week4 campus sustainability

8/3/2019 WEEK4 Campus Sustainability

1/11

Campus sustainability: climatechange, transport and paper

reductionAlison Atherton and Damien Giurco

Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to detail the design of a campus climate change strategy, transportstrategy and paper reduction strategy at the University of Technology, Sydney (Australia).

Design/methodology/approach The approach to strategy development used desktop researchand staff/student consultation to inform the development of objectives, targets and actions for eachstrategy. The strengths and weaknesses of the governance structures for strategy design and

implementation are also discussed.Findings A selection of targets are given here, with further details of objectives and actions in themain text. Climate change: reduce emissions by 11 percent by 2012/2013, 30 percent by 2020.Transport: double the proportion of staff/student commuting trips by walking and cycling to35 percent by 2011. Paper reduction: by 2011, decrease paper purchased by 20 percent and increasingrecycled paper use to 30 percent. The momentum generated by the strategy development shows that itcan play a significant role in creating a more sustainable university.

Practical implications Practical guidance for universities and organisations undergoingorganisational change for sustainability is given with a focus on: how to engage with staff andstudents to develop shared aspirations and reflect these in tangible objectives, targets and actions; and,how to evolve organisational structures to implement strategies and create a sustainable highereducation institution.

Originality/value The value of this work lies in the frank reflections on the processes used to

engage stakeholders and develop the strategies as well as with the tangible targets and actionspresented which will be of interest for other universities seeking to benchmark their own activities.

Keywords Universities, Environmental management, Strategy, Higher education, Procurement,Australia

Paper type Case study

1. Sustainability at the University of Technology, SydneyIncreasingly, tertiary education institutions are taking steps to address theirenvironmental impact and particularly their contribution to climate change, includingthe implementation of formal or informal environmental management systems (Clarkeand Kouri, 2009; Koester et al., 2006; Jain and Pant, 2010). Australian tertiary institutionshave begun to take a leadership role in sustainability through organisations such asAustralasian Campuses Towards Sustainability.

University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) began its sustainability journey in 1990 bysigning The Talloires Declaration of the University Leaders for a Sustainable Future.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1467-6370.htm

The authors would like to acknowledge their colleagues at the Institute for Sustainable Futures,University of Technology, Sydney who worked on the climate change, transport and paperstrategies Ms Nicky Ison, Ms Leah Mason, Dr Chris Riedy, Professor Stuart White andDr Michelle Zeibots.

Campussustainability

269

Received 26 August 2010Revised 26 January 2011

Accepted 10 February 2011

International Journal of Sustainability

in Higher Education

Vol. 12 No. 3, 2011

pp. 269-279

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1467-6370

DOI 10.1108/14676371111148054


2/11

In 2008, UTS became a signatory to the Australian Technology Network (ATN)Declaration of Commitment to Local, National and Global Sustainability, an initiativedesigned to make sustainability a focus of teaching and learning, research, operations,infrastructure services and outreach to local, regional and global communities.

This paper describes the process undertaken for consultation, development andimplementation for three strategies to advance campus sustainability at the UTS namely:

(1) Climate change and energy.

(2) Transport strategy.

(3) Paper reduction, as an example of procurement.

The rationale for the work was to provide the university with evidence-based researchto underpin target setting and strategy development across a range of sustainability-related areas. As stated on the UTS environmental sustainability website (www.green.uts.edu.au), Including environmental sustainability principles and

targets into all aspects of our decision making is reflected as a core objective in theUTS Strategic Plan for 2009-2018. The first three strategy areas are described herein.

2. UTS Environmental Sustainability Initiative and approach to strategydevelopmentIn 2008, over 32,000 students were enrolled at UTS in onshore and offshore courses andUTS has over 2,500 full-time equivalent staff.

The UTS Environmental Sustainability Initiative (ESI) has a governance structurecomprising a high-level Steering Committee to provide overall direction and guidance tothe ESI, plus Working Groups to cover specific issues. The ESI is headed up at a seniorlevel by the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Resources) who chairs the Steering Committee.

