Manager. Sustainable procurement standards for office equipment and consumables. Education, training and awareness programs – induction of new staff, seminars and discussion groups, posters, stickers, events, websites, social media. Establishment of “Green Office champions” network across campus buildings as the vehicle for the energy and water conservation network proposed in Sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.2. Office practices Campus- wide audit of office practices disaggregated to department level – paper use, energy consumption, deployment and use of office equipment, procurement of consumables, office waste management. Establishment of department-specific targets for (e.g.) paper use, office waste, equipment left on overnight, etc.; monitoring of progress; and competitions between departments to drive continual improvement, including awards and incentives. Developing specifications Evaluation of university contracts for procurement of goods and services on the basis of cost, complexity and actual/potential sustainability impacts to determine priorities. Staged development of sustainable procurement standards / specifications based on identified priorities. Inclusion of sustainability criteria in tender specifications for procurement of goods and services. Tender evaluation Inclusion of sustainability criteria in tender evaluation procedures. Contract management Inclusion of sustainability objectives and targets in contract management documentation, and regular monitoring of progress. “Second party” audits of providers to drive continual improvement through the supply chain. 3.5.7 Green Office Universities are largely office-based institutions, and Green Office programs / action plans deal with the sus-tainability transformation of office practices. The Green Office “mandate” or terms of reference cross over into energy, water, waste, procurement and IT services. The focus is typically on education, training and awareness; the methods may include seminars and online discus-sion groups, websites, social media, newsletters and other promotion material, events and competitions. Specific actions – switching off appliances when not in use, turning off lights in vacant rooms, default double-siding for printing and copying, etc., when implemented university-wide may represent considerable monetary savings as well as a significant cumulative reduction in environmental impacts. Table 3.10 lists some generic Green Office actions around policy and behaviour change and improve-ments to office practices. 3.5.8 Green Laboratories Laboratories are complex environments which may stock hundreds or thousands of chemicals, compressed gases, biological agents, radioactive materials, fume hoods, biosafety cabinets, centrifuges, autoclaves, vac-uum systems, lasers, sophisticated electrical equipment and any number of other research items [70]. University labs commonly cater for researchers who are indepen-dently funded through external grants. These labs must continually accommodate new equipment and proce-dures; constant change makes it difficult for occupation-al health and safety, energy efficiency and other sustain-ability issues to be adequately and routinely addressed. Laboratory planning and design represents a key oppor-tunity to minimise environmental impacts, particularly those relating to energy consumption – labs typically consume 4-5 times more energy than similarly-sized commercial spaces [70]. The Laboratories for the 21st Century (Labs21) program provides extensive guidance 44 on the design and management of high performance labs. Strategies include using life-cycle costing to identi-fy energy efficiency opportunities, separating energy in-tensive processes and spaces from those which are less intensive to optimise mechanical and electrical design, “right-sizing” equipment and installing energy monitor-ing, control and recovery systems. Fume hoods are the primary means by which lab per-sonnel minimise their chemical exposure. A typical fume hood in a research lab runs 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and uses 3.5 times more energy than the average (western) house [70]. Careful planning for the number, size, location, and type of fume hoods is critical to ef-ficient laboratory performance. Water use is another major concern – a useful principle to adopt is that no potable water be used “once-through” for any labora-tory equipment, unless it is required as direct contact process water. Best practice also demands that universi-ties develop systems to track the inputs and outputs of hazardous materials, and establish procedures to elimi-nate, minimise, substitute, recycle and safely dispose of these materials [71]. LABORATORY GREENING ONLINE Behaviour change opportunities abound in the univer-sity laboratory setting [70]. The Green Lab Program at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia was one of the first of a growing number of specialist initiatives focusing on higher education labs. The pro-gram provides mandatory online environmental com-pliance training for research staff and students, cover-ing environmental best practice behaviour as well as legal obligations. Researchers learn to prepare a com-prehensive risk assessment before initiating new exper-iments, manage hazardous materials and wastes and conserve energy and water. This may involve the rede-sign of experiments to reduce material and energy use and toxic byproducts, utilise safer solvents and allow for greater reuse and recycling, for example through application of the principles of green chemistry. Table 3.11 describes some typical Green Lab actions re-lating to the three main areas of policy and behaviour changes, laboratory practice and maintenance and capi-tal works. Note that some actions also are listed in the En-ergy and climate change, Water and Waste action plans. Table 3.11: Actions to support laboratory “greening”. CATEGORY ACTION Policy and behaviour change Employment of a Green Lab manager. Development of a “green chemistry” program. Sustainable procurement standards for lab equipment and consumables. Green Lab online and face-to-face training. Laboratory practice Campus wide audit of university laboratories – energy, water, input and output of chemicals, hazardous waste management. Establishment of lab-specific prioritised targets for improvement. Development of online tracking system for chemical management (inputs, processes and outputs). Establish lab equipment / consumables exchange program to minimise waste. Maintenance and capital works Development of green laboratory design standards, e.g. referencing Labs21. Laboratory ventilation and fume hoods – ventilated storage cabinets for storage, variable air volume and low-flow hoods. Laboratory water use – mechanical vacuum infrastructure to replace use of aspirators, closed loop cooling water systems, water efficient reverse osmosis plant. Secure storage spaces for hazardous wastes to minimise risk of spillage / leakage.
- 29. STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENT TOOLS The IEEE 1680-2009 Standard for Environmental Assess-ment of Electronic Products [72] establishes environ-mental performance criteria for the design of electronic products and provides a valuable tool for developing contract specifications. The Electronic Product Environ-mental Assessment Tool (EPEAT®) offers a rating system for suppliers and a global registry to help purchasers identify greener electronic products [73]. It combines comprehensive criteria for design, production, energy use and recycling with ongoing independent verifica-tion of manufacturer claims. The Electronics Environ-mental STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 45 3.5.9 Green IT Information technology (IT) or more broadly, informa-tion and communication technology (ICT) is a pervasive element of most universities. IT integrates a spectrum of sustainability aspects – energy use, procurement, waste management, and even campus development (considera-tion of computer heat loads in building design). Actions to address the impacts of information technology may thus be spread across a number of action plans, or conversely, recognising the common management context, they may be amalgamated into a separate “Green IT” plan. The growing energy demand associated with the prolif-eration of IT services has prompted the development of a number of national and globally recognised standards and assessment tools (see box below). Actions around green IT can be conveniently grouped into two categories – policy and behaviour change and IT management and capital works. Table 3.12 lists some generic suggestions. to the former, the most effective action is to increase the proportion of student housing and related services provided on campus, to eliminate the need to com-mute to the university each day. In relation to the latter, the increasing availability and sophistication of video conferencing facilities can be utilised to substitute “vir-tual” for physical travel in many cases – and enable considerable savings on escalating travel costs. Table 3.13 outlines some generic actions to reduce green-house emissions and other environmental impacts of transport. Benefits Calculator (EEBC) was developed to help organisations assess the environmental benefits of greening their purchase, use and disposal of elec-tronics [74]. The EEBC estimates the environmental and economic benefits of purchasing EPEAT registered products and improving equipment operation and end-of- life management practices. Table 3.12: Actions to support the “greening” of university information technology. CATEGORY ACTION IT policy and behaviour change Adoption and implementation of IT purchasing standards (e.g. IEEE, EPEAT, etc.). “Switch off when not in use” awareness programs – posters, stickers, events and competitions, websites, awards and incentives. Standard operating environments (hardware and software). IT management and capital works) Reduce frequency of computer replacement programs – substitute software upgrades for hardware upgrades where possible. Centralised / dedicated server space(s) to avoid dispersing server heat loads across multiple buildings. Computer reuse program, e.g. donation to community groups / schools. E-waste program. Ensure energy saving features are enabled. 3.5.10 Transport Sustainability action planning around transport will probably involve the greatest variation between univer-sities based on location, existing public transport infra-structure and the extent to which residential and other services are provided on campus for students (and in some cases for staff). The two main areas – flagged in Section 3.5.1 Energy and climate change – are commuter travel and travel on university business (air or land-based). In relation 46 Table 3.13: Actions to reduce impacts of commuter and business travel. CATEGORY ACTION General Employment of Transport Manager. Development of university transport policy. Commuter transport Student housing and services on or close to campus. Awareness and promotion of alternatives to private transport – posters, stickers, events and competitions, websites, awards and incentives. Regular liaison with public transport providers to optimise services to the campus. Incentives for staff committing to forego use of private commuter transport. Secure, undercover bike racks, and shower facilities, lockers and bike repair workshop for cyclists. Car pooling programs. Reduction of car parking spaces and provision of dedicated spaces for car pool vehicles and electric vehicles (and also charging points). Establishment of shuttle bus service where the university has multiple campuses. Acknowledgement that for reasons of social equity, disability, etc. some staff and students will still need to use private vehicles to access the campus. Pedestrian-friendly campus to minimise internal motor vehicle trips. Travel on university business Acquisition and promotion of video conferencing technology to staff and students. University managed revegetation program to offset emissions for air travel, and/or commitment to “third party” carbon credit / carbon offset program. Purchase of fuel efficient vehicles for university fleet. Regular maintenance to optimise motor vehicle fleet fuel efficiency. 3.6 Awareness and training Awareness building and training opportunities need to be build into every sustainability action plan. Staff at all levels and new students should be introduced to sustainability awareness training as part of regular induction procedures, explaining the university’s sus-tainability policy and action plans, the impacts of the university’s activities (particularly around priority areas such as climate change) and the importance of compli-ance with relevant legislation and regulations. 3.6.1 Student and staff development ISO 14001 requires organisations to identify training needs associated with their environmental aspects for all persons performing tasks for or on behalf of the or-ganisation, i.e. contractors, subcontractors, agency staff, etc. as well as the permanent workforce. As with all as-pects of the EMS, training details and competence levels must be clearly documented, and documentation kept up to date. While training for (e.g.) office staff may be covered by the “general awareness” discussed above, it is essential that staff performing tasks with the potential to cause (or prevent) significant environmental impacts are appropriately trained and examined with respect to the appropriate competencies. Personnel performing specialised environmental man-agement functions must have appropriate education, competence, experience and training. It is important that such personnel are exposed to the most recent technology and knowledge base relevant to the or-ganisation’s significant environmental impacts. This includes those staff with responsibilities for delivering particular tasks associated with actions specified in the university’s sustainability action plans. Development plans which address these issues should be incorpo-rated into the university’s human resources policies and procedures (e.g. in relation to recruitment, performance review, promotion, etc.). Training and development opportunities should also be provided for students working as volunteers or interns
- 30. STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 47 on environmental or other sustainability projects. This may be integrated with, or managed separately from, the university’s usual curriculum, and may be run as an incentive scheme (e.g. fee-free) to encourage par-ticipation. University student associations are often well-placed to offer training and development, which can help to reinforce their stake in sustainable campus development. 3.6.2 The campus as living laboratory The Introduction to the Toolkit notes that “universities can teach and demonstrate the theory and practice of sustainability through taking action to understand and reduce the unsustainable impacts of their own activi-ties. Historically, the demands of teaching and research resulted in the structural separation of academic staff from campus management. This has led to the view that focusing on campus issues is a distraction from the core mission of the university. In fact, the campus itself can become a feedback mechanism for the teaching and research practice to “achieve mission alignment between teaching, research and campus operations, harnessing the vast collective learning process that is currently underway within its walls, to benefit its own systems” [6]. Such projects broadly reflect the philosophy of experi-ential learning. Kolb [75] offers a concise summation: “Learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience”. This defini-tion emphasises process as distinct from content or outcomes, and importantly, the transformative nature of that process, in both an objective and a subjective sense. Within this experiential framework, environmen-tal learning is best served by an approach which is both context-based, responsive to social context and setting [76]; and problem-based, characterised by the use of “real world” problems as the context for students to learn critical thinking and problem-solving skills [77]. The literature and many university websites offer a substantial and growing inventory of examples of the university campus as living laboratory (and lecture the-atre) for applied sustainability interventions. Examples include projects from first year to PhD level, and include all aspects of sustainability – environmental, social, economic and cultural. UNIVERSITY OF SONORA CERTIFIED SUSTAINABILITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM One of the most successful efforts in Latin America to transform a higher education institution into a more sustainable organisation has come from the Univer-sity of Sonora in Mexico. Sustainable practice at the University of Sonora is inspired by the institutional vision and mission and reflected in the sustainability policy which fosters a culture of protecting natural resources and prevent-ing, reducing and/or eliminating environmental and occupational risks. The University’s sustainability initiatives address the full scope of its activities – teaching, research, out-reach and partnership and campus greening. A Sus-tainability Management System (SMS) provides the framework for greening campus operations. The SMS achieved ISO 14001 certification in 2008, enabling the University of Sonora to become one of the few higher education institutions in the world with this certifica-tion, and the first in Latin America. The SMS is not only directed at sustainable opera-tions, but also strives to enhance Engineering Col-lege students’ education through practical appren-ticeships with an integrated triple bottom line focus. From the start, the system has been linked to the sub-stantive functions of teaching and research in order to transform the campus into a living laboratory for continual learning. Areas of attention include efficient use of water and energy, laboratory safety and haz-ardous materials management as well as the reduc-tion, reuse, and recycling of non-hazardous materials such as paper, plastic and organic waste. A quarterly report provides the basis for review and evaluation of the SMS to ensure its effectiveness. Strong emphasis is put on continuous improvement and over-all performance shown by sustainability indicators. The appropriateness of the sustainability policy is also reviewed, as well as achievement of the objectives and targets, regulatory compliance, corrective and preven-tive actions and the findings of internal audits. Text adapted from Velázquez, L., Munguía, N., Esquer, J. and Zavala, A., 2011. “Sustainable Good Practices in the University of Sonora, Mexico”, Global University Network for Innovation http://www.guni-rmies.net/ news/detail.php?id=1750; Image from Universidad de Sonora/University of Sonora website http://www. uson.mx/noticias/default.php?id=6511, accessed 21/08/2011. 48 For universities embarking on the transition to sustain-ability, logical opportunities to pursue include deter-mination of the university’s baseline environmental / sustainability performance through an initial environ-mental or sustainability review, preparation of a sustain-ability report, or conducting a carbon footprint analysis, as assessable components of an environmental science or engineering program. Generally these tasks would be class based; individual or small team based studies could include post-occupancy evaluation of a specific campus building, energy, water or waste audits of par-ticular activities, life cycle assessment of goods or ser-vices procured by the university or life cycle costing of proposed sustainability actions. Even this brief summary indicates the potential to in-volve different disciplines individually and collectively in campus based projects. Sociologists and historians can explore the background to university sustainability management with a view to informing current policy; law students can research the applicability of environ-mental legislation to campus operations; medical stu-dents can address issues of public health; psychologists can investigate opportunities and barriers to organisa-tional change and the adoption of sustainable behav-iours – and this is just a partial list. There are several different models for implementing “living laboratory” initiatives: Student internships, paid or unpaid, with the sustainability team. These would include an ap-propriate level of academic credit awarded for successfully completed projects. Inclusion of teaching and assessment material on campus sustainability in an existing course. A specific course focused on campus sustainabil-ity. Ideally this would be cross-disciplinary, and open to students from different fields of study. Integration of teaching and assessment mate-rial on campus sustainability across a number of courses, covering a range of disciplines and coor-dinated with implementation of the university’s sustainability action plans. This is the preferred model to support the university’s ongoing transi-tion to sustainability, and will likely require sev-eral iterations of the sustainability planning cycle to achieve. The campus can also function as a living laboratory for staff and student research, with similar scope as in learning and teaching. The advantage here is that the outcomes are likely to be more long-lasting, for exam-ple involving potentially major innovations affecting the campus fabric and operations, and also providing new resources for learning and teaching into the future. The main criterion – whether in relation to teaching or re-search – is that living laboratory programs are integral to the university’s sustainability management system and action plans. 3.7 Communications and documentation “Communications” in this context refers to internal communications relevant to the development, main-tenance and continual improvement of the university’s sustainability management system. Strategies for com-munication with internal stakeholders should consider the range of variables addressed in Section 2.4 of the Toolkit relating to community engagement. Each sus-tainability action plan will need to incorporate a com-munications strategy to facilitate engagement of the university community and maximise the chances of success – although in practice some of these may be combined. ISO 14063: 2006 Environmental management - Envi-ronmental communication - Guidelines and examples, one of the International Organization for Standardiza-tion “family” of environmental management stand-ards [78], gives guidance to an organisation on gen-eral principles, policy, strategy and activities relating to both internal and external environmental com-munication. For example, communications activities should enhance two-way communication, promote consensus, provide opportunities to address issues in depth and promote education and awareness. ISO 14063 suggests setting targets for communication, for example in terms of stakeholder participation and feedback obtained. Approaches and tools may include minuted meetings (possibly with an inde-pendent facilitator where the issues are particularly complex), newsletters, social media, focus groups and workshops, displays and exhibitions.
