Sustainability in higher education

Sustainability in Higher Education


Chandos Information Professional Series

Sustainability in Higher
Education

Edited by

J. Paulo Davim



AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • CAMBRIDGE • HEIDELBERG
LONDON • NEW YORK • OXFORD • PARIS • SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TOKYO
Chandos Publishing is an imprint of Elsevier


Chandos Publishing is an imprint of Elsevier
225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451, USA
Langford Lane, Kidlington, OX5 1GB, UK
Copyright © 2015 by J. Paulo Davim, Published by Elsevier Ltd., All Rights Reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any i­nformation storage and retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the
Publisher’s permissions ­policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance
Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.
This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher
(other than as may be noted herein).

Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience
broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may
become necessary.
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and
using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or
methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they
have a professional responsibility.
To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any
liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or
otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the
material herein.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Control Number: 2015942347
ISBN 978-0-08-100367-1
For information on all Chandos Publishing
visit our website at />

List of contributors

A. Abdul-Aziz Centre of Engineering Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
Johor, Malaysia
L. Brandli Passo Fundo University, Passo Fundo, RS, Brazil
M. Buhr Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany
G.A. de la Riva de la Riva Instituto Tecnológico Superior de Irapuato (ITESI),
Irapuato, GTO, México
A. do Paço University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal
C.C. Espinosa Fajardo Centro de Estudios Científicos y Tecnológicos del Estado de

Guanajuato (CECYTEG), Irapuato, México.
C. Hesselbarth Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany
M. Juárez Nájera Basic Sciences and Engineering Division, México, DF, México
W. Leal Filho Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Hamburg, Germany
K. Mohd-Yusof Centre of Engineering Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
Johor, Malaysia
W. O’Brien Clark University, Worcester, MA, USA
A.N. Sadikin Centre of Lipid Engineering and Applied Research, Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia, Johor, Malaysia
J. Sarkis Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA
S. Schaltegger Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany
C. Shiel Bournemouth University, Dorset, UK
S.R. Wan Alwi Process Systems Engineering Centre (PROSPECT), Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, Johor, Malaysia


Preface

Sustainability is a multidisciplinary discipline of study, research, and practice.
Brundtland Report defines sustainability as “development that meets the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs.” The three core pillars of sustainability are environment, society, and economy. Recently, more than two important pillars were incorporated: culture and politics. Currently, the application of sustainability for universities is a relatively new
phenomenon and a great challenge. The study of sustainability is of interest to those
who work to improve communication between, professors, researchers, and students
in universities, institutes, and research laboratories.
The main objective of this book is to provide information about sustainability in
higher education. The initial chapter of the book covers campus greening as a tool
for institutional sustainability efforts (putting sustainable development in practice).
Chapter 2 is dedicated to management education for sustainability (deriving learning formats from competence requirements). Chapter 3 covers US and international
community-based sustainability projects for deep learning. Chapter 4 is dedicated to

inculcating sustainability among first-year engineering students using cooperative
problem-based learning. Finally, the last chapter of the book covers sustainability in
engineering education (an approach to reach significant learning and character skills).
This book can be used as research tool for undergraduate students or as a text
on sustainability in higher education at the postgraduate level. Also, this book can
serve as a useful reference for academics, educators, researchers, managers, engineers, and professionals in higher education related to sustainability. The information presented in this book is researched from many important schools, institutes,
and universities throughout the world. Therefore, we hope this book will inspire
other research in this field.
The editor acknowledges Dr. Glyn Jones and the Elsevier/Chandos team for this
opportunity and for their enthusiastic and professional support. Finally, I would like to
thank each of the chapter authors for their contributions to this work.
J. Paulo Davim
Aveiro, Portugal
June 2015


About the contributors

Editor
J. Paulo Davim received his PhD in mechanical engineering from the University of
Porto in 1997, the Aggregate title from the University of Coimbra in 2005, and DSc
from London Metropolitan University in 2013. He is currently professor of Mechanical
Engineering at University of Aveiro and head of Machining and Tribology Research
Group. He has more than 28 years of teaching and research experience in manufacturing, materials, and mechanical engineering with special emphasis in machining
and tribology. Recently, his interests include management/industrial engineering and
higher education for sustainability. He is the editor of nine international journals, guest
editor, editorial board member, reviewer, and scientific advisory for many international journals and conferences. He is an editorial board member of 30 international
journals and serves as reviewer for than 80 prestigious ISI Web of Science journals.
He has also published more than 50 book chapters and 350 articles as author or coauthor in refereed international journals (more than 200 in ISI Web of Science journals,
h-index=32+) and conferences.

Authors
Chapter 1
Walter Leal Filho is a senior professor at Hamburg University of Applied Sciences
in Germany, where he coordinates an extensive portfolio of international projects on
matters concerned with sustainable development. He holds a number of doctorates for
his work on environmental and sustainability issues, and has more than 300 publications to his credit.
Chris Shiel is an associate professor in Life and Environmental Sciences at
Bournemouth University. She has played a leading role in developing the concepts of
global citizenship and ESD within higher education and has led participative action
research with university leaders, students, community stakeholders, and NGOs in the
areas of globalization and sustainable development. She is a Principal Fellow of the
Higher Education Academy.
Arminda do Paço holds a PhD in management and is auxiliary professor at
University of Beira Interior, Portugal. She is currently researcher of NECE—Research
Unit of Business Sciences, as well as director of the first cycle in marketing. Her
areas of interest are environmental marketing, sustainability, public and nonprofit


xii

About the contributors

­ arketing, and entrepreneurship education. She has published several articles in inm
ternational journals and contributed chapters in international books. Additionally she
participates in consultant projects directed to SME.
Luciana Londero Brandli holds a PhD in production engineering and has done
postdoctoral research at Hamburg University of Applied Sciences. She is associate
professor at the University of Passo Fundo, Brazil, where she works in the master’s
program in engineering, infrastructure, and environment. Her current research interests include sustainability in high education and green campus, environment management, management of urban infrastructure, sustainable cities, and green buildings. She

supervises a number of master students on engineering, environment and sustainability issues, and has in excess of 100 publications.

Chapter 2
Charlotte Hesselbarth holds a PhD, and is a university lecturer in the fields of sustainability management, general management, quality management, and human resource management. Following her studies in business administration, she worked as
a research assistant and as the coordinator of the MBA Sustainability Management at
Leuphana University in Lüneburg, Germany. Her fields of research relate to emissions
trading and carbon management, the link between corporate sustainability management and human resource management as well as to higher management education
for sustainability.
Maike Buhr is a research assistant at the Centre for Sustainability Management
(CSM) at Leuphana University Lüneburg, Germany. As a part of the MBA
Sustainability Management team, her field of activity is the E-Tutoring linked to the
online learning platform. She is a PhD candidate in corporate sustainability management concerned with the question of how individuals can become effective change
agents to foster corporate sustainability. After her study of political science, cultural
and social anthropology at Muenster University, Buhr completed her master of science
degree in human ecology at Lund University, Sweden. Her research interests include
change agents, organizational and competence development, corporate sustainability,
education for sustainable development, and sustainability transitions.
Stefan Schaltegger holds a PhD and is a professor of Sustainability Management
and head of the Centre for Sustainability Management (CSM) and the MBA
Sustainability Management program at Leuphana University, Lüneburg, Germany. His
research deals with corporate sustainability management with a special focus on performance measurement, accounting, management methods, sustainable entrepreneurship, strategic and stakeholder management, and business practices in sustainability
management.