Other Steering Committee members are senior staff from relevant departments, such asHuman Resources and Facilities Management, and senior sustainability advisers fromacross UTS.

UTS engaged one of its own research institutes, the Institute for SustainableFutures (ISF), to develop strategies in the three areas of climate change (energy),transport and paper use, overseen by the relevant Working Group. The aim was toprovide a clear direction and framework for change including the ability to trackperformance, prioritise needs and resources, consult widely to ensure buy in andcommitment to act.

Consultation was undertaken with individual staff with relevant responsibilities.Discussions were also held with representatives of the UTS student environmentcollective. Additionally, once draft strategies were available, all staff and students wereinvited to attend an open consultation session on the strategies. This was a usefulforum for gathering feedback and ideas relating to the strategies.

The strategies were developed consistent with principles stating that UTS will:

. strive to ensure equity;

. protect and improve human health, well-being and quality of life;

. not generate emissions that threaten public health or essential ecologicalprocesses and make efficient use of land and other natural resources;

IJSHE12,3

270


3/11

. contribute to the resilience and adaptability of the Sydney and UTS communitiesto changing circumstances;

. minimise social, environmental and economic costs;

.

embed sustainability in evidence based and transparent decision making;. raise public awareness of sustainability issues; and. monitor and publicly report on its sustainability performance.

The following sections discuss the three strategies in turn, looking first, at the researchand development process, second, the research findings and finally the proposedobjectives, targets and actions presented in the strategies.

Common to all three strategies was an evidence-based approach. A literature reviewof contemporary Australian and international practices at university campuses wasundertaken, noting factors contributing to successes and failures. Baseline data forcurrent practices at UTS were then collected where available, at the same timeidentifying future areas where data need to be collected. This process was integral to

ensuring future progress towards targets could be measured relative to historicalperformance. At this point, there were two ways to proceed:

(1) Set ambitious impact reduction targets and then figure out how to meet them, ashas occurred at other universities.

(2) Explore a range of potential impact reduction options in consultation withstakeholders and then set stretch targets consistent with a realistic chance ofachieving them to strengthen a successful foundation for the initiative.

The latter was chosen, and whilst this has the limitation of requiring more initialbackground work, it was important to inform the sustainability business case whichsecured management buy in.

3. Climate change strategyBackgroundThere has been significant interest in measuring the emissions of greenhouses gasesattributable to universities (Riddell et al., 2008) to implementing carbon reduction orcarbon neutral programs on campus (Cleaves et al., 2008; Button, 2008). Such programshave been undertaken both recognising that universities like other institutionswhich manage large numbers of people are contributors to greenhouse pollution.However, there is also a deeper motivation as stated by Cleaves et al. (2008):

Our mission as a university goes beyond greening the campus. Todays students are theinheritors of the worlds climate change crisis, and it is incumbent upon us to help them find

solutions.Similarly at UTS the motivation was both to reduce impact on campus, but also to raisethe profile of the climate issue with staff, students and the community and show howthe challenge can be addressed.

Strategy developmentThe process for developing the climate change strategy was unique among the threestrategies in that it incorporated work from a separate project to develop a greenhouse


271


4/11

emissions reduction target for the ATN of universities and because it developed adetailed costing model for emissions reductions.

ISF coordinated the process to develop the ATN emissions reduction target. Eachuniversity undertook its own research, including development of a greenhouse

inventory, review of existing measures and an energy efficiency audit. In February2008, the ATN announced a joint emissions reduction target of 25 percent by 2020compared to the baseline year, 2007. To contribute proportionally to this joint target,UTS has committed to reducing its own greenhouse footprint by 30 percent by2020-2021.

The UTS climate change strategy development process took place in tandem withthe target development process.

Research findingsFigure 1 shows the percentage of total UTS scopes 1 and 2 greenhouse emissionsgenerated from different sources.