- 31. Measurement of performance against agreed sustainability indicators (see for example the list of recommended core indicators in Table 3.2); Extent of achievement of detailed sustainability targets; Any changes in relation to sustainability impacts and their significance, as a result of changes in internal or external circumstances since the last audit (for example a new research project which requires storage, use and disposal of hazardous materials); Any changes to the university’s fabric or opera-tions which may affect overall sustainability per-formance (for example increase in greenhouse emissions resulting from the construction of a new building). Any organisational changes which may affect overall sustainability performance. System documentation should include proce-dures for internal audits which cover the audit scope, frequency and methodology, as well as the responsibilities for implementation and re-porting results. Internal auditors must demon-strate objectivity and impartiality, ideally by being independent of the organisational unit responsi-ble for the establishment and day-to-day man-agement of the system being audited. Table 3.14 Shows an internal audit checklist which cov-ers the common system attributes of a sustainability management system. The heading “Corrective and pre-ventive action” refers to system issues; potential envi-ronmental incidents are addressed under the heading “Emergency preparedness and response” (noting of course that system nonconformities may give rise to en-vironmental incidents). Each university will have its own individual system attrib-utes which require checking; similarly, the combination of indicators, targets, significant impacts, etc. will be unique to every university, so the content of an internal sustainability audit will invariably be unique to the given institution. Table 3.14: A basic sustainability management system audit checklist. SYSTEM ELEMENT THE AUDITOR IS LOOKING FOR EVIDENCE THAT… Sustainability policy There is top management commitment; the policy is distributed internally; the policy is available to the public Organisational Management responsibility is assigned; specific roles / responsibilities are defined at each level / function; structure roles / responsibilities are understood and communicated Training and awareness Training needs are identified; appropriate training is conducted at each level / function; competence is determined; training records are kept Sustainability aspects / impacts Sustainability aspects / impacts are identified; significance is determined; procedures exist to update information Legal requirements Legal and regulatory requirements are identified; this information is accessible; procedures exist to update information Objectives and targets Appropriate objectives and targets are set at each level / function; objectives and targets are regularly reviewed; views of the university community are considered in setting objectives and targets Sustainability action plans Responsibilities are designated at each level / function; appropriate resources are allocated and time frames are set; plans are reviewed and updated Documentation and document control Core system documentation exists, is up to date and controlled; documentation is cross-referenced; documentation is reviewed and approved; documents are available where needed; procedures exist for creation and modification of documents Communication and reporting Procedures exist for communicating internally and externally; there are records of internal and external communications Emergency preparedness and response There are documented emergency procedures; capability exists for emergency response and mitigation; procedures are tested and reviewed Corrective and preventive action There are procedures for preventing, recording, handling and investigating nonconformities and preventing recurrence; effectiveness of corrective and preventative actions is reviewed; changes are made to documented procedures arising from corrective/preventive actions; roles, responsibilities and authorities are established for handling nonconformities Internal audit There is an internal audit program and audit procedures; internal audit responsibilities are set and understood; audit reports exist and recommendations are followed up; internal auditors demonstrate objectivity and impartiality STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 49 Responsibilities for communication with the university community around sustainability issues should be de-fined and allocated, and should also include media / communications staff responsible for other areas of in-ternal university communications. The effectiveness of communication activities should be regularly evaluated to help drive the continual improvement cycle. “Documentation” – in the context of ISO 14001 – simply refers to the need for all aspects of the university’s sus-tainability management system to be documented, and the records to be centrally maintained and kept up to date. Documentation includes obvious material such as policies, plans, minutes of meetings and training records – but importantly, the EMS standard (and good man-agement practice) requires that system procedures be documented and maintained. This includes procedures for stakeholder engagement, identifying and assessing the significance of environmental impacts, conducting initial reviews and internal audits, setting objectives and targets, and so on. Section 1.5 points out that “…the loss of corporate memory through staff turnover and the transience of the student population can mean mistakes are repeated, previous high performing initiatives are not emulated and it becomes difficult to build on progress…” Ensuring comprehensive and current documentation minimises this scenario. 3.8 Emergency preparedness and response Universities are not usually associated with environmen-tal emergencies such as spills or inadvertent release of air pollutants. However, the range of hazardous materials stored on many campuses, the variety of teaching and research endeavours in which these materials are used, and also the scope of operational activities, highlights the need to be prepared for potential emergencies. ISO 14001 outlines the requirements for emergency preparedness and response for organisations subscrib-ing to an environmental management system, and this advice is relevant to universities which have committed to the path of sustainable development. As a minimum, documented procedures should be established, main-tained and periodically reviewed for identifying hazards and risks, responding to accidents and emergency situ-ations and for preventing and mitigating the potential environmental impacts associated with them. Periodic exercise of such procedures should be undertaken where practicable. Emergency preparedness and response needs to be included in the training provided to those staff (and contractors) responsible for teaching, research or op-erational areas with the potential to cause significant environmental impacts, and those providing specialised environmental management services for the university. 3.9 Closing the loop: monitoring, evaluating and communicating progress Regular monitoring, evaluation and communication of progress are integral aspects of mainstream business culture, and thus should be integral to sustainability as a mainstream university activity. Audits provide a way of tracking progress towards achievement of objectives and targets and – through implementation of audit recommendations – driving continual improvement. Management review enables update of policies and objectives to align with changing circumstances, and the effectiveness of the system overall. Sustainability reporting informs the university and wider community of what has been achieved, and equally, what remains to be achieved [79]. Figure 3.2 illustrates the functions of auditing, review and reporting in the overall context of the sustainability management system. 3.9.1 Internal audit ISO 14001 Environmental management systems – Speci-fication with guidance for use requires organisations to conduct internal audits at planned intervals to objec-tively verify the adequacy and effectiveness of the EMS. These are system audits which are aimed at continual improvement in the performance of the system, hence only indirectly address continual improvement in the objective sustainability performance of the university. Best practice suggests combining internal system audits with periodic evaluation of the university’s sustainability performance as required to inform production of the sus-tainability report. This is effectively a repeat of the initial review conducted to determine the institution’s baseline performance, and matters to consider will include: 50 Management review Management review is occurring; follow-up actions from management review are implemented; recommendations from management reviews are incorporated into the system
- 32. STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 51 3.9.2 Management review In addition to regular internal audits (usually annual, or otherwise aligned with the frequency of publication of the sustainability report), the university’s senior management is expected to implement a high level review of the sustain-ability management system at defined intervals. A four or five yearly cycle should generally be adequate. The intent is that core elements of the system such as the university’s sustainability policy, objectives, resourcing arrangements and so on are reviewed at the level of management which defined these elements in the first place. Matters to be considered in a management review will include: The continuing relevance of the sustainability pol-icy, and sections which may need to be updated in the light of changing internal or external circum-stances (for example new teaching or research pri-orities or government greenhouse legislation); The overall performance of the system, and in particular the extent to which objectives and tar-gets have been met; Establishment of new, high level objectives and targets (the setting of more detailed and spe-cific targets is addressed in the development of sustainability action plans rather than at senior management level); The status of corrective and preventative actions relating to any environmental incidents or regula-tory non-compliances which may have occurred; Relevant communications from external stake-holders (government bodies, industry, the local community, etc.); Any follow-up actions from previous manage-ment reviews; Any other recommendations for improvement. 3.9.3 Preparing a sustainability report Sustainability reporting has been defined as “the prac-tice of measuring, disclosing, and being accountable to internal and external stakeholders for organizational performance towards the goal of sustainable develop-ment... A sustainability report should provide a bal-anced and reasonable representation of the sustainabil-ity performance of a reporting organization – including both positive and negative contributions.” [49]. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is an independent international foundation based in The Netherlands. It has developed a comprehensive sustainability report-ing framework, based around a set of principles and performance indicators which organisations can use to measure and report their economic, environmental, and social performance. The GRI promotes a standardised approach to sustain-ability reporting which has been used by thousands of organisations worldwide. All GRI Reporting Framework documents are developed using a process that seeks consensus through dialogue between stakeholders from business, the investor community, labour, civil so-ciety, accounting, academia and others [49]. The GRI Framework consists of the Sustainability Report-ing Guidelines, Sector Supplements and the Technical Protocol - Applying the Report Content Principles. The Guidelines set out Performance Indicators and Manage-ment Disclosures which organisations can adopt volun-tarily, flexibly and incrementally, enabling them to be THE PLATFORM FOR SUSTAINABILITY PERFORMANCE IN EDUCATION The Platform for Sustainability Performance in Edu-cation brings together organisations which have created sustainability assessment tools designed to support universities and colleges around the world. The purpose of this Platform is to promote sustaina-bility assessment in education. By coming together it is our goal that more universities and colleges learn about the value of sustainability assessment tools to improve the sustainability performance across the whole of their institution. The Platform is also designed to assist commitments of Higher Education Sustainable Initiative (HESI) sig-natories, by providing a range of tools and options in assessing and improving their sustainability per-formance. It can also support complimentary Rio+20 initiatives such as the People’s Sustainability Treaty on Higher Education. http://www.eauc.org.uk/theplatform/home 52 transparent about their performance in critical sustain-ability areas. Sector Supplements address sector-specific issues, and the Technical Protocol provides process guid-ance on preparing a sustainability report and how to de-fine the content. A university sustainability report should reflect both the institution’s mission and activities, and the expectations of the university community and other stakeholders. Thus the context – if not the content – is consistent with accepted global practice such as represented by the GRI. The GRI Guidelines are intended to be applicable to most organisations irrespective of size, type, sector or location. However, while many indicators are relevant to universi-ties others are not, and the core university mission of teaching, research and outreach is not addressed. The GRI defines the base content which should appear in a sustainability report (“standard disclosures”) as follows [49]: “Strategy and Profile: Disclosures that set the overall context for understanding organizational performance such as its strategy, profile, and gov-ernance. “Management Approach: Disclosures that cover how an organization addresses a given set of top-ics in order to provide context for understanding performance in a specific area. “Performance Indicators: Indicators that elicit comparable information on the economic, en-vironmental, and social performance of the or-ganization.” Table 3.15 Illustrates a generic table of contents for a uni-versity sustainability report based on the above criteria. INTRODUCTION TO BALL STATE UNIVERSITY SUSTAINABILITY REPORT 2010 At Ball State University, we have a long history of identifying and implementing methods to protect and enhance our environment. We are proud to maintain this forward momentum by our active use of the Sus-tainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System1 (STARS); a reporting tool now in use by some 675 cam-puses throughout North America. In fact, we are on schedule to file our first full STARS Report by the close of this calendar year. As a compliment to this nation-wide collaboration to report on campus sustainability, we have been work-ing through our Ball State University Building Better Communities (BBC) Fellows Program to explore the use of an additional assessment tool: the Global Re-porting Initiative2 (GRI). Like STARS, this tool provides a framework for reporting sustainability performance and it is in use today by some 1500 organizations in over 60 countries. An interdisciplinary team of students working within our BBC Fellows program, under the direction of Dr. Gwen White, Associate Professor in the Miller College of Busi-ness, was instrumental in gathering the information nec-essary to construct this first GRI Sustainability Report for BSU. Through this experience they have become versed in environmental, social and economic sustainability, developed leadership skills, and worked in a collabora-tive environment. Their efforts contribute to our actions to protect and enhance our environment. With the country’s largest geothermal project under-way on our campus, our biennial Greening of the Cam-pus Conference Series and our very active campus-wide Council on the Environment, we maintain a substantial investment in achieving campus sustainability. The use of STARS and GRI for annual Sustainability Reporting extends that work as a valuable resource for our full academic community: our students, faculty, staff and administrators. Jo Ann Gora President Ball State University Sustainability Report accessed 24/3/2011 at http:// cms.bsu.edu/Academics/CentersandInstitutes/COTE/ Sustainability/GRI.aspx,