Chapter 3
Will O’Brien is an experienced business executive, entrepreneur, consultant, teacher,
and attorney. He has lectured at Bentley University, Johns Hopkins University,
Peking University, and Vietnam National University. His courses focus on CSR and


About the contributors

xiii

s­ ustainability management. O’Brien teaches a capstone course for the master’s degree
in sustainability and environmental management at Harvard Extension School. He
spearheaded the creation of Clark’s MBA in sustainability and manages the MBA
in social change. In June 2014, he spoke at the AACSB Sustainability Conference.
O’Brien serves on the editorial board of International Journal of Higher Education
& Sustainability. He consults with Gjovik University College in Norway regarding
their sustainability management curriculum and with the WPI School of Business to
establish a Center for Sustainability in Business.
Joseph Sarkis is a professor of management in the Foisie School of Business at
Worcester Polytechnic Institute. He holds a PhD from the University of Buffalo. His
research and teaching interests are in operations and supply chain management, and
organizations and the natural environment. He has published in more than 350 publications in a wide variety of academic and professional outlets.

Chapter 4
Khairiyah Mohd-Yusof is the director of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)
Centre of Engineering Education (CEE), which promotes meaningful research and
scholarly practices in engineering education. An associate professor in the Department
of Chemical Engineering, UTM, she has been an invited speaker in various engineering education conferences and workshops in Asia, Europe, and North America. MohdYusof’s engineering education research focuses on innovative teaching and learning
practices and EESD. Currently, she serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of
Engineering Education, ASEAN Journal of Engineering Education, IChemE Journal
of Education for Chemical Engineers, European Journal of Engineering Education,
and Journal of PBL in Higher Education. She is also the secretary for the Society of
Engineering Education Malaysia, and board member for the Research in Engineering
Education Network.
Sharifah Rafidah Wan Alwi is the director of Process Systems Engineering Centre
(PROSPECT) of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM). She specializes in process
systems engineering with an emphasis on resource conservation. She has published in

more than 140 publications and has been extensively involved in 28 research projects,
17 industrial-based projects for various companies and government agencies, and has
trained engineers from more than 100 companies. She has received various awards such
as Maal Hijrah 2008 State Award, IChemE Highly Commended Sir Frederick Warner
Prize 2011, and ASEAN Young Scientist and Technologist Award (AYSTA 2014). She
is currently on the editorial advisory board for Applied Thermal Engineering Journal
and International Journal of Higher Education and Sustainability.
Aziatul Niza Sadikin is a lecturer in the Department of Chemical Engineering, on
the faculty of Chemical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM). Her main
research interest areas are separation processes and engineering education. She is one
of the class facilitators for a first-year chemical engineering course called Introduction
to Engineering, that employs cooperative problem-based learning (CPBL) as the
teaching and learning methodology. She is an active member of an engineering research team in UTM.


xiv

About the contributors

Azmahani Abdul-Aziz is a senior lecturer at the Department of Hydraulics and
Hydrology, Faculty of Civil Engineering, and is a Fellow at the Centre of Engineering
Education at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Her disciplinary background is water engineering and education. Currently, she is pursuing her PhD in engineering education.
Her doctoral research focuses on the impact of a student-centered learning environment in inculcating sustainable development among engineering students.

Chapter 5
Gustavo Alberto de la Riva-de la Riva studied biochemistry and has a master’s degree in chemistry (1984) from Donetsk National University (Ukraine) and a PhD in
biology (1995) from Havana University. Since 2007 he has worked as a full professor
in the Departments of Mechatronics and Biology at Irapuato Institute of Technology
(ITESI) and gives postgraduate courses in the Schools of Engineering and Agrimony
at De la Salle University in Leon, Guanajuato, Mexico. His fields of expertise are

biology, environmental microbiology, bacterial and yeast genetic engineering. In biology, he has published 48 papers and registered two patents. In engineering, he has
studied the problems related with character curriculum and sustainability in the institute ITESI. He is a member of the American Society of Engineering Education
and Society for Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology, and also a member of
National System of Researchers (SNI) in Mexico.
Cristina Caridad Espinosa-Fajardo is an electric engineer (1986), has a master’s degree in higher education and curriculum development (2008). She started her
professional career (1987) at National Electric Enterprise in VillaClara, Cuba. From
1988 to 1995 she worked in the industry and building sector as a planning coordinator, and thereafter worked in different technical schools and institutes. Currently
she is a teacher of mathematics, physics, and chemistry at the technical high school
CECYTEG in Irapuato, Guanajuato, Mexico.
Margarita Juárez-Nájera is a chemical engineer, with a master’s degree in environmental engineering (1986) and a PhD in sustainability in higher education
(2010) from Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands. Currently she is working
as a professor at the Metropolitan Autonomous University in Mexico City. She is a
professional expert in environmental protection by the Mexican College of Chemical
Engineers and Chemists. She is a founding member of the National Environmental
Engineering Academy and is certified by the Mexican Cleaner Production Center to
evaluate pollution prevention activities. She has published on pollution prevention,
environmental protection, and education for sustainability issues.


Putting sustainable development
in practice: campus greening as a
tool for institutional sustainability
efforts

1

W. Leal Filho, C. Shiel, A. do Paço, L. Brandli

1.1 Introduction
A university campus is a unique combination of buildings, geographical locations,

types of faculties, research institutes, and students. According to Humblet, Owens,
and Roy (2010), a green campus encompasses a higher education community that
is concerned with energy efficiency, resources use, and a commitment to enhancing
environmental quality by educating for sustainability, also creating healthy living and
learning environments. The greening process of a campus is a process targeted toward
reducing the multitude of on- and off-site environmental impacts resulting from campus activities and operations, and raising environmental awareness within the human
communities of a college or university (Creighton, 1999).
Due to their structure and character, university campuses are being increasingly
used as an experimental platform for the application of greening processes. On the one
hand, higher education institutions generate environmental impacts through the use of
classrooms, laboratories, offices, catering, commuting, and consumption of food and
drink, among others (Lukman, Tiwary, & Azapagic, 2009). But on the other hand, they
can also be places where new approaches and methods to reduce the same impacts can
be tried, tested, and implemented.
For instance, based on the results of the evaluation of the environmental performance
of the faculty of engineering at the University of Maribor, Slovenia, researchers suggested that the significant environmental impacts from the university’s operation are
global warming, acidification, human toxicity, and terrestrial eco-toxicity (Lukman
et al., 2009). Hence, the university is now trying very hard to reduce its emissions and
the pollution it creates.
In addition, many universities are developing tools and techniques needed to implement innovative green technologies. Furthermore, a number of them are active in
trying to integrate best green practices into their teaching programs, research initiatives, student engagement opportunities, and collaborative partnerships. These best
practices, according to Humblet et al. (2010) might include one or more of the following measures:
●

●

Adoption of green operations and maintenance practices.
Implementation of green cleaning policies.