According to the greenhouse gas protocol reporting framework, scopes 1 and 2

emissions include direct emissions and emissions from electricity. It excludes, forexample, emissions from air travel, which are indirect or scope 3 emissions. The ATNuniversities, including UTS found that data on scope 3 emissions was insufficient toinclude in the target-setting process at this stage, although it is intended that they willbe included in future. Figure 1 shows the largest emissions reductions must come fromreducing electricity use and/or decarbonising electricity supply. Currently the majority(,97 percent) of electricity comes from coal-based power through the state grid, withthe remainder from low-carbon renewable sources purchased through the grid(wind/solar).

Proposed objectives, targets and actionsThe objectives below set out what UTS aims to achieve through implementation of thestrategy:

(1) Reduce emissions at the rate required to avoid dangerous climate change.

(2) Design new and refurbished buildings to minimise emissions and enable futureinnovations.

(3) Minimise activities that generate emissions.

(4) Minimise electricity consumption and peak electricity demand.

(5) Minimise embodied energy in construction and/or materials.

Figure 1.UTS scope 1 and 2greenhouse emissionspercentage of total by type

Natural gas 5%

Wastewater treatment 3%

Waste disposal 3%Motor vehicles 1%

Air conditioning refrigerants 1%

Electricity 87%

IJSHE12,3

272


5/11

(6) Maximise efficiency of all emission-generating activities and technologies.

(7) Minimise greenhouse intensity of energy supply and maximise the percentagethat is from renewable sources.

(8) Use offsets to achieve further emission reductions only after cost-effectiveon-campus reduction options are exhausted.

(9) Promote uptake of greenhouse reduction measures on campus and beyond.

(10) Measure, monitor and report on all greenhouse gas emissions that UTS has theability to control.

As well as the target to reduce emissions by 30 percent by 2020, the strategy sets aninterim target of reducing emissions by 11 percent by 2012/2013. Additional targetswere set to achieve a minimum Green Star Education rating of four stars for refurbishedbuildings, five stars for new buildings and six stars for one new building, and equivalentGreen Star-related energy targets. A target was also set to improve data collection.

The key actions proposed in the strategy to achieve the targets are:

. Implement further energy efficiency measures to achieve around half of theemissions reduction target, particularly energy efficiency in lighting and heating,ventilation and air conditioning.

. Meet Green Star commitments in new buildings and focus achievement of GreenStar ratings on energy efficiency.

. Undertake a feasibility study for a UTS Green Information Technology program.

. Install a 1.2 MW trigeneration facility for new buildings in the campusdevelopment plans.

. Investigate sites for installation of small photovoltaic systems.

. Increase Green Power to 5 percent of total electricity purchased.

. Continue to monitor, report and analyse energy and greenhouse emissions dataand increase the scope of emissions included in the greenhouse inventory.

UTS Facilities Management Unit will take ownership of implementation of the climatechange strategy with ongoing advice from the ESI Energy Working Group.

4. Sustainable transport strategyStrategy developmentUnlike other areas of strategy development, transport does not currently have aspecific functional owner within the university. Transport services and facilities areprovided by a number of people in different parts of the organisation, including human

resources (salary packaging policy), security services (car parking allocation),information technology (video-conferencing facilities) and facilities management (UTSvehicle fleet, cycling and pedestrian facilities). The consultation process involved stafffrom all relevant areas.

A baseline transport profile was developed, incorporating mode split (theproportion of staff and students that use each of the available modes of transportation)and a preliminary greenhouse footprint. Developing the baseline transport profilepresented challenges. For the purposes of data collection we considered two broad


273


6/11

categories of travel: staff work-related travel; and, staff and student commuting,which in simple terms, is the regular journey to and from UTS university campuses.

Research findings

Figure 2 shows the UTS staff commuting mode split, based on the results of the staffcommuting survey and benchmarked against commuting patterns of the SydneyCentral Business District/Downtown (Transport Data Centre, 2008).

