she’s all that: applying sustainability in higher education … · 2014. 1. 7. · of...
TRANSCRIPT
-
SHE’s All That: Applying Sustainability in Higher Education Criteria to The University of British Columbia
Prepared by: Naomi Horst For Fulfillment of ERS 412
Undergraduate Thesis April 12, 2013
-
ii
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to explore the sustainability initiatives of the University of British Columbia (UBC) within curricula, their campus as a living lab programs, and other major demonstration projects such as the new Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS). This study will analyze UBC’s ambition of acting as a societal test bed for sustainable higher education and will discuss whether there exist unique factors at UBC that make their approach possible, or whether their sustainability initiatives can be implemented at any higher education institution. Design/methodology- A literature review of relevant scholarship was completed to inform interview questions which would be asked during interviews with key members of the UBC community. Following this research collection, Gibson’s (2006) sustainability criteria was used to create a framework to assess the sustainability initiatives implemented at UBC. Findings- UBC has evident areas of strength in administrative leadership, building design, and their Campus as a Living Laboratory program; however, they must address their areas of weaknesses in order to be considered an exemplar of sustainability in higher education. Originality/value- There is a plethora of research available on individual aspects of sustainability in higher education, yet nothing that looks as extensively at a single University’s sustainability pathways. The frameworks developed in this study can be easily applied to other institutions and will provide insight into their sustainability performance. When widely applied, these frameworks would provide a better understanding of the state of university sustainability.
-
iii
Table of Contents
Abstract .................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables and Figures ........................................................................ v
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose and Rationale ........................................................................... 2 1.2 Boundaries and Limitations .................................................................... 3 1.3 Methodology ........................................................................................... 3
2.0 Approaches to Sustainability in Higher Education ............................ 5 2.1 Defining Sustainability ........................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Regenerative Sustainability ....................................................................... 6 2.1.2 Sustainability in Higher Education .............................................................. 6 2.1.3 Gibson’s Sustainability Criteria ................................................................... 8 2.2 Implications ................................................................................................ 9
3.0 Organization and Implementation of Sustainability Initiatives ..... 10 3.1 Structuring of Sustainability Initiatives and Tools ............................... 11
3.1.1 Top Down or Bottom Up Change ............................................................. 11 3.2 Major Demonstration Projects .................................................................... 12
3.3 Active Stakeholders .............................................................................. 12 3.4 Summary and Frameworks ................................................................... 13
4.0 Exploring UBC’s Sustainability Initiatives ....................................... 15 4.1 UBC Stakeholder Roles and Organization ............................................. 16
4.1.2 Faculty and Staff .................................................................................... 17 4.1.3 Students ................................................................................................ 18 4.1.4 Individual Champions ............................................................................. 18
4.2 Applying the Framework for Sustainability Initiatives to UBC’s Initiatives ................................................................................................... 19
4.2.1 Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability ...................................... 19 4.2.2 Campus as a Living Lab .......................................................................... 22 4.2.3 Sustainability Curriculum ......................................................................... 25
4.3 Additional Sustainability Initiatives ..................................................... 29 4.4 Summary .............................................................................................. 30
5.0 Applying the Sustainability in Higher Education Framework to UBC ............................................................................................................... 31
5.2 Applying The Sustainability in Higher Education Framework ............... 31 5.3 Summary and Implications................................................................... 35
5.3.1 Sustainability Curriculum ......................................................................... 35 5.3.2 Operational Initiatives............................................................................. 36 5.3.3 Sustainability Research ........................................................................... 36 5.3.4 Community Outreach .............................................................................. 37 5.3.5 Administrative Support ........................................................................... 37
6.0 Next Steps for UBC Sustainability ................................................... 38
-
iv
6.1 Recommendations ................................................................................ 38 6.1.1 Recommendations Concerning Curriculum ................................................ 38 6.1.2 Recommendations Concerning the Campus as a Living Laboratory program 39 6.1.3 Recommendations Concerning Communicating Successes .......................... 40 6.1.4 Recommendations Concerning Improving Awareness ................................ 40
7.0 Relevance to Other Higher Education Institutions ......................... 41 8.0 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................... 42
References ............................................................................................. 44
Appendices ............................................................................................. 49 A. Interview Questions for Interviewee 1 ............................................... 49 B. Interview Questions for Interviewee 2 ............................................... 51 C. Interview Questions for Interviewee 3 ............................................... 52 D. Interview Questions for Interviewee 4 ............................................... 53 E. Sample of Available Courses with Sustainability Content .................... 55
-
v
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1: Gibson's Generic Sustainability Criteria ................................................ 8 Table 2: Applying Gibson's Criteria to SHE ........................................................ 9 Table 3: Framework for Sustainability in Higher Education Error! Bookmark not
defined. Figure 1: Sustainability Content of Courses………………………………………………….23
-
1
1.0 Introduction
In a world of changing climates and continued environmental degradation such
as loss of ecosystem integrity and impairment of ecosystem services,
incorporating the principles of sustainability into social and economic
organization and behaviour has become crucial. Education has been identified as
a key area for inspiring environmental change. In fact, the need to transform
education systems to teach sustainability has received so much attention that the
United Nations named 2005-2014 as the Decade of Education for Sustainable
Development (United Nations, 2002).