Sustainability in Higher Education

Copyright © 2015 by Walter Leal Filho, Published by Elsevier Ltd., All Rights Reserved.


2

●

●

●

●

●

Sustainability in Higher Education

Development of alternative transportation strategies.
Coordination of procurement and evaluation of food purchasing procedures.
Establishment of recycling programs.
Promotion of innovative landscape planning and maintenance.
Launch of student and staff education programs to reduce energy and water consumption.

A further element of campus greening is that by involving students in the process
it is possible to enable them to develop skills that will enhance employability. The
success of a green campus depends on an integrated approach to planning and implementing sustainability initiatives (Humblet et al., 2010).
In 2012, the leaders of the international academic community acknowledged the
importance of the problem and agreed to support the greening of campuses through
the following activities: reducing the environmental footprint through energy, water,
and material resource efficiencies in universities’ buildings and facilities; adopting

sustainable procurement practices in supply chains and catering services; providing
sustainable mobility options for students and faculty; adopting effective programs for
waste minimization, recycling, and reuse, and encouraging more sustainable lifestyles
(UN, 2012).
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) also plays an active role in
promoting greening universities’ objectives. As part of its activities, UNEP launched
the Global Universities Partnership on Environment and Sustainability (GUPES). The
partnership promotes greening of university infrastructure/facilities/operations and
enhancing students’ engagement and participation in sustainability activities both
within and beyond universities (UNEP, 2014).
UNEP’s Environmental Education and Training Unit set up the Greening
Universities Education Initiative. In partnership with other UN agencies and leading
experts and researchers from green universities, under the umbrella of GUPES, the
initiative developed a toolkit to inspire, encourage, and support universities to develop
and implement their own transformative strategies for establishing green, resource-­
efficient, and low-carbon campuses (Osmond et al., 2013).
Given the important role of campus greening as one aspect of a university’s contribution toward sustainability this chapter will reflect on the current situation, highlight
examples of various projects that institutions have taken forward, and then reflect on
the lessons learned and needs yet to be addressed.

1.2 Role and areas of campus greening
The greening of campuses and universities has many benefits for institutions, students,
and the local community. Campus greening also contributes to solving global environmental issues.
Several authors have suggested that the primary role of campus greening is to enable universities to serve as living laboratories for practicing sustainability initiatives
(Hansen & Wells, 2012; Shriberg & Harris, 2012). Thus, campus greening can create
a laboratory not only for implementing environmental projects but also for developing
the knowledge and skill set in students that lead to deep changes in academia, their


Putting sustainable development in practice

3

future professional practices, and their own lifestyles (Shriberg & Harris, 2012). As a
result, campus greening serves as a model for students, who are more likely to adopt
sustainable behavior that can continue after university life. Furthermore, living laboratories allow faculty to teach and staff to work within a system that is understood as
being a model for the community beyond the university (Legacy, 2004).
Campus greening efforts are inclusive and may engage all the members of the university community (e.g., students, staff members, professors, and leading administration officials) to ensure top-down support. Although, as stated by Savelyeva and
Park (2012), campus community members engage in greening policies with different
levels of responsiveness and involvement, suggesting that it is necessary for different
approaches to sustainability to engage everyone.
Campus greening may stimulate innovative projects and approaches and is important for testing the field for change of not only new knowledge but also for changes
in the future (Müller-Christ et al., 2014). The campus can be a site for showcasing
innovative approaches, methods, and projects of sustainability (Leal Filho, 2014),
for example, renewable energy installations, initiatives with solar arrays, wind turbines, geothermal projects, biomass production facilities, conservation retrofits, and
­energy-efficient designs (Thomashow, 2014).
Greening initiatives also provide transferable models for the surrounding community.
The university acts as an example of sustainability for their neighboring communities
and for the society. As the generation of knowledge today is considered as separate from
the implementation of policy recommendations, campus greening is an opportunity to
transcend the barriers between theory and practice. The experience of a green-oriented
campus environment is important to visitors, because they can be inspired to act and
think deeply about the meaning and practice of sustainability (Thomashow, 2014). As
examples of greening initiatives, Savelyeva and Park (2012) show the construction of
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified buildings and retrofitting old campus facilities at Duke University and the University of Hong Kong.
The other role, and maybe the most visible, is to promote economic gain through the
campus greening actions. As campus life can be recognized as an interdependent and complex small city that consumes energy, food, water, and generates different types of waste
including organic and solid waste, carbon dioxide, liquid waste, and more (McMillin
& Dyball, 2009; Wells, 2013), campus greening actions can save money by decreasing
wasteful practices and reducing the consumption of resources. Reports from Spelman

College in Atlanta show that the institution saved about $200,000 a year in utility costs
by reducing water use and energy consumption. The investment cost for changes to the
buildings’ heating and cooling systems was about $150,000, and the return of this
investment was paid back in one year, reducing energy costs overall (Tatum, 2013).
Green actions can also promote gains in the reuse and recycling of waste (Mason,
Brooking, Oberender, Harford, & Horsley, 2003; Smyth, Fredeen, & Booth, 2010;
Vega, Ojeda-Benítez, & Barreto, 2003) and in food production (Thomashow, 2014).
Campus greening presents opportunities for awareness about consumption and processes that are more eco-efficient.
Visibility and documentation is another role of campus greening. Campus greening
practices involve recording what the institutions are doing. This is important to track