- 33. 65 STRATEGIES FOR INITIATING TRANSFORMATION GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 53 Table 3.15: Table of contents for a university sustainability report consistent with the GRI . TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION OF CONTENTS Foreword Signed statement from the University Vice-Chancellor / President. Organisational profile and governance Brief description, background, mission and explanation of the governance structure of the University. Strategy and analysis Strategic summary of how the University is addressing the challenges of sustainable development (e.g. vision, policy, sustainability management system). Reporting parameters Scope, system boundary and methodology of the report. Environment The substantive subject matter of the report. These sections (divided into subsections which reflect the detailed content of the University’s sustainability management system) will report on movements in the indicators, achievement of objectives and targets and progress in implementation of action plans. They will generally contain a combination of narrative and quantitative material (including graphics). Society Economy Conclusions Summary of the report and its findings. This section can usefully include a gap analysis (what was planned but not achieved, and what opportunities have emerged during the reporting period which can inform the next round of sustainability action planning). Other key principles embraced by the GRI, and which are relevant to university sustainability reporting, are: Materiality – defined as “the threshold at which topics or Indicators become sufficiently impor-tant that they should be reported”; Stakeholder inclusiveness – or how the report-ing organisation has responded to the reasona-ble expectations and interests of its stakeholders; Sustainability context – the report should pre-sent the organisation’s performance in the wider context of sustainability; Completeness – coverage should be sufficient to reflect significant economic, environmental and social impacts and enable stakeholders to assess the reporting organisation’s performance for the reporting period. Further, the GRI has established a set of principles for defining the quality of a sustainability report: balance, comparability, accuracy, timeliness, clarity and reliability. 3.9.4 Marketing, promotion and celebrating success This Section does not aim to provide guidance on how to market and promote the university’s sustainability initiatives or celebrate successes. There are probably as many ways of doing this as there are universities engag-ing with sustainable development. The Section is simply intended to reinforce the importance of these factors. Especially at the outset, the transition to sustainabil-ity can seem a daunting prospect. Sustainable devel-opment in many instances is still seen as outside the mainstream, unconnected to the teaching / research mission, perhaps an optional extra to be “appended” to core business but not core university business in and of itself. Reality imparts a harsher message; sustainability is not “optional”, it is not an “extra”, it is an imperative we neglect to the detriment of our environments, our socie-ties and ultimately our economies. That said, presentation of “doom and gloom” scenarios may help to initiate transformation, but cannot sustain it. Sustained transformation requires motivated cham-pions. Motivation requires hope for the future. Strategies for transformation demand affirmation and reinforce-ment of motivation at every stage. Knowledge helps drive motivation, and in this universities are ideally placed. Moreover, champions are necessary, but insufficient on their own. The great bulk of the university community must be engaged in the transition to sustainability for there to be any chance of success. Collective celebration of victories big or small reinforce the sense of communi-ty, that together we can transform our institutions – and ourselves – one step at a time. Finally, universities do not exist in a vacuum, they are part of an environment, a society, an economy. So for exam-ple the transient nature of the bulk of the university com-munity – the student body – is at once a weakness and a strength. While sustainability strategies and campaigns must continually be reinvented to cope with the regular changeover of the campus population, graduating stu-dents each year bring all that they have learnt to the wider world of work, citizenship and new responsibilities. As emphasised in the Introduction to this toolkit, “The sustainable university can help catalyse a more sustainable world”. The clock tower on the campus of the university of british columbia ubc in vancouver © SHUTTERSTOCK
- 34. 67 Recognising and rewarding progress SECTION 4 RECOGNISING AND REWARDING PROGRESS GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 55 Having achieved initial successes in sustainable devel-opment it is natural that universities will want to see how they compare with their peers, from both a bench-marking and a marketing perspective. Benchmarking against comparable institutions promotes continual improvement; public recognition can attract funding, students and high quality academic and operational staff. However, the operative word here is comparable. As noted throughout this Toolkit, universities operate in a wide range of circumstances, with huge disparities in geography and climate, resources, curriculum, student and staff numbers, research profiles and so on. Most benchmarking and award programs are managed through individual national university sustainability as-sociations, although growing international collabora-tion is beginning to extend the scope of such programs across national boundaries. At present though, the pool of potential award winners is fairly restricted by the se-lection criteria for the awards. Establishment of a truly global scheme presupposes a level playing field. Clearly conventional quantitative benchmarking – the “score-card” model – is inappropriate in this context. The alternative is a “continual improvement” model, which rewards universities based not on absolute per-formance but on measured improvement against self-identified objectives, incorporating evaluation of crea-tivity and innovation and normalised against economic, social and climatic factors. This model will need further research and considerable discussion between national and international university sustainability organisations to bring to fruition. The most widely recognised existing award programs are briefly summarised below. The International Sustainable Campus Network (ISCN) established the International Sustainable Campus Ex-cellence Awards in 2009. These awards recognise pro-jects which demonstrate leadership, creativity, effec-tiveness and outstanding performance in the areas of Building, Campus, Integration and Student Initiatives. The Green Gown Awards now in their 9th year, recognise exceptional initiatives being taken by universities and colleges across the UK to become more sustainable. Now run by the UK’s Environmental Association for Uni-versities and Colleges (EAUC), the Awards were created to recognise and reward those institutions making a positive impact towards sustainability within the edu-cation sector. In 2012 there were 13 Award categories, including continuous improvement, student initiatives and campaigns, social responsibility, carbon reduction and courses. Building on this success and keen to em-brace international collaboration, Australasian Cam-puses Towards Sustainability (ACTS) formally launched the Green Gown Awards Australasia in 2010. The cat-egories cover continuous improvement, learning and teaching, student campaigns, Technical and Further Education (TAFE) colleges and smaller institutions, and the ACTS Award of Excellence. In 2012 the Green Gown Awards launched the Interna-tional Green Gown Awards. This initially incorporates the winning entries from the UK and Australasia going head to head on 3 categories to gain an International Green Gown Awards. The Green Gown Awards will also be delivered in France in 2014 and will be included in the International Green Gown Awards. The Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) presents two Campus Sus-tainability Case Study Awards, one Faculty Sustainabil-ity Leadership Award, one Innovation in Green Building Award, one Student Sustainability Leadership Award, and one Student Research on Campus Sustainability Award annually. The awards are presented at AASHE’s annual conference. The Association comprises member institutions across 18 countries. © SHUTTERSTOCK Harvard University campus in Boston with trees, boat and blue sky.
- 35. Resources for change SECTION 5 RESOURCES FOR CHANGE GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 57 The emergence and diffusion of individual campus greening initiatives in the late 1980s soon led to existing university coalitions and associations adding sustain-ability criteria to their terms of reference, establishment of new organisations, convening of conferences, adop-tion of high level declarations and charters and the pub-lication of a rising tide of print and online resources. This Section of the Toolkit brings together and summarises the material: associations; international commitments; online tools; books and journals; and sustainability award programs. The list does not attempt to be all-inclusive – this is a rapidly expanding field – but includes the most widely recognised, readily available and rel-evant resources for university senior management, aca-demic and operational staff and students to support the transition towards sustainability. 5.1 International and regional associations This list includes only those bodies which are interna-tional in scope – i.e. with member universities across several countries. Many nations have their own univer-sity sustainability organisations, and many generalist university organisations include sustainability interest groups or activity streams. Global Higher Education for Sustainability Partnership (GHESP) “Four international organisations with a strong commit-ment to making sustainability a major focus of higher education have formed the Global Higher Education for Sustainability Partnership (GHESP). The four founding partners of the initiative – the International Association of Universities, the University Leaders for a Sustainable Fu-ture, Copernicus Campus and UNESCO – combine forces in a unique effort to mobilise universities and higher edu-cation institutions to support sustainable development in response to Chapter 36 of Agenda 21.” University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (ULSF) “The mission of the Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (ULSF) is to support sustainability as a critical focus of teaching, research, operations and outreach at colleges and universities worldwide through publications, research, and assessment.” Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) “AASHE is helping to create a brighter future of opportu-nity for all by advancing sustainability in higher educa-tion. By creating a diverse community engaged in sharing ideas and promising practices, AASHE provides adminis-trators, faculty, staff and students, as well as the business that serve them, with: thought leadership and essential knowledge resources; outstanding opportunities for pro-fessional development; and a unique framework for dem-onstrating the value and competitive edge created by sustainability initiatives.” Global University Network for Innovation (GUNI) “The Global University Network for Innovation - GUNI is composed of the UNESCO Chairs in Higher Education, higher education institutions, research centers and net-works related to innovation and the social commitment of higher education. 179 institutions from 68 countries are GUNI members.” International Sustainable Campus Network (ISCN) “The International Sustainable Campus Network (ISCN) provides a global forum to support leading colleges, uni-versities, and corporate campuses in the exchange of in-formation, ideas, and best practices for achieving sustain-able campus operations and integrating sustainability in research and teaching. The ISCN sponsors a biannual symposium, conferences, several standing committees, has developed a charter that more than 20 world leading universities have endorsed, and is dedicated to building a gallery of outstanding projects that showcase excellence and leadership from all continents.” 58 COPERNICUS Alliance “The COPERNICUS Alliance is the European Network on Higher Education for Sustainable Development. The vi-sion of the COPERNICUS Alliance is to promote the role of Sustainable Development in European Higher Education to improve education and research for sustainability in partnership with society.” International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU) “The International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU) is a collaboration between ten of the world’s leading research-intensive universities who share similar visions for higher education, in particular the education of future leaders... The Alliance has identified sustainable solu-tions on climate change as one of its key initiatives. As a demonstration of its commitment to promote sustain-ability, IARU has sought to lead by example through the establishment of the Campus Sustainability Programs aimed at reducing the environmental impact of our cam-pus activities.” Alianza de redes iberoamericanas de universidades por la sustentabilidad y el ambiente - ARIUSA “ARIUSA is a network of environmental university created in Bogota October 26, 2007 by a group of University Net-works in Environment and Sustainability (RUAS), collect-ed during the “Fourth International Congress University and Environment”, organized by the Colombian Network of Education environmental (RCFA).The basic purpose or mission is to promote and support ARIUSA coordination of actions in the field of environmental education superior, and the scientific and academic cooperation between University Networks for Environment and Sustainability”. 5.2 International agreements and declarations Since the formulation of the Talloires Declaration in 1990, regional and international university conferences have generated a range of agreements, declarations and charters on university sustainability. As at 2011 universities and intergovernmental institutions had developed some 30 university sustainability declara-tions, and more than 1400 universities worldwide had signed such a document [40]. A declaration represents a high level statement of commitment to a sustainable future; as such it can offer general guidance, but is not designed to provide specific direction. The most widely adopted examples are listed below. Talloires Declaration “Composed in 1990 at an international conference in Tal-loires, France, this is the first official statement made by university presidents, chancellors, and rectors of a com-mitment to environmental sustainability in higher educa-tion. The Talloires Declaration (TD) is a ten-point action plan for incorporating sustainability and environmental literacy in teaching, research, operations and outreach at colleges and universities. It has been signed by over 400 university leaders in over 50 countries.” Copernicus Charter The University Charter for Sustainable Development is an instrument created by Copernicus, an inter-university co-operation programme on the environment, established by the Association of European Universities. The Charter expresses a collective commitment on behalf of a large number of universities. It represents an effort to mobilize the resources of institutions of higher education to further concept and objective or sustainable development. Halifax Declaration “Over the period 8-11 December 1991, the presidents and senior representatives of 33 universities from 10 countries on 5 continents met in Halifax, Canada to take stock of the role of universities regarding the environment and development. They were joined by a number of senior representatives from business, the banking community, governments, and non-governmental organizations. The meetings were sponsored by the International Asso-ciation of Universities, the United Nations University, the Association of Universities and Colleges Canada and Dal-housie University, Canada.” Creating a Common Future: The Halifax Declaration and Action Plan was released at the end of the conference.