Universities are well placed to address this problem as centres of critical thinking
and higher learning. Following this declaration of the importance of education
for sustainable development, a new transdisciplinary research field emerged:
Sustainability in Higher Education. Sustainability in Higher Education scholars
come from many disciplines including environmental sciences, philosophy,
education, engineering and economics (Beringer and Adombent, 2008).
Now, eleven years after the Decade of Education for Sustainability began, major
research and implementation gaps remain in the field of Sustainability in Higher
Education. Current research and practice addressing sustainability in higher
education is lacking a broader understanding of the barriers and solutions posed
to universities. Rather, studies focus on specific areas of sustainability such as
operations, or curriculum (Djordjevic and Cotton, 2011; Dyer et al., 2006; Teksoz
et al., 2012), or on particular cohorts such as faculty, students or administration,
and their perceptions of sustainability (Cotton et al., 2009; Emmanuel and
Adams, 2011; Reid and Petocz, 2006; Wright, 2010; Wright and Wilton, 2012;
Wright and Horst, in press). The problem with such compartmentalization is that
it leads to a perpetuation of “silo” thinking and prevents the promotion of a
-
2
comprehensive university-wide approach. This study aims to address this
research gap and promote meaningful action.
Many universities hold efforts to incorporate sustainability more effectively into
their teaching and other activities. The University of British Columbia (UBC) has
been particularly successful at making sustainability a top priority of their
institution. UBC has a long track record of sustainability initiatives. Recently, they
have declared their intent to act as a societal test bed for sustainability by taking
a campus as a living laboratory approach to promote what they have defined as
regenerative sustainability (Robinson et al., forthcoming). Regenerative
sustainability is the concept of going beyond the minimization of negative
impacts, and providing a positive outcome with human actions. This study will
explore the university’s approach to integrating sustainability across the campus,
and will assess their efforts and intentions towards sustainability with Gibson’s
sustainability criteria (2006). UBC was chosen as the institution for the developed
framework for this study to be applied due to it’s long record of sustainability
initiatives, its faculty members with relevant expertise in sustainability, and to
assess their claim of being a test bed for sustainable higher education
institutions. In order for UBC to truly be a societal test bed for sustainability,
their sustainability must first be analyzed as to reveal their strengths and
weaknesses, before another institution can replicate or build upon their
strategies. This study will help in UBC’s goal of becoming an example for other
institutions by providing insight into their implantation practices, and improving
transparency.
1.1 Purpose and Rationale
The purpose of this study is to explore the sustainability initiatives of UBC,
particularly how they incorporate of sustainability within curricula, their campus
as a living lab programs, and other major demonstration projects such as the
-
3
new Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS). This study will
analyze UBC’s ambition of acting as a societal test bed for sustainable higher
education institutions by exploring the various initiatives and approaches taken
by the UBC community. The analysis of sustainability will apply Gibson’s (2006)
sustainability criteria. Finally, this paper will discuss whether there exist unique
factors at UBC that make their approach possible, or whether their sustainability
initiatives can be implemented at any higher education institution.
1.2 Boundaries and Limitations
This literature review for this study was limited to higher education institutions in
developed countries for several reasons. First, there is a lack of available
research regarding higher education institutions in developing countries, and a
lack of access to potential interviewees for interviews. Second, I believe that
higher education institutions in developed countries have the greatest potential
impact for influencing sustainability. There are other institutions of higher
education; however, this study will primarily focus on universities and colleges.
1.3 Methodology
This study began by looking at existing literature regarding sustainability in
higher education. There is a plethora of research regarding potential barriers to
sustainability in higher education with regards to university stakeholder roles, as
well as universities as a whole (Brinkhurst et al., 2011; Koester et al., 2006;
Finlay and Massey, 2012; Fien, 2002 Djordjevic and Cotton, 2011).