4

Sustainability in Higher Education

performance measures and to (re)define targets. Reports increase the university visibility both for their internal members and for external community. According Saleh et al.
(2011) legislations and regulations in this regard are becoming more stringent therefore higher education institutions (HEIs) must take measures to ensure compliance.
The other important role is that campus greening can be an opportunity for the
students to apply what they learn in the classroom. Hands-on practices can encourage
them to engage in real-world green development and to promote creativity (MüllerChrist et al., 2014). As a result, many subjects can be explored and many principles
can be demonstrated (Leal Filho, 2014). Karol (2006) relates a case study in Curtin
University of Technology in Perth, which uses campus sustainability as an education
opportunity. The students from the School of Architecture were tasked with designing
a sustainable solution for a lake on campus that served as a habitat for birds and animal life but was in decline. The project involved the points of access and discharge of
water from the lake, observation, and resting platforms at these water points, elevated
walkways over the water and through a tree canopy, thus leaving the ground level less
disturbed. The project was very successful.
Campus greening is an educational response to the world’s economic, ecological,
and educational challenges. The HEI has the potential to change how people think

about the world and to generate knowledge, awareness, and solutions that can help
confront those challenges (Thomashow, 2014). As stated in the People and Planet
Green Education Declaration, the educational sector has a key role to play in addressing the challenge of climate change, and education is critical to achieving the transition to a low carbon economy and society. This means that universities have a key role
to play and green campuses can contribute to this (Brown, 2013; Glor-Bel & Clarke,
2011). The Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU, 2014) is taking this responsibility seriously. The institution has set as its target to reduce carbon emissions from
its buildings and vehicles by 35% and 50% from the 2005/6 baseline by July 2016
and July 2021, respectively. In addition, the university is taking actions to reduce its
carbon footprint. One example of this effort is the project and installation of one of the
largest photovoltaic arrays in the city, which converts solar energy into direct current
electricity via the photovoltaic effect.
Some areas are very popular in respect to campus greening activities. Two of them
are, for instance, solid waste and energy management, often considered starting points
for a greening process. Initiatives in these two areas are relatively easy to implement,
with opportunities for financial payback within reasonably short periods of time.
A successful realization of such actions could give a university a positive impression
of greening, and thereby catalyze the implementations of further greening initiatives.
Effective energy and waste management offer good examples for students and faculty
that demonstrate how principles of environmental awareness and stewardship apply in
practice (Creighton, 1999).
For example, universities in the Netherlands have made substantial progress in
greening their campuses, mainly by reducing energy use, and, in some cases, enhancing curriculum provisions (Betts, 2001). In addition, the results of a study conducted
at the Prince George campus of the University of Northern British Columbia, indicate
that approximately 71% of waste generated in the campus may be diverted through


Putting sustainable development in practice

5

waste reduction, recycling, and composting activities (Smyth et al., 2010). In the case

of the University of Maribor, Slovenia (Engineering Campus), a study carried out
based on the life cycle indicated that the option of combining 70% recycling, 29%
incineration, and 1% landfill was found to be most economically and environmentally
sustainable (Lukman et al., 2009).
But things are as not as simple as they seem. The successful implementation of
the campus greening process is aggravated by various factors. The results of a study
conducted in 2001 show that the main barriers are budgetary constraints, a lack of
knowledge concerning how greening initiatives can save costs, and an institutional
reluctance to change (Dahle & Neumayer, 2001). In Europe, it is often difficult for
public universities to construct new greener buildings due to budgetary limitations
(Betts, 2001). According to Smyth et al. (2010), comprehensive solid waste management programs are one of the greatest challenges to achieving institutional sustainability (Smyth et al., 2010). Another area of concern is the rapid and constant rise in
energy consumption due to the proliferation of computers and associated technologies
(Sharp, 2002).

1.3 Overview and evaluation of campus greening efforts
As noted, campus greening involves the process of reducing environmental impacts,
both on- and off-site, that occur as a result of all campus decisions and operations
(Creighton, 1999), as well as efforts to enhance environmental awareness within the
communities of educational institutions. Unfortunately these two activities have not
always proceeded hand in hand: efforts to go green have a long history but have not
always been communicated (let alone coordinated) across the different parts of institutions; they rarely involve the whole community. Therein lies one of the most challenging aspects of campus greening: how to align actions (and participation) across a
university, especially when different stakeholders have very different perceptions of
what is implied by “sustainable development,” and where institutional structures may
inhibit cross-institutional work. We will consider the challenge of coordination later,
but for now, suffice it to say that evidence suggests that although such barriers may be
significant (Shiel & Williams, 2014), many more institutions (as compared to 10 years
ago) recognize that any efforts to reduce the ecological footprint have to be coupled
with campaigns to engage students and staff in behavior change, if they are to be fully
successful.
Within the United Kingdom, “campus greening” projects were part of an early

response to environmental concerns, although it might be argued that some of this
early activity was as much to address rising utility costs than out of genuine concern
to secure the planet for future generations. Quite often such projects (e.g., using recycled paper, waste management, introducing energy-saving devices) were led by the
estates function within a university, with little involvement (at least in the early days)
of academic staff or students, who may have been indifferent to environmental issues.
Such indifference is noted in an evaluative study of a sample of London institutions
at the beginning of the 21st century (Dahle & Neumayer, 2001). The study finds that


6

Sustainability in Higher Education

“although the sampled institutions were not at ground zero with respect to greening,
their overall environmental performance was relatively poor” … “indifference” (p. 3)
is one of the barriers cited, but the most significant barrier to further greening was a
lack of financial resources. Other significant barriers include a lack of environmental
awareness (indifference but also lack of understanding), and a lack of space in an urban environment for developing more energy-efficient buildings and for storing waste.
The authors comment that “few HE institutions are vigorously pursuing greening initiatives throughout their campus operations” (p. 3) and in their conclusions reflect
that although the results were confined to a particular sample, they are reflective of a
general reluctance across the sector for greening.
Since 2001, the picture has shifted slightly: external drivers, including Green League
tables, green awards, policy development, new funding streams, and the on-campus
arrival of more environmentally aware students. All of these have served to increase
engagement and to drive some change in approaches. National Union of Students
campaigns such as “Switch-off” and “Green Impact” have had some success in getting
environmental management out of “estates and into the academic community.”
Wals and Blewitt (2010, p. 56), reflecting on the history of sustainable development
in higher education across the world, shed light on the various stages of engagement.
They suggest that in the “first wave” (1970s and 1980s), “environment” (as a predecessor to “sustainability”) was introduced into the curriculum in Western education,

albeit in a limited way. The “second wave,” following from the Talloires Declaration
(1990), saw the emergence of numerous “Declarations for Sustainability” in higher
education. A rising number of university presidents, chancellors, rectors, and the like,
demonstrated public commitment through signatories, but beyond that, impact on
universities practices was less evident (Bekessy, Samson, & Clarkson, 2007), with
the exception that a new role started appearing within academia—the “environmental
manager.” Tilbury (2013, p. 81) suggests that senior leaders have struggled to “prioritise the reorientation of higher education towards sustainability,” but perhaps they
anticipated that having appointed someone to manage environmental concerns (the
environment manager), that their responsibility had been discharged.
Wals and Blewitt (2010) and later Wals (2014) suggest that higher education might
initially have focused attention on the parts of the agenda that were more easily addressed: environmental management and projects to reduce the ecological footprint
of the estates. Both authors suggest that greening now represents the most visible
changes and commitment to the sustainability agenda on the part of HEIs. Drawing
on their analyses of articles published in the International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education between 2000 and 2009 (Wals & Blewitt, 2010), it is apparent that
most of the papers focused on environmental management and campus greening; far
fewer articles addressed reorienting teaching. U.S. articles focused on such topics as
food services, purchasing, mobility, waste, and housing, although a few projects encompassed student learning. Wals and Blewitt (2010), completing a further review one
year later, reinforces that it was more common for articles to address “environmental
management, university greening and reducing a university's ecological footprint.”
The environmental sustainability component might have received more attention because it had greater resonance with university employees (Wright & Wilton, 2012).