- 36. RESOURCES FOR CHANGE GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 59 Swansea Declaration “At Swansea, Wales, in August 1993, participants in the As-sociation of Commonwealth Universities (ACU) 15th Quin-quennial Congress drawn from over 400 universities in 47 different countries met to address the challenge of ‘Peo-ple and the Environment - Preserving the Balance’. They engaged in a quest for the ways by which the universi-ties of the ACU, their leaders, scholars and students might engage and deploy their unique common traditions and comity to respond appropriately to this challenge.” Kyoto Declaration “The Kyoto Declaration on Sustainable Development was issued following the Ninth International Association of Universities Round Table in 1993. Linked to Agenda 21 and the outcomes of the United Nations Commission on Environment and Development Conference in Rio de Janeiro, the Declaration called for universities to seek, establish and disseminate a clearer understanding of sustainable development.” The American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) “The ACUPCC is a high-visibility effort to address global climate disruption undertaken by a network of colleges and universities that have made institutional commit-ments to eliminate net greenhouse gas emissions from specified campus operations, and to promote the re-search and educational efforts of higher education to equip society to re-stabilize the earth’s climate. Its mis-sion is to accelerate progress towards climate neutrality and sustainability by empowering the higher education sector to educate students, create solutions, and provide leadership-by-example for the rest of society”. The Scottish Universities and Colleges Climate change Commitment for Scotland “Scotland’s universities and colleges have publicly de-clared their intention to address the challenges of climate change and reduce their carbon footprints by signing the Universities and Colleges Climate Commitment for Scot-land (UCCCfS) - this programme is delivered by the EAUC and funded by the Scottish Funding Council. Signatories produce and publish a 5-year Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) which will be incorporated into established improvement processes, with the aim to achieve a signifi-cant reduction in emissions”. 5.3 Online tools and resources There is a growing list of online resources designed to help universities to develop sustainably. These include self-assessment reporting frameworks and question-naires, guidelines and case study databanks. Most na-tional sustainable campus associations provide at least some best practice case studies and checklists for ref-erence. The list below includes the more widely known and internationally relevant examples. Charter and Guidelines (ISCN) “The ISCN promotes continuous improvement through learning and innovation on all aspects of sustainability on campus. Key goals in this respect are summarized in the ISCN-GULF Sustainable Campus Charter, which is com-plemented by a detailed Charter Report Guidelines docu-ment. The Charter was developed to support universities in setting targets and reporting on sustainable campus development goals and performance.” Sustainability Tracking and Rating System (STARS) (AASHE) “The Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating Sys-tem ™ (STARS) is a transparent, self-reporting framework for colleges and universities to measure their sustainabil-ity performance. STARS® was developed by AASHE with broad participation from the higher education commu-nity… The STARS framework is intended to engage and recognize the full spectrum of colleges and universities in the United States and Canada – from community colleges to research universities, and from institutions just starting their sustainability programs to long-time campus sus-tainability leaders.” 60 Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire (ULSF) “The Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) is designed to assist you in assessing the extent to which your college or university is sustainable in its teaching, re-search, operations and outreach. “Sustainability” implies that the major activities on your campus are ecologically sound, socially just, economically viable and humane, and that they will continue to be so for future genera-tions.” Sustainable development on campus: Tools for campus decision makers (IISD) “The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) is a Canadian-based, public policy research insti-tute that has a long history of conducting cutting-edge research into sustainable development. IISD’s Sustaina-ble Development on Campus Tool Kit has been compiled in support of a Memorandum of Understanding between IISD, the International Association of Universities (IAU), and the Earth Council, in which the Association of Cana-dian Community Colleges (ACCC) has also participated, to assist institutions of higher education to meet the chal-lenges of the Kyoto Declaration.” International Alliance of Research Universities campus sustainability toolkit (IARU) “The six-point toolkit includes strategies to address the following elements: mapping current situation and de-veloping a governance structure; measuring environ-mental impacts; integrating campus activities; deter-mining goals and a strategy for the process; establishing strategies to create a sustainable campus; and education and awareness. Accompanying the online toolkit are re-sources, strategies, and case studies on sustainability ef-forts by IARU members.” IARU is an alliance of ten of the world’s leading research-intensive universities. Learning in Future Environments (LiFE) (UK and Australasia) “Learning in Future Environments (LiFE) is a comprehen-sive performance improvement and benchmarking sys-tem developed specifically to help colleges and univer-sities to manage, measure, improve and promote their social responsibility and sustainability performance... The system reflects not only the specific nature of the Further and Higher Education Sector but also the uniqueness of each institutional, their context and their individual ap-proaches to embedding sustainability and social responsi-bility... LiFE is developed and delivered by the Environmen-tal Association for Universities and Colleges in partnership with Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability. Second Nature (USA) “Second Nature’s mission is to accelerate movement to-ward a sustainable future by serving and supporting sen-ior college and university leaders in making healthy, just, and sustainable living the foundation of all learning and practice in higher education. Second Nature is a Com-monwealth of Massachusetts nonprofit public benefit corporation, and a tax-exempt charitable organization as described in section 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code.” Higher Education Associations Sustainability Consortium (USA) “HEASC is an informal network of higher education asso-ciations (HEAs) with a commitment to advancing sustain-ability within their constituencies and within the system of higher education itself. The current member associations that make up HEASC see the need for developing in-depth capability to address sustainability issues through their associations and have decided to work together in this effort. HEASC hopes to involve all higher education asso-ciations to get the broadest perspectives and produce the greatest effectiveness and synergy in our efforts.” Healthy Universities Toolkit (UK) “A Healthy University aspires to create a learning envi-ronment and organisational culture that enhances the health, wellbeing and sustainability of its community and enables people to achieve their full potential…This toolkit comprises a collection of resources created by the Developing Leadership and Governance for Healthy Uni-versities Project and is designed to support Higher Educa-tion Institutions (HEIs) that wish to adopt and/or embed a whole system Healthy University approach.”
- 37. RESOURCES FOR CHANGE GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 61 Good Campus (UK) “We provide guidance (e.g. cases, guides, white papers), net-working and tools on sustainability - and especially energy and resource efficiency - in knowledge-intensive organisations. We began, and retain a strong presence, in universities but now also work in health, hitech, pharma and similar areas.” Sustainable University 21 One-stop Shop (Asitha Jayawardena, UK) “This website is a one-stop shop for resources for initiatives in sustainability in higher education in the UK and outside. And it strives to promote the Sustainable University con-cept around the world – within and outside universities.” Sustainable Procurement Centre of Excellence for Higher Education (UK) “The Sustainable Procurement Centre of Excellence for Higher Education (SPCE) is a 4 year project funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). The project began in October 2009 and intends to make demonstrable changes to the ways Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) embed sustainable procurement into their standard procedures, practices and policies.” Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges Resource Bank (UK) “Built up by the sector for the sector, the Resource Bank is a hugely important and useful long-term resource. The Bank is comprised of 11 key sector areas, in each you will find a growing collection of sector generated resources plus related case studies, forthcoming events and current news.” Sustainable Development on Campus – Tools for Campus Decision Makers (International Institute for Sustainable Development, Canada) “These tools will help you to learn more about sustainable development and its relevance to you and your institution. There are learning modules, case studies, action plans, environmental policies, resources, forums and contacts - all designed to help you, as part of the administration, as a student, or a member of faculty, implement sustainable development on your campus.” Virtual Sustainability Platform in Universities (www.projetosustentabilidade.sc.usp.br) (Consortium: University of São Paulo, Brasil; Autono-mous University of Madrid (Spain) and the Pontifi-cal Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil)) The Virtual Sustainability Platform is a digital space cre-ated to stimulate the participation of the university com-munity in evaluating and learning about sustainability in the campus. In it, users register and share personal, group and institutional initiatives concerning sustainability. The platform has also a sustainability test, which poses questions to the reader about his/her university related to institutional commitment, management (waste, en-ergy, water, mobility, buildings, green purchasing, green areas), curriculum greening and participation in decision making. After each block of questions the user receives information of the situation in his/her campus, previously prepared by the staffs of the universities involved. The re-sults are shared and discussed with managers and direc-tors to improve activities, projects and programs towards sustainability. Platform for Sustainability Performance in Education (http://www.eauc.org.uk/theplatform/home) The Platform for Sustainability Performance in Educa-tion was launched at UNEP In February 2013. It brings together organisations which have created sustainability assessment tools designed to support universities and colleges around the world. The purpose of this Platform is to promote sustainability assessment in education. By coming together it is our goal that more universities and colleges learn about the value of sustainability assessment tools to improve the sustain-ability performance across the whole of their institution. 62 5.4 Books and journals From a base of virtually no published material 20 years ago, accumulating practical experience and theoretical re-flection on university sustainability has generated a lively and expanding literature which includes a small shelf of books, a dedicated, peer-reviewed journal and hundreds of specialist papers published in education, environ-mental, policy and other publications. The key published sources of information (as at 2011) are listed below. The explanatory text is taken from the relevant websites. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education (IJSHE) “The IJSHE is the first fully refereed academic journal for the analysis of environmental and sustainability pro-grams and initiatives at colleges and universities world-wide… The journal will be of special interest to higher education institutions and to those working on them.” Solutions “Solutions is an online and hard-copy journal and maga-zine providing substantive discussion on the integrated design and analysis of human social and economic systems, ecological systems, urban environments and building and all other components of the earth system to achieve a desirable and sustainable human future. Solu-tions is a ULSF partner.” Higher Education Quarterly “Higher Education Quarterly publishes articles concerned with policy, strategic management and ideas in higher education. A substantial part of its contents is concerned with reporting research findings in ways that bring out their relevance to senior managers and policy makers at institutional and national levels, and to academics who are not necessarily specialists in the academic study of higher education.” Journal of Education for Sustainable Development (JESD) “The Journal of Education for Sustainable Development (JESD) is a forum for academics and practitioners to share and critique innovations in thinking and practice in the emerging field of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). A peer-reviewed international journal, JESD aims at global readership and is published twice a year.” Perspectives: Policy & Practice in Higher Education “Perspectives: Policy & Practice in Higher Education pro-vides higher education managers and administrators with innovative material which analyses and informs their practice of management.” Campus Ecology, by April Smith and the Student Environmental Action Coalition (1993) “This book is designed to take the environmental issues and principles currently being studied in the classroom and move them outside the classroom doors into the campus community and the larger world. By making en-vironmental knowledge part and parcel of campus envi-ronmental practice, students, faculty, and administrators have an extraordinary opportunity to act as agents of en-vironmental education and change.” Ecodemia: Campus Environmental Stewardship at the Turn of the 21st Century, by Julian Keniry (1995) “At campuses around the country, staff, administrators, faculty, and students are redesigning the basic principles on which their institutions operate from day to day. The winners in this transformation are the global environ-ment, local communities, campus morale, and the insti-tutions’ fiscal bottom-line. Now, the [US] National Wildlife Federation’s Campus Ecology Program has documented these management innovations in a comprehensive new book based on extensive interviews with the people be-hind the green practices.”