The research findings collected were used to develop two frameworks for
assessing how higher education institutions can implement sustainability. These
frameworks were grounded in Gibson’s sustainability criteria (2006), and built
upon research by Koester, et al (2006), Finlay and Massey (2012), and
Brinkhurst et al. (2011). One framework, the Framework for Sustainability
-
4
Initiatives, was developed for assessing sustainability at an individual initiative
level, and the second, The Framework for Sustainability in Higher Education, was
created for institution-wide application. Both frameworks are informed by
Gibson’s criteria (2005) and each focus area of higher education sustainability:
curriculum, research, operations, and community outreach.
After a review of existing literature, UBC was selected as a case study in which to
apply the developed frameworks to a higher education institution. UBC was
chosen because of its extensive track record of sustainability and its ambitious
goals for the future. Interviews were completed to complement what information
was gathered from literature and what was available on the UBC website. Based
on involvement in the sustainability initiatives currently underway at UBC,
participants were selected for interviews. Interview participants were chosen via
non-probabilistic sampling, using snowball sampling to allow the sampling frame
to grow organically (Bryman et al., 2009). The interview participants began with
those recommended by Faculty Supervisor, Prof. Bob Gibson, from within the
four outlined cohorts (administration, faculty, students, staff), from UBC. From
the first interview, three other participants were suggested and contacted to
request an interview. All three interviewees agreed. Interviewees were chosen
based on their various areas of experience within the UBC sustainability
community from administration, faculty, and staff, no students were interviewed.
Interviews were semi-structured with open-ended questions to allow for
spontaneous insights. During interviews, probing mechanisms such as echo,
silence, or asking for clarification was used to collect more comprehensive
answers (Whiting, 2008). Interviews were recorded with the permission of
interviewees and then transcribed for analysis. Each interviewee was assigned a
interviewee number, in order to ensure confidentiality. Transcriptions were
offered back to interviewees for review.
-
5
Following this data collection, the sustainability initiatives, individually and as a
package, were assessed based on the Framework for Sustainability Initiatives.
Finally, it is discussed whether UBC has successfully acted as a test bed for
societal sustainability, and whether their approach is applicable to other higher
education institutions.
2.0 Approaches to Sustainability in Higher Education
Before addressing how higher education institutions can act to promote
sustainability on their own campuses and in the broader world, it is imperative to
define sustainability.
2.1 Defining Sustainability
Since the Brundtland Commission first introduced the concept of sustainable
development in 1987, the definition of sustainability has been contested by
academics across disciplines, policymakers, and civil society (Filho, 1999).
Sustainability was first defined in the World Commission on Environment and
Development report Our Common Future, commonly known as the Brundtland
Report. From this report came a simpler version of a definition for sustainable
development as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987). This
definition is convenient but it does not represent the complexities of with
sustainability. The term can encompass much more complex and integrative
aspects. It is generally accepted by sustainability scholars that the term includes
three essential pillars: economic, social, and environmental and, crucially, their
interactions and interdependencies (Adomssent et al., 2007; Aznar Minguet et
al., 2011; Fien, 2002; Hansmann et al., 2012; UNESCO, 2011).
The term sustainability is sometimes seen as a ‘buzz word’ with ambiguous
meaning. Wright and Horst (2013) found that in their study of faculty leaders’
-
6
conceptualizations of sustainability some faculty leaders even believed the term
held negative connotations. The ambiguity of the term has been identified as a
barrier to its adoption in institutions (Wright and Horst, 2013). Sustainability is
often associated with ‘green washing’ or marketing schemes, and this association
will be explored further during the study.
2.1.1 Regenerative Sustainability
Various members of UBC have proposed the term ‘regenerative sustainability’ to
emphasize that sustainability requires not only minimizing negative human
activity, but rather human activity that improves environmental conditions and
human quality of life (Robinson et al., 2013. They state that the magnitude of
required change can be a daunting idea, and that approaches based on the
constraints, limitations, and mitigation is a non-motivating appeal. Instead, we
should frame the required change by focusing on regenerative sustainability, on
opportunities rather restraints, and the net positive results that will result
(Robinson et al., forthcoming). This conceptualization of sustainability could be
easily incorporated into Gibson’s sustainability criteria (2005).