Putting sustainable development in practice

7

In the United States, after the Talloires Declaration (1990), the Campus Earth
Summit (1994) at Yale University attracted delegates from 50 states and 22 countries,
and triggered momentum for campus greening. The resulting publication, a Blueprint

for a Green Campus, documented practical steps toward campus sustainability. It had
significant impact across the academic community (Heinz Family Foundation, 1995)
and, given its strong environmental emphasis, undoubtedly resulted in further greening initiatives with an environmental management focus. The report determined that
A green campus is one that integrates environmental knowledge into all relevant disciplines, improves environmental studies course offerings, provides opportunities for
students to study campus and local environmental problems, conducts environmental audits of its practices, institutes environmentally responsible purchasing policies,
reduces campus waste, maximizes energy efficiency, makes environmental sustainability a top priority in land-use, transportation, and building planning, establishes
a student environmental centre and supports students who seek environmentally responsible careers (p. 2).

Across the United States, institutions moved forward projects that displayed varying degrees of commitment and success, ranging from token gestures to profound
institutional transformations (Calder & Clugston, 2002; McIntosh, 2001). A useful
illustration of the range of campus greening activity, 10 years later, is provided in a
report for Bucknell University (El-Mogazi, 2005). The report, which served to develop
institutional strategy, provides a “summary of sustainability programs” and usefully
details sustainability initiatives at 18 peer institutions (including “aspirational peers”
such as Harvard University), mentor institutions, and “other notable” programs; a
number of umbrella and support organizations for campus sustainability were also
reviewed. Strong evidence is provided in the report that in 2005, the environmental
management aspects of sustainable development were being taken seriously. There is
also evidence of institutions seeking to move beyond campus greening with a desire
to develop broader approaches, as some of the cases presented below will illustrate.
The last five years has witnessed a further shift both in the United Kingdom and the
United States: campus greening projects have continued but have become more structured and have increasingly involved students; more institutions have attempted to
integrate sustainability into learning and teaching (shifting from a “bolt-on” approach);
several have taken forward approaches which represent a more holistic view that embraces “transformative learning”—evidence of “third-wave” sustainability (Wals &
Blewitt, 2010). The sector is undoubtedly doing more (as every institution’s website
that details their sustainability efforts testifies) although there is undoubtedly further
to go (Sterling, Maxey, & Luna, 2013; Wals, 2014).
Exceptional illustrations of the breadth of engagement and an exciting agenda
come from Harvard University, and the University of British Columbia (UBC), which
has made substantial progress since 2006. The UBC website details:

At UBC, we embrace sustainability as a societal conversation about the kind of world
we want to live in, informed by an understanding of the ecological, social and economic consequences of our individual and collective actions, the first university in
Canada to adopt a sustainable development policy and the first to open an office


8

Sustainability in Higher Education

devoted to campus sustainability. In 2007, we met our Kyoto targets, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by six percent below 1990 levels, this despite double-digit increases in floor space and student enrolment.

The entire campus at UBC is viewed as “a living laboratory, a kind of giant sandbox in which there is the freedom to explore—creatively and collaboratively—the
technological, environmental, economic and societal aspects of sustainability” (UBC
Living Lab).
At Harvard there is evidence of similar commitments and a similar range of projects. Harvard emphasizes that everyone has a role to play but also makes an interesting and crucial point on the role of “governance,” suggesting that “[i]mplementing
Harvard’s sustainability goals requires an unprecedented level of collaboration among
our decentralized and diverse community.”
Within the United Kingdom, on the basis of a trawl through institutional websites,
it would be easy to conclude that most institutions are now very green indeed. Most
sustainability pages cover more or less the same topics of carbon, waste, travel, food,
biodiversity, and the like, with a few heavily promoting the latest innovation; for example, the University of Roehampton has an interesting project called growhampton.
This is a £226,900 eco-project that has created a café, which is open to the public. The
idea is to bring fresh food to the community and to use food grown on campus, and in
poly-tunnel and allotments, run by a full-time worker.
Evaluating the reality of the state of play in relation to campus greening within
universities is, however, very challenging, given that there are many examples such
as the café at Roehampton, and everyone has a need to put a positive spin on their
achievements. Website statements such as “we aim to be one of the greenest universities” are common within both the United Kingdom and the United States. Activities
and intentions are heavily promoted; most sites include a list of all the various projects
and their objectives, for example, the University of Brighton suggests on its website:

“Developing a green campus is extremely important, not only to reduce our environmental impact but also to provide an inspiring and welcoming environment in which to
study and work” (University of Brighton, n.a.; />The web page goes on to outline responsibilities: “A number of central departments
have responsibilities towards maintaining the physical environment of the university,
but greening the campus is something that staff and students can also influence, and
have influenced!” and also refers to “climate change, reducing carbon, bio-diversity,
planet-friendly travel, sustainable food, recycling.”
The University of Bradford, well-known for its “Eco-Versity” work is a British example of where “campus greening” has set the foundations for much greater engagement with sustainability (see Hopkinson & James, 2013). The initiative had a strong
estates dimension, in a regional context where there was a need for regeneration. The
latter meant funding was more easily secured. Lead by an environmental manager,
they progressed in a number of large projects by 2007 (Hopkinson & James, 2013).
Since then they have continued to expand their activity. Discussing the success of the
project, Hopkinson and James comment that “[t]he campus has been transformed,
with more green space, new high performance buildings and effective refurbishment
of existing ones.” The institution is on “track to achieve 50% reduction of carbon


Putting sustainable development in practice

9

by 2015.” The institution’s website promotes its “Green Impact Tours” as a way of
demonstrating some of the things they are doing to help improve the environmental sustainability of the campus, including biodiversity, energy production, buildings,
composting, and the like. They also have a map showing areas where medicinal plants
and “edible foods” such as fruit and potatoes are grown in campus gardens (University
of Bradford, 2014).
In turn, Warwick University has developed environmental policies and procedures
to promote its best practice in the area of environmental sustainability (University of
Warwick, 2013). The university targets to cut down the amount of energy it uses, and
to reduce its emissions by 34% compared to 1990 levels; by 2020 the reduction will
reach over 50%. The average launched project will pay for itself after around 5.5%.