- 38. 75 RESOURCES FOR CHANGE GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 63 Greening the Ivory Tower, by Sarah Hammond Creighton (1998) “Universities can teach and demonstrate environmental principles and stewardship by taking action to under-stand and reduce the environmental impacts of their own activities. Greening the Ivory Tower, a motivational and how-to guide for staff, faculty, and students, offers detailed “greening” strategies for those who may have lit-tle experience with institutional change or with the latest environmentally friendly technologies.” Sustainability and University Life, edited by Walter Leal Filho (1999) “Sustainability and University Life, as the title implies, identifies various ways by which sustainability may be brought closer to a university´s routine. By means of critical analyses, case studies and examples from North American, European and African universities, the book not only discusses the problems faced with the promotion of sustainability at institutional level, but also shows how sustainability is being put into practice by a number of higher education institutions.” Planet U: Sustaining the World, Reinventing the University, by Michael M’Gonigle & Justine Starke (2006) “Planet U places the university at the forefront of the sus-tainability movement. Questioning the university’s ability to equip society to deal with today’s serious challenges such as economic growth, democratic citizenship and planetary survival, it calls for a new social movement to take a lead in reforming the university - the world’s largest industry.” Degrees that Matter, by Ann Rappaport and Sarah Hammond Creighton (2007) “Universities and colleges are in a unique position to take a leadership role on global warming. As communi-ties, they can strategize and organize effective action. As laboratories for learning and centers of research, they can reduce their own emissions of greenhouse gases, educate students about global warming, and direct scholarly at-tention to issues related to climate change and energy. Degrees That Matter offers practical guidance for those who want to harness the power of universities and other institutions, and provides perspectives on how to motivate change and inspire action within complex organizations.” Reinventing Higher Education: Toward Participatory and Sustainable Development (UNESCO, 2007) In 2007, the Asia-Pacific Programme of Educational In-novation for Development (APEID), UNESCO Bangkok, convened the 11th UNESCO-APEID Conference entitled “Reinventing Higher Education: Toward Participatory and Sustainable Development.” This volume contains selected papers from that conference, held in Bangkok from 12 to 14 December 2007. Financing Sustainability on Campus, by Ben Barlow and Andrea Putman (2009) “In Financing Sustainability on Campus, Ben Barlow, with guidance from Andrea Putman, provides higher educa-tion leaders with a comprehensive handbook to financing sustainability with real world examples, creative strate-gies, and clear explanations of a wide variety of financial tools and programs.” Law school library in university of michigan © SHUTTERSTOCK
- 39. 77 Global exemplars SECTION 6 GLOBAL EXEMPLARS GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 65 As part of this toolkit’s goal to provide information that can assist those universities that are beginning their journey of campus greening, this section provides a compilation of various case studies of exemplary cam-pus greening initiatives from around the world. The objective of this section is; to inspire, encourage and facilitate learning through real-world examples; to acknowledge different physical, socio-eco-nomic and environmental contexts; to document different ways and aspects of greening; issues and opportunities strategies and initiatives benchmarks and performance indicators. The information on each case study is presented in a concise and standard format, which has three broad sections. The first one presents a general background or context to the project, lists target beneficiaries, and outlines UNEP thematic priority area as well as the area of the greening. The second section outlines various is-sues identified, initiatives implemented and outcomes achieved or expected. The third section presents quick facts of the project: evidence of measured improve-ment; size, cost and year of implementation; funding; and finally information source for this case study. As discussed earlier, evidence based study is essen-tial in avoiding greenwash. The following case studies, therefore, clearly list any specific targets of greening ini-tiatives and specify any evidence of measured improve-ments in the project’s environmental performance. This list of global exemplars is expected to grow over time as more and more examples of campus greening initiatives are implemented and accurate information is made available for inclusion in this toolkit. Beautiful classic ivy clad halls on a university campus © SHUTTERSTOCK
- 40. CASE STUDY: AUSTRALIA GLOBAL EXEMPLARS GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 67 Tyree Energy Technologies Building (TETB), University Of New South Wales (UNSW) General Description: The University of New South Wales (UNSW) each year educates more than 50,000 students from over 120 countries in eight faculties The Tyree Energy Technologies Building (TETB) is lo-cated on the university’s main campus on a 38-hec-tare site in Kensington The six storey building of the TETB, which is used largely by the Faculty of Engineering, features teach-ing and learning spaces, workshops and display spac-es, research spaces including wet and dry labs and a cafe The TETB’s laboratories will support the ongoing re-search of UNSW researchers in world record-breaking solar photovoltaic technologies, sustainable clean fuels, smart grids, energy storage, energy economics and policy analysis The TETB is also an educational hub for undergraduate and postgraduate students, providing an optimal learning environment for expert engineers and analysts. Target beneficiaries: Community largely at university and regional level, but also at global level. UNEP thematic priority area: Climate change; Resource efficiency (sustainable consumption and production). 68 Project/Innovation area: Research & Development Greening of University infrastructure/facilities/opera-tions Community collaboration University management Student participation/engagement Identified issues: Indoor environmental quality; energy consumption; water conservation; and carbon emission Outcomes: Environmental Management – The head Contractor, Brookfield Multiplex, is ISO 14001 certified ensuring that sound environmental practices are involved in all decision making processes associated with the design and construction of the building Waste Management – The construction waste man-agement plan and agreements with waste contrac-tors ensured over 80% of the construction waste being recycled or re-used. Indoor Environment Quality – Furniture and finishes have been carefully selected to reduce off-gassing of Volatile Organic Compounds and Formaldehyde, and improve air quality. Tri-generation – A tri-generation plant is installed not only to service the TETB but also to export both elec-tricity and chilled water to surrounding buildings. This ensures that the tri-generation system operates for longer hours and maximises the benefit of the re-duced carbon emissions provided by this method of power and chilled water production. Energy Efficiency – Air conditioning load is reduced by linking the air conditioning controls to motion sensors and carbon dioxide sensors in all spaces. An underground labyrinth and borewater is also used to pre-cool/warm incoming outside air. Energy Production – In addition to the tri-generation system it is also furnished with 1,000sqm of photo-voltaic panels which will produce up to 150KW of electrical energy. Water re-use – An existing bore feeds into a storage tank which also collects rainwater from the roof. This systems feeds into the campus borewater sys-tem which is then treated and returned to buildings as non-potable water. This is used in TETB for toilet flushing, laboratory water and makeup to the evapo-rative cooling systems. Fire system testing water and run-off from hardstand area is also returned to the aquifer through the percolation chamber. Water efficiency – Water efficient fixtures are used throughout the building, including waterless urinals. The cooling of the tri-generation system is provided by a hybrid Muller 3C cooling tower which only uses water for evaporation when ambient conditions are extreme and loads are high. This is fed by non-pota-ble, treated borewater and rainwater. Evidence / Assessment / Rating: ‘6 Star Green Star Design’ rating (World Leadership) for an Education facility by the Green Building Council of Australia. Size of implementation: Approx. 15,000 sqm facility Cost of implementation (US $): Approx. $81.6 million Year of implementation (construction): February 2010 – February 2012 Funding partners: Education Investment Fund Initiative of the Australian Gov-ernment ($75 million), Sir William Tyree, who donated $1 million and pledged a further bequest of $10 million Source: UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES. n.d. Key Projects: Tyree Energy Technologies Building [Online]. Available: http:// www.keyprojects.unsw.edu.au/project/tyree-energy-tech-nologies- building [Accessed 18 March 2012]. UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME (UNEP) 2011. Innovations and Best Practices on Education for Sus-tainable Development and Sustainability in Universities – Success Stories from Around the World.
- 41. CASE STUDY: CANADA GLOBAL EXEMPLARS GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 69 Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS), University of British Columbia (UBC) Vancouver Campus General Description: The Vancouver Campus of the UBC educates more than 47,000 students each year in hun-dreds of academic programs through 12 facul-ties and 14 schools CIRS will house more than 200 inhabitants from several academic disciplines, including applied science, psychology, geography, forestry and business CIRS is also the home of the UBC Sustainability Initiative (USI), which promotes and integrates UBC’s sustainability efforts in teaching, learning, research and campus operations Major features of the four-storey, 60,000 square-foot facility include: a four storey atrium and lobby areas for display and demonstrations, BC Hydro Theatre with advanced visualization and interaction technologies to engage audiences in sustainability and climate change scenarios, Policy Lab, Building Simulation Software Lab, Solar Simulation Daylighting Lab, Sustainability Education Resource Centre, Building Monitor-ing and Assessment Lab with a building man-agement system that shares building perfor-mance in real-time, 450-seat CIRS Lecture Hall, CIRS Inhabitants’ space, and the Loop Café that uses no disposable packaging and serves local and organic food. Target beneficiaries: Community largely at university and regional level, but also at global level. 70 UNEP thematic priority area: Climate change; Resource efficiency (sustainable con-sumption and production). Project/Innovation area: Research & Development Greening of University infrastructure/facilities/ operations Community collaboration University management Student participation/engagement Identified issues: Urban population explosion; unprecedented demand for housing, amenities and necessities in the coming decades; increased consumption of natural resources; although working hard to find and implement solu-tions, the public, private and not-for-profit sectors are largely working in isolation, not benefiting from each other’s discoveries. Outcomes: North America’s greenest building by being net positive on energy, water self-sufficient, having 100% access to daylight and superior natural ventilation amongst many other sustainability features It will be an international centre for research, part-nership and action on sustainability issues, includ-ing green building design and operations, environ-mental policy and community engagement. CIRS is used as a platform to test and showcase the technical performance and usability char-acteristics of the building’s technologies and systems, and to generate new knowledge about how to construct and maintain sustainable buildings using building itself as the lab All of the CIRS building systems, as well as the behaviour of its inhabitants, will be the subject of extensive and ongoing research, to study building performance and how people interact with the space over time making it a ‘living labo-ratory’ CIRS will be the only place in the world combin-ing three activities – sustainable building design and operations, sustainability-focused partner-ships and the development of interactive com-munity engagement processes – under one um-brella. Evidence / Assessment / Rating: LEED Platinum rating. Aims to achieve ‘The Living Build-ing Challenge’ certification with the help of its various regenerative features that create ‘Net Positive’ environ-mental impacts. Size of implementation: Approx. 5,600 sqm (60,000 square-foot) facility Cost of implementation (US $): 37 million (less than 10% over equivalent LEED Gold rated building) Year of implementation (construction): March 2009 – August 2011 Funding partners: Major funding partners include British Columbia Knowledge Development Fund (BCKDF), British Colum-bia Ministry of Advanced Education, British Columbia Ministry of the Environment, Canada Foundation for In-novation (CFI), Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Kresge Foundation, McCall MacBain Foundation, Metro Vancouver, National Research Council - Institute for Fuel Cell Innovation, Natural Resources Canada, Real Estate Foundation, Sustainable Development Technol-ogy Canada (SDTC), etc. Source: THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Sustainabil-ity [Online]. Available: http://www.sustain.ubc.ca/ [Ac-cessed 15 January 2012].
- 42. CASE STUDY: DENMARK University of Copenhagen GLOBAL EXEMPLARS GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 71 General Description: The University of Copenhagen was founded in 1479 The University has about 1,000,000 sqm premises on four campus areas in central Copenhagen. The University consists of 8 faculties and more than 100 departments and research centres. It has more than 7,000 employees and over 37,000 students The University is working towards becoming one of the Europe’s most green campus areas The University’s Green Lighthouse, Denmark’s first carbon-neutral public building, is located at the Faculty of Science. It has been built in less than a year and it houses the Student Service Centre. The Green Lighthouse also hosts The Copenhagen In-novation and Entrepreneurship Lab (CIEL). It is the place of work of 19 people. Target beneficiaries: Community largely at university and regional level, but also at global level. UNEP thematic priority area: Climate change; Resource efficiency (sustainable consump-tion and production). Project/Innovation area: Research & Development Greening of University infrastructure/facilities/opera-tions Community collaboration 72 University management Student participation/engagement Identified issues: The university, considering its size and research pro-file, recognises its ‘green responsibility’ and wishes to become one of the greenest campuses in Europe. Outcomes: The university aims to reduce its energy con-sumption and greenhouse gas emissions by 20% between 2006 and 2013 Ongoing engagement and collaboration with both internal and external partners to achieve more sustainable campus; active involvement of faculties and student organisations Improving thermal performance of existing buildings, energy smart installations in build-ings, facilitating energy smart conducts by employees and students, and energy efficient purchases The energy savings projects are expected to result in annual reduction of 1700 tons of CO2 emissions and annual saving of DKK 4.6 million Global collaboration to communicate and share own experiences with the sustainability efforts with other universities such as through International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU) collaboration and International Sus-tainable Campus Network (ISCN) By 2013, at least 75% of all purchases via pur-chase agreements to require sustainability. The University develops an annual Green Campus Action Plan. Partnered in creating the Green Lighthouse, Denmark’s first carbon-neutral public building, which provides for its total energy needs with 35% of solar energy and 65% of district heat-ing with heat pump. 76m2 of solar cells on the roof power the building’s lighting, ventilation and pumps. Evidence / Assessment / Rating: Green Lighthouse is a CO2 neutral building in opera-tion. Size of implementation: 1,000,000 sqm for all prem-ises and 950 sqm for Green Lighthouse. Cost of implementation (US $): Approx. $6.6 million (DKK 37 million) for Green Lighthouse; Approx. $1.8 million (DKK 10 million) for energy and climate ef-forts; Approx. $45,000 (DKK 250,000) for student sus-tainability initiatives. Year of implementation (construction): 2008 –2009 (Green Lighthouse) Funding partners: The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (DKK 33 million); VELUX, VELFAC, Windowmaster and Faber (DKK 3.5 Million); and Rockwool, Veksø, Knauf and Danogips (DKK 500,000). Source: UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN. n.d. Green Campus [Online]. Available: http://climate.ku.dk/green_cam-pus/ [Accessed 18 March 2012]. VELUX. n.d. Experiment # 2 - Green Lighthouse [On-line]. Available: http://www.velux.com/sustainable_ living/model_home_2020/green_lighthouse [Ac-cessed 24 March 2012].