2.1.2 Sustainability in Higher Education
The field of Sustainability in Higher Education is an emerging research area that
has gained growing attention since the Ubuntu Declaration of 2002 (Ubuntu,
2002). This declaration named 2005-2014 the decade of education for
sustainable development. The field emerged out of a need to assess the
performance of higher education institutions’ sustainability efforts, both through
their own campus initiatives and their ability to educate students on the issues of
sustainability. This issue has been widely discussed both by scholars and
governing institutions. In 2000, the Earth Charter addressed the need for the
formation of a sustainable global society and called for increasing sustainability in
education (Earth Charter, 2000). Not only is it imperative that universities
improve sustainability and educate for sustainable development, but as sites of
-
7
critical thinking, discourse, and leaders in research, innovation and education,
these institutes of higher education are strategically placed to address
sustainability and promote action both in current and future generations of
leaders (Finlay and Massey, 2012). Eagen et al. (2008) quote sustainability
academic David W. Orr who argued “no institutions are better equipped to
catalyze the necessary transition to a sustainable world than colleges and
universities. They have access to the leaders of tomorrow and the leaders of
today. What they do matters to the wider public” (Eagen et al., 2008). Other
sustainability in higher education scholars agree that universities have a
profound responsibility to increase awareness and foster innovation for
sustainability (Wright, 2002; Clarke and Kouri, 2009; Finalay and Massey, 2012).
Sustainability in higher education scholars agree that improving sustainability
should be a top priority among all higher education institutions (Koester et al.,
2006).
2.1.2.1 Sustainability in Higher Education Focus Areas Sustainability in higher education aims to go further than simply recycling and
reducing paper consumption, and seeks to incorporate all aspects of
sustainability including economic viability, environmental responsibility, and social
equity and more importantly, their interrelations. The relevant literature has
identified four key areas as important to sustainability in higher education:
curriculum, research, operations, and community outreach (Ferrar-Balas et al.,
2010; Krizek et al., 2012). Curriculum addresses individual courses as well as
programs, and the opportunities to implement sustainability on multiple levels.
Research includes research completed by faculty and students, and should be
considered across faculties and research areas. Operations not only address the
physical plant and resource use of the university, but also stakeholder
engagement and official university plans. Finally, community outreach is
considered the relationship between the university and outside partners, as well
as the extent to which the university interacts with its surrounding community.
-
8
These focus areas will be used to help structure the research into identified
barriers and opportunities. Based on these focus areas, the developed
frameworks can be more effective by addressing each area in turn, and
recognizing the existing barriers and opportunities.
2.1.3 Gibson’s Sustainability Criteria
For the purpose of this study, a set of criteria developed by Gibson (2005) (see
Figure 1) will be used to assess the strength of various sustainability initiatives at
UBC. This set of criteria was developed for the field of environmental assessment
but can be easily applied to Sustainability in Higher Education and is consistent
with ‘regenerative sustainability’.
Table 1: Gibson's Generic Sustainability Criteria
Socio-ecological system integrity The requirement: Build human–ecological relations to establish and maintain the long-term integrity of socio-biophysical systems and protect the irreplaceable life support functions upon which human and ecological well being depends.
Livelihood sufficiency and opportunity The requirement: Ensure that everyone and every community has enough for a decent life and that everyone has opportunities to seek improvements in ways that do not compromise future generations’ possibilities for sufficiency and opportunity.
Intragenerational equity The requirement: Ensure that sufficiency and effective choices for all are pursued in ways that reduce dangerous gaps in sufficiency and opportunity (and health, security, social recognition, political influence, and so on) between the rich and the poor.
Intergenerational equity The requirement: Favour present options and actions that are most likely to preserve or enhance the opportunities and capabilities of future generations to live sustainably.
Resource maintenance and efficiency The requirement: Provide a larger base for ensuring sustainable livelihoods for all, while reducing threats to the long-term integrity of socio- ecological systems by reducing extractive damage, avoiding waste and cutting overall material and energy use per unit of benefit.
Socio-ecological civility and democratic governance The requirement: Build the capacity, motivation and habitual inclination of individuals, communities and other collective decision-making bodies to apply sustainability requirements through more open and better informed deliberations, greater attention to fostering reciprocal awareness and collective responsibility, and more integrated use of administrative, market, customary and personal decision-making practices.
Precaution and adaptation
-
9
The requirement: Respect uncertainty, avoid even poorly understood risks of serious or irreversible damage to the foundations for sustainability, plan to learn, design for surprise, and manage for adaptation.
Immediate and long term integration The requirement: Apply all principles of sustainability at once, seeking mutually supportive benefits and multiple gains.
Source: Gibson (2005)
These criteria will be used to develop a framework to assess sustainability of
higher education institutions, and in particular, UBC, by applying them to the
main concerns of sustainability in higher education institutions.