In addition, the university plans to reduce waste that is sent to the landfill by 2.6%
of “total waste” by the end of 2015–2016. It is committed to ensuring all new university buildings have Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment
Methodology (BREEAM) “excellent” ratings and recycle at least 70% of construction
waste by 2015. Warwick communicates annually to all users the current recycling and
waste disposal practices. It aims to improve its recycling rate to over 60% by the end
of its 2015–2016 year from its current level of 54.5%. Today, 41.8% of the university’s waste is converted to electricity, 52.3% gets recycled, and 2.2% is reused. The
university also plans to achieve a 2% rolling reduction in absolute water consumption
per annum. Moreover, Warwick intends to investigate and encourage more water recycling and rainwater harvesting opportunities, especially when a property is being
refurbished, to increase the proportion of gray water/rainwater used in new buildings
by 2020 to 50%. Warwick University also plans to ensure its on-campus supermarket
provides a wide selection of seasonal produce and install water refilling stations at all
facilities across campus. The university is going to reduce the availability of purchased
bottled water and review annually the success of reducing the sales to inform where
additional facilities are required.
Manchester Metropolitan University, which holds the official title of “UK’s
Greenest University” offers an outstanding example of the whole-institution approach
to campus greening. Its new campus at Birley Fields features zeros waste and has a
zero emissions approach.
Within Europe, things have also changed since Wals and Blewitt (2010, p. 60) commented that “progress in integrating sustainability in HE [in Europe] has been variable
but rarely spectacular.” It is now possible to highlight many examples of European
universities that have engaged enthusiastically with campus greening.
The Central European University (CEU) in Hungary is committed to sustainability
and to becoming a model of sustainability in higher education (CEU, 2013a). One
of its greening activities is the maintenance of the campus buildings to ensure that
heating, cooling, and air circulation systems are performing at optimum efficiency,
and to encourage energy and resource conservation (CEU, 2013b). In addition, the
university promotes waste reduction and separation. Different types of waste bins
(e.g., for paper, plastic, used batteries, glass and metal waste collection) are distributed
evenly throughout the campus to make smart waste management convenient for all
users. Because CEU’s campus is surrounded by access points to the city’s wide array

10

Sustainability in Higher Education

of ­public transport options and regional and international train connections, the university encourages the use of bicycles as a sustainable, healthy, and environmentally
friendly form of transportation. In 2013, the university launched a bike share program
that allows CEU community members to use bikes for short-term borrowing periods.
Since 2012, CEU committed to purchasing 100% recycled printing paper as the default paper selection for all university printers and to use recycled and unbleached
hand towels and paper products in kitchens and wet block areas (CEU, 2013b).
The University of Copenhagen has set a number of climate actions, one of which
is Green Campus, with the aim of reducing the university’s carbon footprint. The
university also developed its Energy Action plan, which, according to Ravn (2009),
included an overall strategy for the university, called “Destination 2012.” According
to the plan, the university would be one of the most sustainable universities in Europe
by 2012. “Strategic Action Plan 2008–2012” outlined the need for carbon neutral
buildings, green accounts, the development of strategy and action plans for reducing
environmental impacts, and encouraging the involvement of students and employees.
“Faculty Contracts” include faculty responsibilities for their own energy efficiency,
yearly review, local energy management, and proposals for energy-saving initiatives.
The university has also targeted the reduction of energy consumption by staff and
students, as well as CO2 emissions by 20% between 2006 and 2013. The University
of Copenhagen has realized a pilot project for a climate-friendly building, the “Green
Lighthouse,” Denmark’s first carbon-neutral public building that provides its total energy needs with 35% of solar energy and 65% of district heating with a heat pump. The
university targets improving thermal performance of existing buildings, installing energy smart systems in buildings, facilitating energy smart behavior of employees and
students, and making energy-efficient purchases (Osmond et al., 2013). Furthermore,
the university launched its Green Action movement to improve energy-efficient behavior. The campaign includes giving concrete advice and recommendations about
energy-efficient habits for laboratories, office areas, and spaces for education, green IT,
and the like. It offers such technical devices as energy-saving plug sockets for PCs

and other equipment, provides automatic switches for printers/copiers, coffee machines, water coolers, and other devices, and recommends that an energy expert visit
departments (Ravn, 2009).
In Portugal engagement with sustainability has been a little slow in comparison.
However, it is possible to point some good practices, for example, at the University
of Coimbra and Lisbon. In Coimbra the “Energy for Sustainability” initiative was
launched in 2006, bringing together a set of disciplines, researchers, departments,
faculties, and research units. The university took several measures to foster energy
savings and energy efficiency, such as energy audits in several buildings, power factor
correction, or retrofit of lighting systems and electrical systems in general (in 2007
the institution became a partner of the EU initiative “GreenLight”). Undergraduate
and graduate students are encouraged to develop activities strongly associated with
the improvement of energy efficiency, integrated within their curricular activities,
and including development projects or theses. Additionally, the university has adopted waste minimization procedures of several waste categories and has a policy of
“Environmentally Preferable Purchasing” on a growing number of products. In turn,


Putting sustainable development in practice

11

the University of Lisbon is a member of the network of universities UGAF (UNICA
Green Academic Footprint). Together with the other members, the institution has carried out several green practices, examples being the Energy Efficiency project (electricity production from renewable resources through the placement of photovoltaic
panels on the roofs of buildings, car parks, and areas of leisure); the reduction of water
consumption (installing flow reducers on water taps); the project “AmbientALL—All
for Mobility” (creation of working groups from different areas: culture, sustainability, communications, and sport to implement the adoption of sustainable practices
especially on mobility, and energy efficiency, social responsibility, and healthy food
consumption).

1.4 Discussion
It is apparent that not just in the United Kingdom but across Europe and the world, HEIs

have engaged in substantial efforts to address campus greening. Shiel and Williams
(2014) suggest that the external context has served to favor campus greening over
education for sustainable development; marketing one’s green credentials has become
a significant aspect of institutional branding to the extent that it quite often masks the
reality on the ground. A number of external drivers within the United Kingdom have
increased campus greening activity (Shiel & Williams, 2014) since the publication
of the government’s “Securing the Future: Delivering UK Sustainable Development
Strategy” for HM government (2005) and the response from the Higher Education
Funding Council for England (HEFCE). HEFCE consulted with the sector (HEFCE,
2005a) and then published “Sustainable Development in Higher Education” (HEFCE,
2005b) summarizing the strategic stance and the issues to be addressed. As several
universities responded with outrage to the original consultation document, HEFCE
softened its approach; environmental management became more strongly emphasized
and the educative agenda was placed in the shadow.
In a further consultation update (HEFCE, 2009), challenging carbon reduction targets (aligning with national targets) were proposed; the requirement for a reduction in
carbon emissions by 80% by 2050, and at least 34% by 2020 (against 1990 levels) lent
further support for an environmental management perspective.
The publication of the “Carbon Reduction Target and Strategy for Higher Education”
in England (HEFCE, 2010) confirmed the sector-level carbon reduction target, a
requirement for institutions to set their own targets for “scope 1 and 2 ­emissions,” and
introduced a link between capital funding and carbon management performance
through the Capital Investment Framework (second iteration). Such targets focused
the mind of senior HE leaders (Shiel & Williams, 2014) and established a context that
increased the significance and influence of environment managers, who were more
able to argue for new posts to expand the environmental management function.
External funding opportunities followed strategy, including those available through
the Leadership Governance and Management Fund, and the Revolving Green Fund. The
Revolving Green Fund (HEFCE in partnership with Salix Finance Ltd.) is now in its
fourth cycle and provides recoverable grants to help HEIs in England reduce emissions