Figure 2 shows high levels of public transport use, lower levels of motor vehicle useand relatively large numbers of walkers and cyclists. Whilst not shown in Figure 2, theestimates for students are broadly similar to the staff profile, with the major differencesbeing around 12 percent lower levels of car use and 10 percent higher train use forstudents than staff (Halcrow, 2008). High use of train and bus is most likely related tothe campuss proximity to major bus and rail hubs. The central location of the citycampus gives UTS a distinct advantage compared to other Sydney universities withrespect to transport options. Nonetheless, there is scope to further reduce motor vehicleuse and the results indicate the existence of a sizeable community of walkers and

cyclists who could be better catered for with campus facilities.The staff survey also provided information on motivations for mode choice. The most

common motivation for mode choice amongst staff members is that a chosen mode isconsidered to be the quickest option available. Staff members walking or cycling alsorated enjoyment and health benefits in larger numbers (78 and 71 percent,respectively). This information is useful for communicating the benefits of particulartransport modes.

Proposed objectives, targets and actionsThe results of the research were used to inform development of objectives, targets andactions. The strategy emphasises that reducing trips is the first priority, followed

Figure 2.Benchmarked commutingtransport mode split forUTS City Campus staff

60

50

40

30

20

10

0Train Bus

UTS city campus

Sydney CBD

Motor

vehicle

Bicycle Walk Other

Percentageoftripsbymode

IJSHE12,3

274


7/11

by increasing the proportion of essential travel undertaken using sustainable modes oftransport, particularly walking and cycling. The objectives below set out what UTSaims to achieve through implementation of the strategy:

(1) Maximise equity in provision of UTS transport facilities and policies.

(2) Avoid travel where possible.

(3) Maximise use of sustainable transport modes.

(4) Minimise private car use.

(5) Minimise pollution, particularly greenhouse gas emissions.

(6) Positively influence external transport services.

(7) Promote sustainable transport modes.

(8) Improve transport data.

Owing to the lack of robust data, it is not yet possible to set meaningful targets forwork-related travel. However, the commuting data are sufficient to set at least onetarget that can be tracked over time. The target is to double the proportion of staff andstudent commuting trips by walking and cycling to 35 percent of staff and studentswalking or cycling by 2011.

The priority actions that UTS proposes to implement to achieve these objectivesinclude:

(1) Augment and promote video conferencing and other technology options toreduce the need for travel.

(2) Promote flexible employment policies to reduce the need for travel.

(3) Actively discourage air travel.

(4) Upgrade cycling facilities bike stands, showers and lockers and support

development of a cycling culture.(5) Provide loans and discounts for staff to buy periodical public transport ticket.

(6) Investigate the feasibility of a student U-Pass scheme similar to the US schemesthat incorporate discounted public transport.

(7) Provide pre-paid public transport tickets for work-related travel.

(8) Review fleet management and parking policies with a view to creating fleetarrangements that meet business requirements and do not unduly incentiviseprivate car use.

(9) Investigate the feasibility of introducing car sharing and car-pooling schemes.

(10) Actively promote the sustainable transport options available to staff and

students. To this end, a UTS Transport Access Guide has been developed.(11) Work with precinct neighbours to advocate for improved facilities,

infrastructure and services for the precinct.

(12) Continue to gather and improve data on the UTS transport profile.

(13) Investigate the need for a dedicated transport officer.

UTS has recently appointed a fleet manager who will oversee implementation of thestrategy. The transport strategy will require participation of a number of different


275


8/11

departments within the university operational structure and a new coordinatedapproach to the overall transport task.

5. Paper reduction strategyStrategy developmentThe Sustainable Procurement Working Group focuses on sustainable procurementprocedures. Paper was chosen as a priority for initial strategy development to developgood practice and because it affects both staff and students.

Research undertaken to understand what paper data were available waschallenging because data sources were diverse. For example, while much paper iscentrally purchased, some faculties buy their own, university printing services makesits own purchases and the paper used in the library is supplied by a contractor. Thework involved consultation with staff and students in various departments.

A staff survey in the library was undertaken to better understand staff and studentprinting practices. A student survey was planned but was not conducted as students

were not on campus over the crucial strategy development phase, from November toFebruary. Consequently, student feedback was obtained via the open staff and studentconsultation session held for all three strategies which supported even moreprogressive targets than those being proposed.