- 43. GLOBAL EXEMPLARS GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 73 CASE STUDY: KENYA University of Nairobi General Description: The University of Nairobi, the only institution of higher learning in Kenya, has so far offered academ-ic programs and specialisation in approximately 200 diversified programs on its seven campuses in the capital city The University recognizes that it has a responsibil-ity to manage its activities in a way that reduces the negative environmental impacts and enhances positive impacts Inspired by the above, the key aspects of its green-ing include: Strategic planning and implementa-tion; Education and Awareness; Safety and Health; Monitoring and Reporting; Communication; Pur-chasing Policy and; Environmental Management System The University is committed to developing and sustaining an Environmental Management System (EMS) based on the International Standard ISO 14001. The EMS, together with the ISO 9001- 2000 Standard, have been adopted for achieving the Uni-versity’s Environmental Policy, including compli-ance with legislative requirements and the meas-urement of continual improvement targets and outcomes. An environmental audit was carried out in 2008 as per the requirements of the Environmen-tal Management and Coordination Act 1999, and the Environmental Impact Assessment and Audit Regulations 2003 The audited areas include Waste management; En-ergy management; Water management and econo-my of use; Noise evaluation and control; Indoor air quality; Emergency prevention and preparedness; Staff/student environmental awareness and train-ing; environmental management system, and a University Environmental Policy. Target beneficiaries: The University and local communities as well as the global community. 74 UNEP thematic priority area: Climate change; environmental governance; harmful substances and hazardous waste; and Resource effi-ciency (sustainable consumption and production). Project/Innovation area: Greening of University infrastructure/facilities/ operations Community collaboration University management Student participation/engagement Identified issues: The environmental audit highlighted that; The University does not have an Environmental Policy to guide its operations; The measurement culture at the University is weak as far as resource use and waste genera-tion are concerned; Although there is a procurement policy which is informed by the Government Act, environmen-tal considerations do not seem to be important in the procurement of goods and services for the different University units; The University does not have an asbestos man-agement plan despite having buildings with as-bestos roofing; No recycling takes place at the University; There has been no air quality or noise monitor-ing at any site in the University; There is need for staff awareness and training in environmental matters. Outcomes: The University developed its environmental policy in 2009; and a maintenance policy for all assets owned by the University in 2010 main-streaming environmental considerations. Following the initiative, top management in the University are now aware, supportive and com-mitted to improving the environmental perfor-mance of the University. All units of the university, as well as to some de-gree the students, have embraced environmen-tally sustainable practices. The University intends to appoint a Standing En-vironmental Policy Steering Committee and al-locate budgets for environmental management as stated in the Environmental Policy. Evidence / Assessment / Rating: Only university in Kenya to conduct an environmental audit of its products and services. Size of implementation: Information not publicly available Cost of implementation (US $): Information not publicly available Year of implementation (construction): 2008 – Ongoing Funding partners: Information not publicly available Source: UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME (UNEP) 2011. Innovations and Best Practices on Ed-ucation for Sustainable Development and Sustain-ability in Universities – Success Stories from Around the World. UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI. 2011. Introduction [On-line]. Available: http://www.uonbi.ac.ke/about [Ac-cessed 24 March 2012] UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI. 2010. Annual Report 2010 [Online]. Available: http://www.uonbi.ac.ke/sites/ default/files/UON%20AR%202010%20WEB.pdf [Ac-cessed 24 March 2012].
- 44. GLOBAL EXEMPLARS GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 75 CASE STUDY: TURKEY Middle East Technical University (METU) General Description: The Middle East Technical University (METU) is located on a 4500 hectare Campus about 20 km from the cen-tre of Ankara; it includes 3043 hectare of forest area and the Lake Eymir; ETU runs about 206 programs serving over 24,500 stu-dents including more than 1,700 students from over 85 different countries; METU plays a key role in the greening of Ankara through its comprehensive re-forestation program. Preliminary planning for the METU Re-forestation and Landscaping Program began in 1958 in response to two major incentives: First, being that the capital city Ankara, which is surrounded by hills, suffers from heavy air pollution. Second was that, the Turkish law supports for green zone next to Ankara. This law states that forest land cannot be expropriated, thereby en-couraging the creation of newly planted woods to limit urban sprawl; The Re-forestation Program has led to the successful planting of some ¾ of the campus area. Every year, over 20,000 trees are planted by students, staff and alumni; The initiative was further inspired by the fact that 4500 hectares were available for this purpose. The area was formerly a degraded, barren pasture of wheat fields once covered with primal forests. By 1960, the university’s department of landscaping had tested tree species that would be appropriate, and in 1961, the re-forestation program commenced. Target beneficiaries: Community largely at university and the residents of the city of Ankara. 76 UNEP thematic priority area: Climate change; Ecosystem management; Environmental governance; Resource efficiency (sustainable consump-tion and production). Project/Innovation area: Greening of University infrastructure/facilities/op-erations Community collaboration University management Student participation/engagement Identified issues: Disappearance of wilderness, degradation of biodiversity and extinction of species due to urbanisation and other human processes. Outcomes: The area with non-irrigational plants now covers 3000 hectares. Plants that require irrigation cover 800 hec-tares, and are located within the built environment of the Campus where they form a beautiful landscape along the pedestrian network. The remaining 500 hectares consist of lakes and ponds. The flora at METU consists of more than 250 species, some of them na-tive, others from other parts of Turkey; The forest area created not only contributes to the quality of campus life for the users, but also to the urban quality of life for the entire Ankara region. Ad-ditionally, and more importantly, it provides a broad range of other environmental services; The METU green area helps purifying Ankara’s air, fil-ters wind and noise, stabilizes the microclimate; i.e. makes the city much more sustainable and livable. In 1995, the Re-forestation Program received the Aga Khan Award for Architecture. The habitats cre-ated by the planted area, step and lake-shore areas provide living conditions for many species of mam-mals, birds, fish and butterflies. A recent research found out that two endemic butterfly species are living on the METU Campus; The built environment in METU has been created in line with sustainable design principles and includes the use of local construction materials. One of the buildings under construction is designed to include photovoltaic panels that will provide energy for the operation of the basic equipments within the build-ing; The University, with an active participation of stu-dents, staff and alumni, organises an annual affor-estation festival on the Campus; The University has an Afforestation and Landscape Department which provides maintenance and im-plementation strategy for plants. Decision-making on the sustainable development of the Campus be-longs to the Presidency and its related offices. The Commission for University’s Spatial Strategy and De-velopment focuses on the preservation of greenery, while responding to the spatial development needs of the Campus. Evidence / Assessment / Rating: Specific research on heat island in and around Ankara has shown beneficial cooling effect around METU campus. Size of implementation: Approx. 4,500 hectare campus Cost of implementation (US $): To be provided Year of implementation (construction): 1958 – Ongoing Funding partners: National government’s Ministry of Forestry provided trees during the 1960s; General Directo-rate of Afforestation and Erosion Control annually provids 20000-25000 tree seedlings; and Business and Industry provides grants for new energy-efficient buildings. Source: MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY. n.d. General Infor-mation [Online]. Available: http://www.metu.edu.tr/gener-al- information [Accessed 21 March 2012]. UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME (UNEP) 2011. Innovations and Best Practices on Education for Sus-tainable Development and Sustainability in Universities – Success Stories from Around the World.
- 45. GLOBAL EXEMPLARS GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 77 CASE STUDY: USA Princeton University Before After General Description: Princeton University was originally established in 1746; The university’s main campus in Princeton Borough and Princeton Township consists of approximately 180 buildings, spanning more than four centuries, on 500 acres. The university follows a residential college sys-tem and 98% of the undergraduate students live on the campus; The university’s more than 1,100 faculty members edu-cate more than 7,500 students each year in 34 depart-ments and 46 interdisciplinary certificate programs; The campus is expected to serve as a model for ad-vanced practices and as a laboratory for students and faculty to test new approaches; The Princeton Sustainability Committee consist-ing of students, faculty, and staff was established in 2002, and the Office of Sustainability was set up in 2006, which prepared a Sustainability Plan in 2008 identifying three priority areas for the cam-pus: Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction, Resource Conservation, and Research, Education and Civic Management Target beneficiaries: Community largely at university, but also at regional and global level. UNEP thematic priority area: Climate change; Resource efficiency (sustainable consump-tion and production). Project/Innovation area: Research & Development Greening of University infrastructure/facilities/opera-tions Community collaboration University management Student participation/engagement Identified issues: University’s environmental impacts; responsibility as a major research university to contribute to shaping the national sus-tainability agenda, to promote the development of sustain-ability on its campus, and to prepare its students. 78 Outcomes: The university aims to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, while expanding its campus by 185,000 m2; All non-laboratory buildings are expected to be 50% more energy-efficient than required by regulations. Implementation of its Energy Master Plan has result-ed in annual savings of $1.7 million in energy costs and 10,000 metric tons of CO; The university will provide incentives to the faculty and students to reduce the number of cars coming to the campus by 10%; All residence halls have low-flow water fixtures, which are estimated to have cut water use from 2006 by 30%; The university purchased 29% less paper in 2011 than in 2008. A total of 83% of the paper purchased in 2011 was of 100% post-consumer recycled chlorine-free paper; Various resource conservation initiatives have in-creased sustainable food purchases to about 66%, and about 59% of the food served in the dining halls comes from within 250 miles radius; In the past one year more than five acres of wood-lands were restored with 215 new trees and 197 new shrubs; Greening of the curriculum has resulted in over 50 classes having a sustainability component. There has been an increase in the number of students receiving Environmental Studies certificates by 300%. Evidence / Assessment / Rating: Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA), including a CO2 tax, informed decision making process is applied to new construction and major renovations on the campus. It strives for LEED Sil-ver equivalency wherever applicable. About 30 staff mem-bers are LEED-Accredited Professionals. The University has signed on to the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System (STARS), a transparent, self-reporting frame-work for colleges and universities to measure their sustain-ability performance Size of implementation: Approx. 500 acres campus Cost of implementation (US $): $45 million between 2009 and 2017 under its Energy Master Plan initiative. Since 2008 $5.3 million have been invested in energy saving and emis-sion reduction projects. Year of implementation: 2008 – 2020 Funding partners: High Meadows Foundation Source: PRINCETON UNIVERSITY. Sustainability at Princeton [On-line]. Available: http://www.princeton.edu/sustainability/ [Accessed 12 February 2012]. THE PRINCETON REVIEW. 2011. Guide to 311 Green Colleg-es [Online]. The Princeton Review. Available: http://www. princetonreview.com/uploadedfiles/sitemap/home_page/ green_guide/princetonreview_greenguide_2011.pdf [Ac-cessed 12 February 2012]
- 46. GLOBAL EXEMPLARS GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 79 CASE STUDY: CHINA Tongji University, Shanghai Shanghai campus Architectural Design & Research Insti-tute General Description: Tongji University has four campuses, with the total area of 1,501,281 m2, and 420 buildings where around 39,000 students study every year in 29 faculties; The University recognizes that it has a responsibility to manage its activities in a way that reduces the negative environmental impacts and promotes sustainability; Tongji University established a Management Com-mittee, an Expert Committee and a Management Office to share the responsibilities of the sustainable campus construction, and identifies three priority areas for sustainable campus construction, namely energy conservation in research, management, and education; Tongji University initiated the setting up of the China Green University Network (CGUN), which consists of 8 core universities and 2 research institutes and Tongji University acts as the first chairmanship. CGUN is lead-ing the construction of sustainable campuses in China and its influence is growing fast in the world; Target beneficiaries: Community largely at university and regional level, but also at global level. UNEP thematic priority area: Climate change; Resource efficiency (sustainable consumption and production). Project/Innovation area: Research & Development Greening of University infrastructure/facilities/operations Community collaboration University management Student participation/engagement 80 Identified issues: The need to take responsibility as a major research univer-sity to contribute to shaping of the national sustainable campus agenda. The need to promote sustainability on its campuses in terms of energy use, research, education, stu-dent engagement, and social service. Outcomes: Campus energy management system (CEMS) is es-tablished to monitor and report energy use of the whole university, and 182 buildings have online monitoring; Commissioned by Chinese government, Tongji Uni-versity composed five national technical guidelines for the construction and operation of CEMS, which are implemented in 120 universities; In total 91 course have been developed that include sustainability in their curricula; Various initiatives on sustainability have effectively stimulated students’ interest in sustainable design; they have successfully designed a bamboo solar house and a container solar house showing good sustainable concepts in Solar Decathlon in 2010 and 2011; Building retrofit of total area of 296,647 m2 is on pro-gress since 2009, which includes the use of sewage source heat pumps, water recycling projects, verti-cal and roof greening, etc. in addition to energy and water efficiency measures; One of the retrofit projects included renovation of an existing abandoned car parking building, which was originally planned to be demolished, into an office building of five stories and 68,000 m2. The building, for Architectural Design & Research Institute (ADRI), is now a demonstration building with a 630KWp BIPV system and a centre of education on energy conser-vation and renewable energy technologies; The University intends to publish an annual report on sustainable campus innovations implemented that year; Evidence / Assessment / Rating: In 2007, The University received a national award of annual demonstration project of building energy conservation in China. In 2008, it received the 1st prize of the Progress Award in Science and Technology issued by the Ministry of Education in China - Demonstration and Integration of Technologies in Sustainable Campus Construction. Per capita energy and water use has been reduced by 5.6% and 14.8% respectively between 2010 and 2011. The BIPV system on the ADRI building covers 6600 m2 of the roof area, generates 535MWh of electricity every year and provides an annual reduction in CO2 emission by about 566 tons. Size of implementation: Campus energy management system in approx. 1.16 mil-lion m2 in 182 buildings; Total floor area of building retrofits of about 296,647 m2. Adaptive reuse of the existing car park-ing building into an office building of 68,000 m2 for ADRI. Cost of implementation (US $): $1.3 million for the establishment of Campus energy man-agement system; $7.62 million for building retrofit projects; $16 million ADRI. Year of implementation: Overall campus initiatives: 2003 – Ongoing; ADRI: 2009 – 2010 Funding partners: Ministry of Housing and Urban and Rural Development (MO-HURD); World Bank Loan Program; and Shanghai Government. Source: Information provided by Dr. Shuqin Chen from Tongji Uni-versity, based on Acceptance report on Demonstration Project of Solar PV Buildings for Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Housing and Urban and Rural Development (MOHURD); and Annual Report of Sustainable Campus Innovation of Tongji University, 2011.