2.2 Implications
Based on Gibson’s sustainability criteria and issues from the sustainability in
higher education literature, a framework for assessing the sustainability
contributions of a campus has been created. First, Gibson’s Generic Criteria was
adapted to address sustainability in higher education issues (see Table 2). The
defined criteria for higher education institutions based on Gibson’s criteria was
organized and expanded upon via the four main areas important to campus
sustainability as identified in the literature: curriculum, research, operations and
community outreach (Ferrar-Balas et al., 2010; Krizek et al., 2012). Each of
Gibson’s criteria was analyzed individually and was interpreted to reflect
concerns evident in sustainability in higher education literature. Some of the key
education-specific considerations that were integrated included access to higher
education by all, representation of all university stakeholder groups (faculty,
staff, students, and administration), and envisioning the campus as a complex
system.
Table 2: Applying Gibson's Criteria to SHE
Gibson (2006) Criteria Applied to Sustainability in Higher Education
Socio-ecological system integrity
The campus functions as a system with social and ecological integrity (e.g water, energy, waste, GHG emissions)
-
10
Livelihood sufficiency and opportunity
The campus must also consider economic benefits from in sustainability initiatives, especially to the advantage of those most in need
Intragenerational equity
The university provides equal opportunity for all members of stakeholder groups.
Intergenerational equity
The university must not discount future generations, and ensure lasting sustainability. They must work for regeneration to reduce ecological debt to future generations.
Resource maintenance and efficiency
Demand for resources should be reduced, efficiency of use should be increased, and better approaches should be developed. Both physical and social resources should be included.
Socio-ecological civility and democratic governance
Universities must attempt to incorporate informed participation from all stakeholders in decision making processes
Precaution and adaptation
The precautionary principle is applied to university decision making and planning is designed to allow adaptation
Immediate and long term integration
Sustainability implementation is incremental, and goals should be both short term and long term; initiatives should address all of the criteria objectives together, seeking mutually reinforcing gains
3.0 Organization and Implementation of Sustainability Initiatives
As noted above, the relevant literature has identified four key areas as important
to sustainability in higher education: curriculum, research, operations, and
community outreach (Ferrar-Balas et al., 2010; Krizek et al., 2012). These focus
areas will be used to help structure the research in terms of identified barriers
and opportunities. The following section will outline unique attributes to each
implementation approach, the focus areas, and to each stakeholder cohort.
-
11
3.1 Structuring of Sustainability Initiatives and Tools
There are varying approaches taken by universities in an attempt to implement
sustainability. Some of the differences in approaches are determined by variables
such as administrative support, stakeholder involvement, or size of the
university. These variables result in approaches ranging from ad-hoc
implementation to entirely centralized sustainability implementation.
3.1.1 Top Down or Bottom Up Change
There is wide variety in the approaches universities have employed to integrate
sustainability into their campuses including differing governing structures,
stakeholder participation and the tools used to achieve their own brand of
sustainability (Brinkhurst et al., 2011). Some universities claim success with a top
down, centralized approach, while other universities promote bottom-up
strategies. The organization of sustainability initiatives can influence its
implementation in many ways. Different organization structures can lead to
differing barriers, opportunities and needs.
3.1.1.1 Centralized Organization One of the most influential change makers in a university are typically
administration (Brinkhurst et al., 2011; Helferty and Clarke, 2009). Top down
change tends to come in the form of official statements, mandates and policy
documents in an attempt from administrative leaders to guide their university in
a given direction, in this case of sustainability (Brinkhurst et al., 2011). This
centralized approach is particularly successful in planning, policy and reporting
initiatives because of the large supply of resources available to administration
(Brinkhurst et al., 2011). However, there are limits and barriers to centralized
organization such as bureaucratic distance from implementation, funding
guarantees, and gaining support from the campus community (Brinkhurst et al.,
2011; Helferty and Clarke, 2009; Howlett and Ramesh, 2003).
3.1.1.2 Ad-hoc or Init iatives Based
-
12
Various university community members typically champion initiatives based
sustainability implementation. These ad-hoc or initiatives based projects are
typically bottom-up and do not stem from university mandates such as the
above. In this type of approach individuals that will champion a project are
required. Champions will gather resources, provide incentives for participation,
leadership and will advocate for change (Brinkhurst et al., 2011;Clugston and
Calder, 1999; Krizek et al., 2012; James and Card, 2012). The type of initiative is
usually associated with the champion’s stakeholder area. For instance, faculty
members are associated with research, pedagogy, academic relations and
curriculum, and are therefore likely to implement change within one of those
area (Brinkhurst et al., 2011). The barriers associated with this approach include
resistance from administrative and other staff, lack of time, and lack authority for
real change (Brinkhurst et al., 2011).