Given the nature of paper use within the university (i.e. much is used and discardedon-site), it was important to coordinate with the Waste Working Group of the ESI,particularly to establish protocols for data collection and management of waste papervolumes.

Research findingsResults of the research are shown in Figure 3, which indicates in broad terms wherepaper is used across UTS and presents types and quantities of paper used, where data

were available.The results show that the majority of paper stock used is virgin, although some

recycled paper is used and its use is growing. Whilst campus-wide data were notreadily available for all divisions in 2007 to provide a comparison, an earlierpublication on paper use at UTS (Hardy et al., 2005) shows that paper inthe Information Technology Department lab alone was .120,000 reams per year in2001 more than the total paper use for the entire university in 2008. That was at atime when students were not charged for printing and single-sided paper use wascommon.

Proposed objectives, targets and actionsThe paper reduction strategy identifies objectives and targets for paper use.The strategy emphasises that reducing paper use is the first priority, followed by usingrecycled stocks for essential use. The objectives below set out what UTS aims toachieve through implementation of the strategy:

(1) Minimise use and purchase of paper used for printing and pre-printed products.

(2) Minimise use of virgin materials and environmentally harmful substances inpaper bought externally and in paper used by UTS internally.

(3) Minimise paper waste.

IJSHE12,3

276


9/11

(4) Promote uptake of sustainable paper use.

(5) Improve data on paper use and disposal.

Targets include decreasing paper purchased (A3 and A4 copy paper) by 20 percent by2011, increasing recycled[1] paper stock to 30 percent of total paper stocks, anddecreasing total paper waste generated by 20 percent.

The priority actions proposed to achieve the objectives and targets are:

(1) A campus-wide shift to default double-sided printing.

(2) A preferred paper policy for all A4 and A3 plain papers with a minimum of 80percent recycled content.

(3) Mandatory purchase of paper and paper products from preferred suppliers withexcellent environmental performance.

(4) A purchasing policy that favours toners with the best environmentalcredentials.

(5) Continued provision of clearly designated paper waste recycling bins in alloffice, common and teaching areas of the university.

(6) Promote sustainable paper options.

(7) Improve data on paper purchasing, use and disposal.

The Sustainable Procurement Working Group took on the task of allocatingresponsibility for implementation of actions to appropriate units within the university,however, some tasks are likely to require dedicated resourcing, particularly withrespect to maintaining an accurate dataset of paper usage over time in order to trackprogress. Strategies for other procurement practices will be developed subsequently.

Figure 3.UTS paper use in 2008

100,000

90,000

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

2008

Recycled-not

post-consumer

Recycled-post-

consumer waste

ITD labs-virgin

stock

UTS printing-

virgin stock

Library-virgin

stock

Virgin stock

Ream

speryear(eachreami

s500sheetsA4paper)


277


10/11

6. Common issues for the three strategiesWhilst the three strategy development processes identified challenges andopportunities unique to the areas of climate change, transport and paper use, theprocess also drew out common issues. Three of the main issues are discussed below.

The first issue is resourcing and coordination. All identified a suite of actionsneeded to move UTS towards sustainability. Implementation of these actions willrequire a significant commitment of human and financial resources. The ESI began byusing voluntary commitments of time from Working Group members to assesssustainability performance and plan for improvements. Recognising that voluntarycommitments will no longer be sufficient as the university moves into theimplementation phase, a sustainability manager and coordinator have beenappointed. This issue of successful coordination has also been identified at beingcritical to the success of greening campus initiatives (Shriberg, 2003).

A second issue for all three strategy areas is availability of appropriate, completeand accurate data, and ongoing monitoring and reporting of performance. UTS hasbeen monitoring energy use in buildings for some years and it recently began tomeasure its greenhouse footprint. However, for transport and paper the strategydevelopment process prompted better data collection. Currently, data needed forsustainability indicators is not yet routinely collected in most cases. The task now is todecide what level of data accuracy and completeness is appropriate and how datacollection can be integrated into systems without increasing administrative costs.