12

Sustainability in Higher Education

and save money. So far it has provided £61 million of repayable grants; Round 4 will
provide 34 million to fund small-scale energy efficiency programs and large-scale projects that may retrofit old technology, create new technology, or assist with other projects
such as space rationalization which meet the objectives of the fund. The chief executive
of Salix commented on the funding: “We know that this will stimulate innovation and
leading edge projects in energy efficiency and we look forward to supporting our universities with their projects. Every project will be a contribution to the UK Carbon Plan,
reducing our carbon emissions is worthwhile and urgent”1 (Shepperd, 2014).
The continued emphasis on energy efficiency and carbon reduction has pushed
these issues to the top of the agenda; carbon management has become something that
universities must do, rather than something they should do (Shiel & Williams, 2014).
Such a spotlight on these issues has tended to favor an environmental management
approach led, and largely owned, by environmental managers. This shift may have
served to disenfranchise academics and the educative agenda.
Another important driver for campus greening in the United Kingdom has been
the “Green League” table, launched in 2007 by People & Planet (the organization
that awarded Manchester Metropolitan University its title). The rankings, published
in the Times Higher Education Supplement and later The Guardian have been high
profile. As McGowan (2007) noted when he presented People & Planet with a British
Environment and Media Award for Best Campaign in 2007, “[T]he green league succeeded in dragging environmental issues in from the fringes and making them a central concern for many Vice Chancellors.” As questions in relation to education and
learning for sustainability were not included in the Green League until 2011, it is
hardly surprising that many of the actions required to do well to that point were environmental management related. Aspirations to climb a league table have resulted in
further campus greening activity, where that activity also gets public recognition on
a national stage; for example, in the Environmental Association of Universities and
Colleges’ Green Gown Awards a virtuous/vicious circle is set.
Visible league tables and awards for green endeavors quickly attract the attention
of senior leaders keen to advertise success. Such promotions as that referred to in

“We have been awarded a 1st by People & Planet and ranked 17th out of 143 other
University’s” (University of Reading, 2013) are common and desirable across the sector.
Unfortunately, the reputational benefits of being seen to be a green university
(Savelyeva & Park, 2012; Shiel & Williams, 2014), while a driver for campus greening, also mean that initiatives get caught up with “branding”; as such they may be
presented in a more positive light than the reality on the ground. It is very difficult, for
example, to find any case studies critical of campus greening initiatives: the contradictions between greening and other strategies such as maximizing growth or expanding
estates are rarely explored. Case studies are often a description of projects with few
examples of transformative approaches that embrace all stakeholders.
The unintended consequences of such strong external drivers may have actually
served to disadvantage education for sustainable development and to contribute to
a culture of compliance (alienating academics) but also to a reputation-oriented
1

/>

Putting sustainable development in practice

13

focus. Further, although the context has undoubtedly strengthened the environmental
management function (spawning campus greening activity), it has also resulted in the
subordination of the broader environmental program of that function, as the concerns
of senior leaders become dominated by carbon (Shiel & Williams, 2014).

1.5 Lessons learned and needs to be addressed
Lukman et al. (2009) found that in general the most significant environmental impact
from a university’s operations that significantly impacts global warming arises from
heating and building construction. Thus, to reduce environmental damage alternative
measures need to be considered (e.g., use of solar heating system, green buildings) that
would benefit the university and the broader region. Different waste management scenarios for paper and plastic should also be considered: the authors suggest a combination of

70% recycling, 29% incineration, and 1% landfill. Such improvements might then serve
to influence other parts of the university system: education, research, and community.
Many universities have been active in incorporating sustainability as part of their
campus life (Leal Filho, 2000). In some regions, such as in the United States and partly
in Europe, many universities are already a long way down the road of such initiatives;
others are more recently engaging. The higher education sector is without question doing more to address sustainability (as the previous examples illustrate). However, what
any evaluation of campus greening quickly reveals is that “greening” the estates is the
most visible aspect of higher education’s engagement with sustainable development
with a long history of initiatives. Momentum has developed from ad hoc activities
and one-off campaigns to what is now a more sophisticated and structured approach
managed by a professional function. Projects have been taken forward across the sector with a clear environmental management focus, and although sometimes they have
involved academics and students, more often they have been led by a practitioner
within the estates function of the university. Although it is obviously beneficial to
have a person, or in many cases a team of practitioners, leading on this agenda there
are undoubtedly potential concerns as well: campus greening, for example, may be
seen as a separate aspect of sustainable development and thus be isolated (rather than
integrated); or senior managers may believe that once they have appointed someone to
discharge the task, their responsibility is thereby discharged.
Most institutions now have an environmental manager; some have a whole team of
staff. Interviews with environmental managers suggest that even though they have a
budget, projects to green the campus can sometimes be hard won. As one environmental manager explained, “During the ‘estates planning’ process a ‘value engineering
stage’ may mean that projects focused on achieving environmental goals may fall
in to the ‘nice to have but not essential’ list and are abandoned in subsequent stages
of decision making.” Another environmental manager “would benefit from academic
support, particularly academic arguments to support decision making”; this manager
would also benefit from “working with academics to increase impact and student involvement”—unfortunately too often the institutional context creates a binary divide
between academics and practitioners (Shiel & Williams, 2014).


14

Sustainability in Higher Education

This is certainly true within the United Kingdom where campus greening projects
have become an integral part of universities’ efforts to address sustainability, but not
every university has an integrated view, and the “link between the administrative
and academic realms has not been fully developed” (Acevedo, Bonner, Johnson, &
Malevicius, 2012, p. 382). Even where there are links between the estates function
and the curriculum and research activities of the university, such links are not without
their challenges (Shiel & Williams, 2014).
In summarizing the points we have covered, the following may be useful:
●

●

●

●

●

●

Campus greening is one of the most advanced areas of HEIs’ engagement with sustainability; there is much further to go, however, if the goal is to fully embrace students and staff.
Campus greening projects move forward more rapidly when the external context provides
“carrots” and “sticks.” The most powerful drivers include targets for carbon reduction and
energy efficiency, funding streams, awards, and league tables.
League tables for green credentials and awards are helpful but carry the risk that campus
greening may be a silo activity that gets caught up with branding. Marketing the success of
green projects and green buildings may impede the publication of the learning and critical

analysis that may be helpful to others.
Seeing the campus as a “living lab” is a useful approach but requires coordination across the
institution that may challenge structural boundaries.
Quite often the champions for campus greening are located in estates and may not have an
academic background. The culture of estates and the way decisions are made may mean that
some projects that have an educative agenda are difficult to move forward. It can also mean
that environmental goals may be secondary to other estates goals, and/or conflict with key
performance indicators.
An agenda that appears to be owned by environmental managers may alienate academics.