3.2 Major Demonstration Projects
The implementation of major demonstration projects is another approach to
implementing sustainability. These projects could include a sustainable building,
revamping of curriculum, or any other major project in one of the four areas of
higher education institution sustainability. These projects play a large role in the
marketing of an institution’s sustainability efforts as they are considered a vital
aspect of campus sustainability in associations such as The Association for the
Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) (The Association for
the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2009).
One example of a major demonstration project is UBC’s Centre for Interactive
Research on Sustainability. This building has received much attention and praise,
and acts as an example of UBC’s concept of regenerative sustainability. This
project will be explored more in depth in the following sections of this study.
3.3 Active Stakeholders
-
13
Depending on the approach taken by an institution, the roles of stakeholders
may vary. University stakeholders can be organized into four (4) major cohorts:
administration, faculty, staff, and students (Brinkhurst et al., 2011; Wright,
2010). Each cohort faces its own opportunities for and barriers to integrating
sustainability into higher education, and performs its own role in the campus
system (Wright, 2010; Wright and Wilton, 2012; Wright and Horst, 2013).
Brinkhurst et al. (2011) present a metaphor for the university system as a
garden that describes the roles each cohort performs. Administration acts as the
gardeners, they plan, maintain and coordinate; students are the annuals, they
change rapidly, are transient members of the community, and are sources of
great action; faculty and staff are perennials, they are rooted in the system, and
can provide lasting campus sustainability (Brinkhurst et al., 2011). It is clear
through this metaphor that each cohort is important in creating sustainability,
and that more important than the efforts of single cohorts are their relationships
and the actions they can create together.
Faculty and staff require permission and funding from administration and the
energy, enthusiasm, power, and ideas from students. Administration requires the
political power of students and the will of faculty and staff to create policies and
provide funding. In addition, administration must celebrate the successes of their
university’s sustainability initiatives in order to overcome barriers (Brinkhurst et
al., 2011).
3.4 Summary and Frameworks
Both frameworks incorporate the four main areas of Sustainability in Higher
Education into appropriate criteria for sustainable universities. The Framework
for Sustainability in Higher Education also outlines the necessary roles of
administration due to the importance of a centralized approach and a supportive
administration and executive.
-
14
Table 3: Framework for Sustainability in Higher Education
Identified Focus Areas Requirements for Sustainability
Sustainability curriculum a. Integrates attention to the three pillars b. Mobilizes and builds a knowledgeable faculty c. Is designed for the context d. Raises awareness of sustainability; promotes communication across
campus as well as between the campus and the larger community e. Encourages collaborative as well s individual actions by students and other
stakeholders f. Incorporates means of fostering positive feedback and mutually
reinforcing initiatives g. Educates students to be effective citizens and incorporate sustainability
into their daily lives Operational initiatives
a. Engage multiple stakeholders b. Incorporate academics/learning c. Strive to deliver positive contributions to sustainability as well as to
minimize negative effects d. Promote multiple mutually reinforcing gains e. Reflect long term planning f. Incorporate comprehensive and integrated consideration of the three pillar
of concerns g. Apply the precautionary principle, addressing human and ecological
factors in open, dynamic, multi-scalar systems h. Raise awareness of sustainability; promote communication i. Reduces material and energy demands; enhances efficiency of material
and energy use; reduces stresses on ecosystems and ecosystem services Sustainability Research
a. Engages multiple stakeholders b. Encourages collaboration and shared understanding across disciplines,
mandates and areas of expertise c. Serves multiple objectives and seeks positive feedbacks d. Is open-ended, applicable to broader opportunities e. Fosters innovation, builds and mobilizes capacity for innovation f. Is grounded within a conception of what a better future looks like. Seeks
to help society reach that future Community Outreach
a. Bridges gaps within the university and between university and broader communities
b. Demonstrates widely applicable exemplary design and positive behaviour
-
15
Administrative Support a. Provides a consistent and reliable basis for longer term planning b. Encourages continual improvement c. Celebrates accomplishment
Table 4: Framework for Sustainability Initiatives
Criteria for Sustainability Initiatives a. Integrate attention to the three pillars of sustainability b. Be designed for the context; c. Be goal oriented d. Involve all stakeholders to the extent possible e. Build the resilience of desirable systems f. Raise awareness of sustainability; promote communication g. Work with the surrounding community h. Be fundamentally linked to learning
In summary, the academic literature surrounding Sustainability in Higher
Education has provided a basis for the important issues surrounding
sustainability implementation in universities. This literature review has resulted in
two frameworks to be used to analyze UBC’s overall sustainability, as well as
three distinct initiatives revealed as significant through interviews. Further, these
frameworks could be applied to any higher education institution. The following
section will outline the sustainability initiatives underway at UBC and will begin to
analyze their efforts using the developed frameworks.