A final issue for all strategies regards engaging the UTS community of staff,students and other stakeholders to embrace strategy measures. Support from staff andstudents will be crucial to the success of the strategies as noted by Button (2008). UTSis considering an engagement program based on other Green Office Programs thatcould provide staff and students with training and ongoing support mechanisms.

7. Conclusions and lessonsEstablishing the ESI and developing strategies for three key areas of impact areimportant stages of UTSs sustainability journey. The issues described abovehighlight a core long-term requirement for a sustainable organisation culturechange. The ESI has kick-started the process of culture change within the university,but ongoing commitment is needed for embedding change. The UTS senior executivehas recognised opportunities in sustainability and has made public commitments toachieving a sustainable campus.

Adopting a strategic approach, namely, researching, planning and consulting toarrive at an ambitious and achievable plan of action, may seem self-evident but is oftenlacking in organisational change for sustainability. This approach should mean thatUTS is well prepared for the challenges ahead, knowing that the measures

implemented are contributing to specific goals and targets. Importantly, the approachfor each of the three strategy areas in UTSs case was necessarily different, dependingon factors such as the scale and nature of the task, past work in the area andavailability of data. For other universities seeking to pursue similar initiatives,engaging key stakeholders, including the people directly responsible for implementingchange measures, is a crucial aspect of strategy development and implementation.

Finally, acknowledging the need for review and improvement will be important toensure that campus sustainability programs continue to make the most of opportunities

IJSHE12,3

278


11/11

and respond to challenges and constraints as they arise. Sustainability presents anopportunity for university campuses to traverse a pathway that will build in resilience toresource depletion and carbon pricing. To do so effectively, strategies must be dynamicand adopt a culture of monitoring and evaluation to underpin the next phase of renewal.

Note

1. For the purpose of the strategy, recycled content is defined as a minimum of 80 percentrecycled content, preferably post-consumer waste.

References

Button, C. (2008), Towards carbon neutrality and environmental sustainability at CCSU, Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 279-86.

Clarke, A. and Kouri, R. (2009), Choosing an appropriate university or college environmentalmanagement system, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17 No. 11, pp. 971-84.

Cleaves, S., Pasinella, B., Andrews, J. and Wake, C. (2008), Climate action planning at the Universityof New Hampshire, Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 250-65.

Halcrow, M.W.T. (2008), Concept Plan University of Technology, Sydney, TransportManagement and Accessibility Plan (TMAP) Report, Sydney.

Hardy, V., Fung, H., Xian, G., Wu, J., Zhang, X. and Dyson, L.E. (2005), Paper usagemanagement and information technology: an environmental case study at an AustralianUniversity, Proceedings of the 5th International Business Information Management

Association Conference, Cairo, Egypt, pp. 699-705.

Jain, S. and Pant, P. (2010), Environmental management systems for educational institutions, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 236-49.

Koester, R., Eflin, J. and Vann, J. (2006), Greening of the campus: a whole-systems approach, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14 Nos 9-11, pp. 769-79.

Riddell, W., Bhatia, K., Parsi, M., Foote, J. and Imperatore, J. (2008), Assessing carbon dioxide

emissions from energy use at a university, International Journal of Sustainability inHigher Education, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 266-78.

Shriberg, M. (2003), Is the maize-and-blue turning green? Sustainability at the University ofMichigan,International Journal of Sustainability in HigherEducation, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 263-76.

Transport Data Centre (2008), TransFigures: employment and commuting in Sydneys centres,19962006, NSW Ministry of Transport, Sydney.

About the authorsAlison Atherton is a Research Principal at the Institute for Sustainable Futures, University ofTechnology, Sydney. She has active research interests in corporate sustainability and worked onthe development of the transport and paper reduction strategies described herein. For furtherinformation see www.isf.uts.edu.au/

Damien Giurco is a Research Director at the Institute for Sustainable Futures, University ofTechnology, Sydney. He has active research interests in sustainability and resource futures andworked on the development of the paper reduction strategy described herein. For furtherinformation see http://resourcefutures.net.au/. Damien Giurco is the corresponding author andcan be contacted at: [email protected]


279

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

week4 campus sustainability

Documents