- 47. 93 Additional case studies: Bond University Mirvac School of Sustainable Development, Australia http://www.bond.edu.au/faculties-colleges/institute-of-sustainable-development-architecture/about-the-institute/facilities/index. htm University of Sao Paulo, Brazil www.projetosustentabilidade.sc.usp.br Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre (city), Brazil http://www.isabelcarvalho.blog.br University of Northern British Columbia, Canada http://www.unbc.ca/green/energy.html TERI University, India http://www.teriin.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32 Harvard University, USA http://green.harvard.edu/node/899 Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, USA http://www.aashe.org/resources/case-studies/getting-net-zero-energy-lessons-learned-living-building-challenge University of Texas at Dallas, USA http://www.aashe.org/files/resources/student-research/2009/supplemental_materials.pdf GLOBAL EXEMPLARS GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 81 The old yard at harvard university in autumn © SHUTTERSTOCK
- 48. Technical Appendix Section 7 TECHNICAL APPENDIX GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 83 The sustainability literature documents a wide variety of methods for selecting indicators, setting objectives and targets and other quantitative aspects of sustainability management. In addition, many universities have de-veloped their own approaches. This Appendix sets out some models which may offer additional guidance. It is envisaged that as with the case studies presented in this Toolkit, universities will be able to submit examples of their own models and methods, by way of contributing to continual improvement in university sustainability management practice. This may also provide a useful framework to support learning and teaching in sustain-ability and to stimulate research. 7.1 Selecting indicators In general, an optimal indicator set can be described in terms of several desirable characteristics (for exam-ple the five characteristics comprising the well-known “SMART” model (Simple, Measurable, Accessible, Rel-evant and Timely). A more detailed consideration of in-dicator selection is given in the Bellagio Principles con-cerning selection of sustainability indicators [80]. Table 8.1 outlines a set of five characteristics of an optimal indicator set derived from a synthesis of the SMART test and the Bellagio Principles, together with the detailed criteria which define these characteristics. Multi-criteria analysis has proved to be a useful meth-od to achieve broad agreement around a suitable indi-cator set. A typical definition of multi-criteria analysis is “a decision-making tool developed for complex multi-criteria problems that include qualitative and/or quan-titative aspects of the problem in the decision-making process” [81] or simply, a tool for comparative assess-ment of options, accounting for several criteria simulta-neously. The key advantages of MCA are that it directly involves stakeholders in decision making, obliges users to think holistically as well as within their discipline, and enables consideration of a large number of criteria. The characteristics of a good indicator are not neces-sarily equally important, hence each is given a percent-age weight to indicate its relative importance – i.e. the higher the weighting, the more significant the particular characteristic in helping to select an optimal indicator set. The combined weights must add up to 100%, and the first task of the indicator selection team is to identify the relative (weighted) importance of each characteris-tic. Note that in MCA these characteristics are often re-ferred to as categories. These characteristics/categories tend to be multi-di-mensional, therefore each is best described in terms of a number of specific criteria which together provide a full explanation of the given category. So the next stage is to score each potential indicator against the individual criteria associated with each category. This involves the application of a numerical rating from 1 to 5, where the higher the score, the more closely the indicator aligns with the given criterion. 84 Table 8.1: Characteristics and criteria to inform selection of sustainability indicators. Characteristics of an optimal indicator set Criteria which qualify and explain the categories Purposefulness Focused Guided by and contributes to a clear vision of “triple bottom line” sustainability Implementable Can be linked to discrete objectives and targets Meaningful Able to provide pertinent feedback to decision makers Efficiency Simple Easily interpreted and monitored Accessible Data are already collected or institutional capacity exists for easy collection Practical Measurement is standardised to facilitate comparison Effectiveness Measureable Statistically verifiable, reproducible and shows trends Relevant Directly addresses agreed issues of concern Timely Able to capture change at the relevant timescale to determine trends Communicability Clear The information conveyed can be understood by a wide range of users Transparent Data collection and analysis methods are readily comprehensible Explicit Uncertainties in data and interpretation can be made apparent and minimised Responsiveness Adaptable Responds to change and uncertainty Scalable Aggregated city scale data are valid at State and national scale Replicable Data collection and analysis methods can be repeated across different urban jurisdictions The MCA method proposed here is a simplified weighted sum model which assigns a numerical value to each in-dicator based on multiplying the category weights by the sum of the scores for each of the criteria. The weight-ed category values are then summed to give a final nu-merical value for the indicator: where V(q) is the numerical value for indicator q, W(q) is the category weight and S(q) is the criterion score for each indicator. When these calculations have been completed for all in-dicators, the final stage of the process is to rank the indi-cators from highest to lowest priority according to their numerical values. A cut-off point may then be applied, with indicators falling below this point being discarded. Note that the calculated numerical values are relative (i.e. to enable ranking), not absolute. 7.2 Quantifying indicators, objectives and targets Section 3 of the Toolkit, Tools for delivering transforma-tion, notes that what gets measured, gets managed. Ener-gy, water, materials and ecosystem services represent four critical dimensions of sustainability which are amenable to measurement – in the last-mentioned case, through “proxy” metrics such as vegetation coverage or leaf area index (defined as the leaf area of a plant divided by the projected canopy area). Some straightforward methods for setting and quantifying indicators, objectives and targets to support the transition towards sustainability across these four areas are discussed below. 7.2.1 Operational energy Identify current operational stationary energy use Eo in-cluding both conventional (Ec) and renewable energy (Er): Eo = Er + Ec Identify year to achieve 100% renewable energy goal (zero net operational greenhouse emissions): Eo = Er
- 49. Σ =Σ + CONSTRUCTION REFURBISHMENT MAINTENANCE OPERATION Stocks: Infrastructure CONSTRUCTION REFURBISHMENT MAINTENANCE OPERATION DEMOLITION ⎞ ⎛ Σ =Σ − Σ +Σ = = = = j j Rr R = ⎛ j ⎞ + 1 1 1 j R n n n Cr R S S S S R R R j = j j j = n j j j j j j j j TECHNICAL APPENDIX GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 85 Set intermediate percentage targets (annual, biannual etc) for the proportion of energy derived from renew-able sources towards the final goal of 100%, where: and 7.2.2 Water use Identify current operating water use Wo including exter-nal potable supply We and any recycled/reused water Wr (i.e. captured rainwater, greywater and blackwater) Wo = We + Wr Water sustainability is most appropriately assessed at the watershed (catchment) level, so the next step is to identify the catchment in which the university is lo-cated, determine its spatial extent and human popula-tion, and the average precipitation rate (which controls the basic rate of supply) [82]. Sustainable use may be defined as staying within the sustainable yield of the catchment Ys such that Ys ≤ R where R = recharge rate for the watershed (precipitation minus evapotranspiration). For a given catchment the amount available for non-residential usage N is: N = R – CP where C = adequate minimum standard of per capita water use, and P = population. Several different amounts have been proposed to meet the basic needs for drinking, sanitation, bathing and cooking, ranging from 50 litres per person per day [83] to 100 L/p/d [84]. Users of this toolkit should enter a value appropriate to the location and context of their university. As disaggregated data for non-residential water uses (agricultural, industrial, etc) are frequently unavailable, land area may be used as a proxy for non-residential water allocation. Thus the external sustainable water allocation Ws for a university may be calculated based on the land area occupied by the university Au minus the area occupied by university housing Ah, divided by the total non-residential land area of the catchment An: Where L represents the number of students living on campus. The final step is to identify the year to achieve sustain-able operational water use such that: Wo ≤ Ws + Wr As this goal can be achieved by a combination of re-ducing consumption of externally sourced water and increasing the proportion of internally reused/recycled water, intermediate targets may be set for either or both of Ws/We and Wr/Wo as per the methodology outlined above for operational energy. 7.2.3 Material flows A university’s use of materials may be defined in terms of inputs (procurement of equipment, consumables, build-ing materials etc), stocks (the existing inventory of such items) and outputs (solid waste and recyclables). Inputs and outputs are collectively regarded as material flows. Material flow analysis (MFA) is “the systematic assess-ment of the flows and stocks of materials within a sys-tem defined in space and time” [85] to help quantify the environmental impacts of human activities. It developed out of mass balance (input-output) methods tradition-ally used in chemical and process engineering. MFA is predicated on the conservation of matter when sub-jected to physical or chemical transformative processes: S k O k mI m m I O where m represents mass, k represents the number of flows, I refers to input, O to output, and S to storage (ac-cumulation or depletion of materials). 86 A bulk MFA typically requires collection of an extensive materials inventory. On the other hand, a “stream-lined” MFA, restricted to quantification of the stocks and flows of selected, representative goods (defined as substances of positive or negative economic value), can supply sufficient data to enable an initial estimate of environmental impact [86], and support the devel-opment of targets to reduce that impact. Applying MFA to built form, stocks equate to the total mass of construction materials, which may be disag-gregated by material type – concrete, steel, glass etc. This may be quantified in relation to building volume, gross floor area, number of occupants, activities etc for a given time period. Inputs include raw materials and prefabricated or manufactured components, and outputs include wastes and pollutants, some of which may be recycled (Figure 8.2). Figure 8.2: Simplified model for the material flows and stocks relating to built form. The system boundary (dashed line) is the “campus economy”. REUSE & RECYCLING INPUTS Buildings & Waste OUTPUTS Raw materials Manuf. products DISPOSAL The building life cycle can thus be characterised as a set of mass balance equations [86]: For the construction phase, ⎟⎟ ⎠ ⎜⎜ ⎝ n j n j n j j n j j S I R W 1 1 1 1 con con where stocks = inputs minus outputs; Srepresents the j stock of material j in the building fabric, Ij is the input of j to the new building project, Rconis the output of j as j construction waste which is recovered, and Wconis the j output of j as construction waste to landfill. For the demolition phase, n Σ = Σ + Σ = = = j n j j n j S R dem W dem j j 1 1 1 where stocks = outputs; Rdemj and Wdemj refer to dem-olition waste which is recycled and landfilled respec-tively. The construction and demolition (C&D) recycling rate Rrj (i.e. the mass of material j recovered as a proportion of total waste) is given by: Σ Σ Σ = = = = ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ n j j n j j j n j j R W S where Rj represents the mass of the combined C&D re-cycling stream and Wj represents the combined mass of C&D waste to landfill. Finally, the composition of the C&D recycling stream Crj is estimated by multiplying the percentage recovery of specific building materials by their proportionate con-tribution to the overall mass of the given building type: Σ Σ Σ Σ = = = = j 1 1 1 1 For each of the above equations, material densities per square metre of floor space are obtained by dividing by the gross floor area (GFA) for a given building or for the
- 50. 99 TECHNICAL APPENDIX GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 87 totality of buildings on the site. Where multiple build-ings are selected this assumes a linear mathematical relationship, which holds only where the buildings are of similar surface area to volume ratio and share similar construction characteristics. Application of these equations enables calculation of the volume or mass of selected materials embodied in campus buildings, the average annual addition to and subtraction (via demolition) of materials from the existing stock of buildings, C&D recycling and landfill disposal rates and the proportional composition of the waste stream. The construction/demolition cycle also provides useful information on the durability or persis-tence of campus built form. Knowing the annual addi-tion to and subtraction from the building stock enables calculation of the percentage turnover each year, and hence the average service life of the campus buildings. The material intensity of built form may be measured against the relevant services provided by campus buildings [87]. “Units of service” may be defined in terms of student numbers, degrees awarded, research income etc. In other words, how much concrete, steel, glass, aluminium, etc is required to support the core business of the university? Given that concrete and steel have been estimated to be responsible for about two-thirds of the life cycle environmental impacts of buildings [88, 89], a “stream-lined” approach limited to these two materials offers a relatively straightforward way to establish performance indicators and set objectives and targets in relation to material intensity per unit of service, average building service life and C&D waste management. The analysis is based on basic building science and on readily ob-tainable information on building typology, floor area and construction and demolition dates. A corollary to this form of analysis is that the role of the building as intermediary in delivering a given service becomes the focus of attention, raising the obvious questions: can the service be delivered without the mediation of any building at all? And if not, what is the minimum mate-rial intensity necessary to do the job? For example, to what extent can a combination of online learning, im-proved space utilisation/scheduling, use of outdoor spaces and small group teaching in preference to large lecture theatres help to “dematerialise” the university campus [86]? 7.2.4 Ecosystem services The positive impacts of urban vegetation, of which cam-pus vegetation may be considered a subset, covers the full spectrum of environmental, economic, social and cultural benefits, or ecosystem services. The amount of vegetation in a given space has typically been meas-ured in terms of canopy coverage. Boon Lay Ong of Melbourne University in Australia has proposed a new architectural and planning metric for urban greenery, which is well suited to application on university cam-puses. The green plot ratio (GPR) is based on leaf area index (LAI): the GPR is simply the average LAI of the greenery on site and can be presented as a ratio similar to the building plot ratio (BPR) currently in use in many cities to control maximum allowable built-up floor area in a development [90]. LAI is an indicator of vegetation primary productivity [91], hence a more meaningful measure of the ecosystem services provided by vegeta-tion than simple canopy coverage. The LAI values recommended in this Toolkit, as with those proposed by Ong, are based on global LAI data compiled from field measurement over a period of nearly 70 years [92]. But whereas Ong sets his measures at 1:1 for grass, 3:1 for shrubs and 6:1 for trees, the metrics recommended here are expressed as decimal numbers rather than ratios, include paved surfaces (LAI = 0) and introduce a distinc-tion between shrubs (LAI = 2) and small trees (LAI = 4). This gives five potential values for LAI. The GPR method may be applied to a university campus as a whole, or to defined sites within the campus. The LAI value for each site LAIS is calculated from the formula: ( ) ( ) A(S) LAI A LAI i LAI i S Σ × = , i = {0, 1, 2, 4, 6}outreach where LAIS = average LAI for the given site, A(LAIi) = area covered by elements of leaf area index i, and A(S) = total area of the site. In similar manner to the other metrics examined in this section of the Toolkit, the green plot ratio method may be used to define performance indicators for campus green space, and to set quantified objectives and tar-gets for the step-by-step greening of the campus. Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia © SHUTTERSTOCK