4.0 Exploring UBC’s Sustainability Initiatives
According to the UBC strategic plan, Place and Promise, UBC is committed to
exemplifying social, economic, and environmental sustainability in all aspects of
the university (University of British Columbia, 2013e). This includes the
development of strategic plans, including sustainability in the design of new
buildings and retrofitting existing buildings, incorporating sustainability into
curriculum, transforming the campus into a living laboratory, and acting as a
societal test bed. For the purpose of this study, attention will be focused on
-
16
three aspects of UBC sustainability: the new Centre for Interactive Research on
Sustainability, the Campus as a Living Lab projects, and sustainability curriculum.
Information on these projects was gained via the university’s website, various
publications, and interviews with involved UBC faculty and staff. The literature
identifies four main areas of sustainability: research, curriculum, operations, and
community outreach. These three projects address all four areas of
sustainability. These three projects were also were the most talked about
projects during interviews, and are prominent in the university’s website and
publications, thus information on these projects was easily attainable.
4.1 UBC Stakeholder Roles and Organization
UBC boasts strong leadership from executive administration. One area where
their strong leadership is evident in their Campus Sustainability Office, created in
1998, responsible for creating official plans and strategies in regards to
sustainability (University of British Columbia, 2013d). In addition, UBC has
various steering committees and boards containing university executives,
administration, senior faculty members, and staff, responsible for specific
initiatives of campus sustainability (interviews). According to one interviewee,
the President came to UBC with a very strong sustainability interest (Interviewee
1), and because of that there has been significant success in implementing
sustainability initiatives due to the support from the university executive. In fact,
the President has created a Presidential Advisory Council on Sustainability to
develop the sustainability academic strategy, which one interviewee believed is
“crucial…that this [is] an academic strategy…[because] sustainability has to be
framed in terms of the core mission of the university, which is academic”
(Interviewee 1). This advisory council was the beginning of the UBC
Sustainability Initiative (USI), marking the beginning of a change in sustainability
implementation. Now that the USI had gained the full support of the executive
and administration, there were fewer barriers to be faced in implementing
-
17
sustainability. The USI consists of four groups: a central office, the Teaching and
Learning Office, a Research and Partnerships Office, and an Operational
Management Group, which meet every two months to discuss sustainability
initiatives, strategic guidance and oversight (University of British Columbia,
2013i).
A strong element of administrative support, and an example of a centralized
approach at UBC is evident in the Campus Sustainability Office. The function of
this office is to develop official plans such as energy management plans, climate
plans, waste plans, and water management plans and to run engagement
programs to encourage behaviour change (Interviewee 4). The office is also
responsible for reporting to internal and external stakeholders. This office creates
the plans and mandates that the university as a whole will adapt and implement.
The office is responsible for securing funding, which is crucial since inadequate
funding support from within the university has been identified as a major barrier
for many universities (Wright and Horst, 2013). One interviewee explained that
the challenge is not to make the business case, but to augment the capital
budget with operational savings associated with life cycle costs (Interviewee 4).
The Campus Sustainability Office is a strong example of a centralized
administrative organization.
In an attempt to overcome some of the barriers identified in the literature
relating to each stakeholder group, UBC has entrenched sustainability into
university planning and operations.
4.1.2 Faculty and Staff
Faculty at UBC are encouraged to incorporate sustainability into their courses
through grants awarded by the Teaching and Learning Office, as well as having
the opportunity to take a semester as a research fellow for the Teaching and
Learning Office (University of British Columbia, 2013c). There is an identified gap
-
18
between faculty and staff, or academics and operations, at UBC, citing one
interviewee “the gap between the operational and the academic, between staff
and faculty…those are two different worlds, everything is different” (Interviewee
1). In an attempt to bridge this gap, UBC has implemented Campus as a Living
Lab project, which will be discussed later on in this study. In addition, both
faculty and staff are represented on decision-making committees and working
groups.