Furthermore, there are some areas in which it is necessary to improve efforts
to get a greener campus, as in the case of the absence of awareness among faculty
and students, the lack of experience and legislation, and the usual budgetary financial restrictions. Koester et al. (2006, p. 777) stress that “at the curricular level,
increasing the acquisition of environmental and sustainability knowledge among
all campus users—students, faculty, staff, and community members alike—should
be an ongoing goal.”

1.6 Conclusions
The literature provides many examples that can help to improve the implementation
of campus greening processes at various levels. According to Betts (2001), to yield
maximum outputs, the entire campus community must participate in examining and
altering the overall use of food, energy, wastewater, and materials to minimize a university’s environmental impact. Nevertheless, the advancements within Europe continue to suggest that “progress in integrating sustainability in HE has been variable but
rarely spectacular” (Wals & Blewitt, 2010, p. 60).
Another important measure is the environmental awareness within campus communities, and introduction of information about sustainability in all aspects of a university’s curriculum, as a long-term goal (Betts, 2001; Dahle & Neumayer, 2001).


Putting sustainable development in practice

15

Faculty should also be more engaged in the process to green a campus, by conducting research to assist an institution in determining its path to a ‘green’ campus
(Mosher & Desrochers, 2014), but also via concrete initiatives as well (Horhota et al.,
2014; Mikhailovich & Fitzgerald, 2014), identifying behavioral barriers to campus
sustainability.
In addition, students should be encouraged to participate through courses, internships and volunteer programs or to focus their BSc/MSc theses on projects on the related topics. Education and training are critical to providing continuity and long-term
success of an institution’s ‘green’ campus plan (Humblet et al., 2010).
Additional approaches aimed at maximizing the expansion of ‘green’ campus initiatives are management support, effective coordination, maximization of face to face
communication, and coordination of environment programs (Sharp, 2002).
To preserve and enhance campus biodiversity and ecosystem services, some measures which may be recommended, as suggested by Osmond et al. (2013) are:
●

●

●

●

●

extend campus green spaces;
enhance the diversity of campus vegetation;
establish green infrastructure and launch ecological engineering projects;
restore and enable landscapes for contemplation, recreation and wellbeing;
use campus grounds and green infrastructure in teaching and research.

It is also recommended that inventories of existing campus ‘green’ activities, so as
to benchmark progress and better understand in-house capabilities and to seek LEED/
BREEAM certification for facilities to ensure sustainability goals are met for individual building projects (Humblet et al., 2010).
Campus greening is and remains one of the central areas in the implantation of
sustainability in higher education. Learning about how sustainability comes alive on a

campus, is a gratifying experience. Campus greening help to demonstrate that universities can practice what they preach.

References
Acevedo, B., Bonner, C., Johnson, S., & Malevicius, R. (2012). Students’ [passionate] engagement with processes of greening the campus’. In W. Leal Filho (Ed.), Sustainable development at universities: New horizons (pp. 374–383). Frankfurt: Peter Lang Scientific
Publishers, 33.
Bekessy, S. A., Samson, K., & Clarkson, R. E. (2007). The failure of non-binding declarations
to achieve university sustainability: A need for accountability. International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, 8(3), 301–316.
Betts, K. S. (2001). Greening the campus. Environmental Science & Technology, 198A, 198–203.
Available from 2001 (Accessed: 29.09.14).
Brown, L. (2013). Realising sustainability commitments: A UK university case-study from a
ground level perspective. Turkey: ERSCP-EMSU, June 4–7 Istanbul.
Campus Earth Summit. (2014). Campus Earth Summit held at Yale University on February
18–20, 1994.
Calder, W., & Clugston, R. (2002). Progress toward sustainability in higher education: A
United States assessment. Available from:
University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (Accessed: 20.08.05).


16

Sustainability in Higher Education

CEU. (2013a). Sustainable CEU. Available from: />(Accessed: 20.08.14).
CEU. (2013b). Campus Sustainability. Available from: />campussustainability (Accessed: 20.08.14).
Creighton, S. H. (1999). Greening the Ivory Tower. Improving the environmental track record of
universities, colleges, and other institutions. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Dahle, M., & Neumayer, E. (2001). Overcoming barriers to campus greening: A survey among
higher educational institutions in London, UK. International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education, 2(2), 139–160.

El-Mogazi, D. (2005). Fertile ground for campus greening: Programming and Organizational
Recommendations for the Ecological Sustainability of Bucknell University. Report prepared for the Bucknell University Environmental Center. Available from: http://www.
bucknell.edu/Documents/EnvironmentalCenter/GreeningReportFinal.pdf
(Accessed:
20.08.14).
Glor-Bel, J., & Clarke, A. (2011). Community engagement in university of British Columbia’s
Climate. In Walter Leal Filho (Ed.), World Trends in Education of Sustainable Development.
New Horizons (pp. 39–60). Frankfurt: Peter Lang Scientific Publishers, 32.
Government, H. M. (2005). Securing the future: Delivering UK sustainable development strategy.
Available from: />data/file/69412/pb10589-securing-the-future-050307.pdf (Accessed: 22.08.14).
Hansen, S. S., & Wells, C. W. (2012). The campus as a teaching tool: A case study of Macalester
College’s EcoHouse. In Walter Leal Filho (Ed.), Sustainable development at universities:
New Horizons (pp. 479–492). Frankfurt: Peter Lang Scientific Publishers, 34.
HEFCE. 2005a. Sustainable development in higher education: Consultation on a support strategy and action plan. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.
HEFCE. 2005b. Sustainable development in higher education: Strategic statement and action
plan. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.
HEFCE. (2009). Sustainable development in higher education: 2008 update to strategic statement and action plan. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.
HEFCE. (2010). Carbon reduction target and strategy for Higher education in England.
Available from: (Accessed:
29.09.14).
Heinz Family Foundation. (1995). Blueprint for a green planet: The campus earth summit initiatives for higher education [report online]. Available from: />pdfs/Blueprint-For-Green-Campus.pdf (Accessed: 03.12.05).
Hopkinson, P., & James, P. (2013). Whole institutional change towards sustainable ­universities—
Bradford’s ecoversity initiative. In S. Sterling, et al. (Eds.), Earthscan: The Sustainable
University.
Horhota, M., Asman, J., Stratton, J. P., & Halfacre, A. C. (2014). Identifying behavioral barriers
to campus sustainability: A multi-method approach. International Journal of Sustainability
in Higher Education, 15(3), 343–358.
Humblet, E. M., Owens, R., & Roy, L. P. (2010). Roadmap to a Green Campus, Washington, DC.
Available from: />5.16.11.pdf (Accessed: 29.09.14).
Karol, E. (2006). Using campus concerns about sustainability as an educational opportunity: A case study in architectural design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(9–11),

780–786.
Koester, R., Eflin, J., & Vann, J. (2006). Greening of the campus: A whole-systems approach.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(9–11), 769–779.