- 51. Section 8 REFERENCES GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 89 References [1] M’Gonigle, M. and J. Starke, Planet U, sustaining the world, reinventing the university. 2006, Canada: New Society Publishers. [2] Smith, A., Campus Ecology: A Guide to Assessing Environmental Quality and Creating Strategies for Change. 1993, Los Angeles: Living Planet Press. [3] Keniry, J., Ecodemia: Campus Environmental Stewardship at the Turn of the 21st Century. 1995, Washington: National Wildlife Federation. [4] Creighton, S.H., Greening the Ivory Tower. 1998, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. [5] Leal Filho, W., ed. Sustainability and University Life. 2nd ed. 2000, Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main. [6] Sharp, L., Green campuses: the road from little victories to systemic transformation. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2002. 3(2): p. 128-145. [7] UNESCO, Educating for a sustainable future: A transdisciplinary vision for concerted action, in Proceedings, International Conference on Environment and Society: Education and Public Awareness for Sustainability. 1997, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation: Thessaloniki, Greece. [8] UN, Report on the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. 1972, United Nations: Stockholm. [9] (IUCN), World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development. 1980, Gland, Switzerland: International Union for the Conservation of Nature. [10] World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), Our Common Future. 1987, Oxford: Oxford University Press. [11] Diesendorf, M., Sustainability and sustainable development, in Sustainability: The corporate challenge of the 21st century, D. Dunphy, et al., Editors. 2000, Allen & Unwin: Sydney, Australia. p. 19-37. [12] Harding, R., ed. Environmental Decision-making. The roles of scientists, engineers and the public. 1998, Federation Press: Sydney. [13] Daly, H.E., Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development. 1996, Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press. [14] Meadows, D., Indicators and information systems for sustainable development: A report to the Balaton Group. 1998, The Sustainability Institute: Vermont. [15] Costanza, R., et al., An Introduction to Ecological Economics. 1997, Boca Raton, FL: St Lucie Press. [16] Costanza, R., et al., Quality of life: An approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective well-being. Ecological Economics, 2007. 61(267-276). [17] Orr, D.W., The Nature of Design: Ecology, Culture and Human Intention. 2002, Oxford: Oxford University Press. [18] Bekessy, S., et al., Universities and Sustainability, in TELA: Environment, economy and society, D. Yencken, 90 Editor. 2003, Australian Conservation Foundation: Melbourne. [19] Pollock, N., et al., Envisioning helps promote sustainability in academia: A case study at the University of Vermont. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2009. 10(4): p. 343-353. [20] ULSF, The Talloires Declaration. 1990, University Leaders for a Sustainable Future: Washington DC. [21] Wright, T., Definitions and frameworks for environmental sustainability in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2002. 3(3): p. 203-220. [22] Lukman, R. and P. Glavič, What are the key elements of a sustainable university? Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 2007. 9: p. 103-114. [23] Flint, K., Institutional ecological footprint analysis: A case study of the University of Newcastle, Australia. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2001. 2(1): p. 48-62. [24] Ferrer-Balas, D., et al., An international comparative analysis of sustainability transformation across seven universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Educatiob, 2008. 9(3): p. 215-316. [25] Koester, R.J., J. Eflin, and J. Vann, Greening of the campus: a whole-systems approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2006. 14: p. 769-779. [26] Levy, J.I. and K.M. Dilwali, Economic incentives for sustainable resource consumption at a large university: Past performance and future considerations. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2000. 1(3): p. 252-266. [27] Christensen, P., et al., Sustainable development: Assessing the gap between preaching and practice at Aalborg University. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2009. 10(1): p. 4-20. [28] Spellerberg, I.F., G.D. Buchan, and R. Englefield, Need a university adopt a formal environmental management system? Progress without an EMS at a small university. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2004. 5(2): p. 125-132. [29] Rauch, J.N. and J. Newman, Institutionalizing a greenhouse gas emission reduction target at Yale. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2009. 10(4): p. 390-400. [30] Krick, T., et al., The Stakeholder Engagement Manual Volume 2: The practitioner’s handbook on stakeholder engagement. 2005, AccountAbility, United Nations Environment Programme, Stakeholder Research Associates Canada Inc.: Cobourg, Ontario. [31] Meinshausen, M., et al., Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2°C. Nature, 2009. 458: p. 1156-1162. [32] Thaman, K., Shifting sights: The cultural challenge of sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2002. 3(3): p. 233-242. [33] Bekessy, S., K. Samson, and R.E. Clarkson, The failure of non-binding declarations to achieve university sustainability: A need for accountability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2007. 8 (3): p. 301-316. [34] Hunt, C.B. and E.R. Auster, Proactive environmental management: avoiding the toxic trap. Sloan Management Review, 1990. Winter: p. 7-18.
- 52. REFERENCES GREENING UNIVERSITIES TOOLKIT 91 [35] Lozano, R., Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities: breaking through barriers to change. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2006. 14: p. 787-796. [36] Velazquez, L., et al., Sustainable university: what can be the matter? Journal of Cleaner Production, 2006. 14: p. 810-819. [37] Cramer, W., et al., Comparing global models of terrestrial net primary productivity (NPP): overview and key results. Global Change Biology, 1999. 5 (Suppl. 1): p. 1-15. [38] Moore, J., et al., Recreating the university from within: Collaborative reflections on the University of British Columbia’s engagement with sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2005. 6(1): p. 65-80. [39] Deming, W.E., Out of the Crisis. 1986, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study. [40] Grindsted, T.S., Sustainable universities – from declarations on sustainability in higher education to national law. Environmental Economics, 2011. 2(2): p. 29-36. [41] ISCN-GULF, Implementation Guidelines to the ISCN-GULF Sustainable Campus Charter: Suggested reporting contents and format. 2010, International Sustainable Campus Network and Global University Leaders Forum: Boston. [42] Partridge, K., et al., The Stakeholder Engagement Manual Volume 1: The guide to practitioners’ perspectives on stakeholder engagement. 2005, Stakeholder Research Associates Canada Inc., United Nations Environment Programme, AccountAbility: Cobourg, Ontario. [43] Simpson, W., Cool Campus! A How-To Guide for College and University Climate Action Planning. 2009, Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education: Lexington, USA. [44] ULSF, Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) for Colleges and Universities. 2009, University Leaders for a Sustainable Future: Wayland, USA. [45] ISO, ISO 14001 Environmental management systems - Requirements with guidance for use. 2004, International Organization for Standardization: Geneva. [46] ISO, ISO 14004 Environmental management systems - General guidelines on principles, systems and support techniques. 2004, International Organization for Standardization: Geneva. [47] ISO, ISO 26000 Guidance on social responsibility. 2010, International Organization for Standardization: Geneva. [48] ISO, ISO 19011 Guidelines for auditing management systems. 2011, International Organization for Standardization: Geneva. [49] GRI, Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. 2011, Global Reporting Initiative: Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [50] Vitousek, P.M., et al., Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science, 1997. 277: p. 494-499. [51] Palumbi, S.R., Humans as the world’s greatest evolutionary force. Science, 2001. 293(5536): p. 1786-1790. [52] World Resources Institute, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) Synthesis Report. 2005, United Nations Environment Programme: New York. [53] Kingsford, R.T., et al., Major conservation policy issues for biodiversity in Oceania Conservation Biology, 2009. 23(4): p. 834-840. 92 [54] Dahle, M. and E. Neumayer, Overcoming barriers to campus greening. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Educatiob, 2001. 2(2): p. 139-160. [55] BP, BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2011. 2011. [56] Fisher, R.M., Applying ISO 14001 as a business tool for campus sustainability: A case study from New Zealand. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2003. 4(2): p. 138-150. [57] Comm, C.L. and D.F.X. Mathaisel, A case study in applying lean sustainability concepts to universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2005. 6(2): p. 134-146. [58] Clarke, A., The campus environmental management system cycle in practice: 15 years of environmental management, education and research at Dalhousie University. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2006. 7(4): p. 374-389. [59] Standards Australia, HB 206 Initial Environmental Review (IER). 2004, Standards Australia: Sydney. [60] Shriberg, M., Institutional assessment tools for sustainability in higher education: Strengths, weaknesses and implications for practice and theory. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2002. 3(3): p. 254-270. [61] Von Schirnding, Y., Health in sustainable development planning: The role of indicators. 2002, World Health Organization: Geneva. [62] McCool, S. and G. Stankey, Indicators of Sustainability: Challenges and Opportunities at the Interface of Science and Policy. Environmental Management 2004. 3(3): p. 294-305. [63] Wackernagel, M. and W.E. Rees, Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on Earth. 1996, Philadelphia: New Society Publishers. [64] White, S.S., Early participation in the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2009. 10(3): p. 215-227. [65] Roy, R., S. Potter, and K. Yarrow, Designing low carbon higher education systems: Environmental impacts of campus and distance learning systems. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2008. 9(2): p. 116-130. [66] UNSW, Water Savings Action Plan. 2006, University of New South Wales: Sydney. [67] Costanza, R., et al., The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 1997. 387: p. 253- 260. [68] Alberti, M. and J.M. Marzluff, Ecological resilience in urban ecosystems: Linking urban patterns to human and ecological functions. Urban Ecosystems, 2004. 7: p. 241-265. [69] Mitsch, W.J. and S.E. Jørgensen, Ecological Engineering and Ecosystem Restoration. 2004, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons. [70] Woolliams, J., M. Lloyd, and J.D. Spengler, The case for sustainable laboratories: first steps at Harvard University. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2005. 6(4): p. 363-382. [71] Labs21, Labs21 Environmental Performance Criteria 3.0. 2010, Laboratories for the 21st Century. [72] IEEE Standards Association. 1680-2009 - IEEE Standard for Environmental Assessment of Electronic Products. 2011 [04/01/2012]; Available from: http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/1680-2009.html.
- 53. REFERENCES 93 [73] Green Electronics Council. EPEAT. 2011 [04/01/2012]; Available from: http://www.epeat.net/. [74] Federal Electronics Challenge. Electronics Environmental Benefits Calculator. 2011 [04/01/2012]; Available from: http://www.federalelectronicschallenge.net/resources/bencalc.htm. [75] Kolb, D., Experiential Learning. 1984, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. [76] Hansman, C.A., Context-based Learning, in New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, S. Merriam, Editor. 2001, Jossey-Bass: San Francisco. p. 43-52. [77] Bould, D. and G. Felletti, eds. The Challenge of Problem-Based Learning. 1991, St. Martin’s Press: New York. [78] ISO, ISO 14063 Environmental management -- Environmental communication -- Guidelines and examples. 2006, International Organization for Standardization: Geneva. [79] Carpenter, D. and B. Meehan, Mainstreaming environmental management: Case studies from Australasian universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2002. 3(1): p. 19-37. [80] Hardi, P. and T. Zdan, Assessing sustainable development: Principles in practice. 1997, International Institute for Sustainable Development: Winnipeg, Canada. [81] Mendoza, G.A., P. Macoun, and R. Prabhu, Guidelines for applying multi-criteria analysis to the assessment of criteria and indicators. 1999, Center for International Forestry Research: Bogor, Indonesia. [82] Graedel, T.E., Quantitative sustainability in a college or university setting. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2002. 3(4): p. 346-358. [83] Gleick, P., Basic water requirements for human activities: Meeting basic needs. International Water 1996. 21(2): p. 83-92. [84] Falkenmark, M. and C. Widstrand, Population and water resources: A delicate balance. Population Bulletin 1992. 47(3): p. 1-36. [85] Brunner, P.H. and H. Rechberger, Practical Handbook of Material Flow Analysis. Advanced Methods in Resource and Waste Management. 2003, Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press/Lewis Publishers. [86] Osmond, P., Application of “streamlined” material accounting to estimate environmental impact. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 2010. 6(668-678). [87] Schmidt-Bleek, F., MIPS - a universal ecologic measure. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 1993. 2(8): p. 407-412. [88] Yau, R. and V. Cheng. Developing life cycle assessment tool for buildings in Hong Kong. in Sustainable Building Conference 2004. 2004. Shanghai: International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction. [89] Asif, M., T. Muneer, and R. Kelley, Life cycle assessment: A case study of a dwelling home in Scotland. Building and Environment, 2007: p. 1391–1394. [90] Ong, B.L., Green plot ratio: an ecological measure for architecture and urban planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2003. 63 p. 197–211. [91] Asner, G.P., J.M.O. Scurlock, and J.A. Hicke, Global synthesis of leaf area index observations: implications for ecological and remote sensing studies. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 2003. 12: p. 191-205. [92] Scurlock, J.M.O., G.P. Asner, and S.T. Gower, Global Leaf Area Index Data from Field Measurements, 1932–2000. 2001, University of Colorado: Oak Ridge. [93] United Nations Global Compact, A practical guide to the United Nations Global Compact for Higher Education Institutions: Implementing the Global Compact Principles and Communicating on Progress,