4.1.3 Students
Students provide energy and ideas as well as the numbers to implement
sustainability initiatives, but need the long lasting commitment of faculty and
staff. At UBC, students provide much of the inspiration for sustainability
initiatives on campus. One interviewee observed, that students engage other
stakeholders. The interviewee cited that there is a tremendous amount of
interest in sustainability from students and that students from all faculties are
very eager to get involved (Interviewee 2). Another interviewee stated there are
very strong working relationships with student groups on campus (Interviewee
1). Students are represented by a student sustainability council, from which one
member sits on the USI steering committee, “the ultimate decision-making
authority” (Interviewee 1).
4.1.4 Individual Champions
In some cases, champions from various stakeholder groups are required to spark
change. Seeking champions and providing them with resources is potentially an
important step in seeking sustainability. When asked about the necessity of
champions, Interviewee 1 said that champions are required at both the senior
level, but also “out there in the trenches” in order to overcome the institutional
barriers that prevent individuals from stepping outside their job descriptions.
It is also this interviewee’s opinion that the goal should be to eliminate the need
(Interviewee 1) for champions. Yet as it currently stands, champions are an
-
19
important part of implementing sustainability initiatives. Based on this discussion,
it is clear that champions play an essential role in the early stages of
sustainability implementation at higher education institutions; however, ideally
the need for champions would decrease over time.
4.2 Applying the Framework for Sustainability Initiatives to UBC’s Initiatives
The two frameworks developed for this study will be applied to UBC initiatives
and total campus sustainability. The application of these frameworks will provide
insight into the strengths and weaknesses of UBC’s sustainability and will reflect
on their merit of being a societal test bed for sustainability. The initiatives based
framework will be applied to CIRS, The Campus as a Living Laboratory program,
and sustainability curriculum available at UBC. The campus-wide framework will
be applied to the total function of the university. The following section will
explore UBC’s various sustainability initiatives and analyze their performance
using the Framework for Sustainability Initiatives. The criteria will be ranked with
a check to indicate that the criterion was met, an x to indicate it was not, or a
tilde to indicate that some aspects of the criterion were met, while others were
not.
4.2.1 Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability
The Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS) is an innovative new
building on the UBC main campus that attempts to exemplify regenerative
sustainability. Interviewee 1 described seven ways in which CIRS was designed
to be net positive, four of which are environmental energy, operational carbon,
structural carbon and water quality and three ways that are human; health,
productivity and happiness.
4.2.1.1 Energy Systems Specific features of the building’s net positive design include the building’s waste
energy heat system and its capacity to use the waste energy from a
-
20
neighbouring building to heat CIRS. This changes the scale of how to approach
energy systems, or as one interviewee explains CIRS is now a two building
system. Their argument is “don’t sub-optimize at the building itself, that’s the
wrong scale for sustainability. Think of systems of buildings, and what the most
effective network is” (Interviewee 1). By harvesting renewable and waste energy
from the neighbouring building, CIRS is able to reduce UBC’s overall energy
consumption by more than 1 million kilowatt hours per year (University of British
Columbia, 2013j).
4.2.1.2 Carbon Systems The design of CIRS was meant to fulfill the Province of British Columbia’s Bill 9-
2209, the “Wood First Act”, promoting the use of wood as the primary building
material in all provincially funded buildings (University of British Columbia,
2013k). By using wood as a primary building material CIRS is able to improve the
operational and structural carbon capacity of the building. In regards to the
carbon sequestration of the building, one interviewee explained that because it is
a wood building, 600 tonnes of carbon are locked up in the wood structure of the
building (Interviewee 1).
4.2.1.3 Water Systems CIRS has a Solar Aquatic System for water reclamation, stormwater and
wastewater treatment. Water is collected from fixtures throughout the building
and is treated, and reused for irrigation and toilet flushing. The end target of this
system is to have zero wastewater and stormwater output from site (University
of British Columbia, 2013l).
4.2.1.4 Human Systems In terms of social sustainability, CIRS is attempting to create a net positive
environment for the users of the building. During the interviews it was revealed
that this endeavor has entered the research phase, but it was identified that this
is probably one area that is the most challenging (Interviewee 2).
-
21
4.2.1.5 The CIRS Standard On a total campus scale, CIRS contributes to the reduction of total energy use,
carbon emissions, and the improvement of water quality (Robinson et al.,
forthcoming). CIRS has been set as the ultimate example of direction UBC strives
to take towards sustainable building design. One interviewee suggested that
each new project will attempt to meet the standards set by CIRS and reach the
goal of regenerative development (Interviewee 2).
These increasing standards referred to as the ‘sustainability gradient’, an
approach aimed at gradually ensuring higher levels of sustainability for each new
project on campus (Robinson et al., forthcoming). At the current moment, this
means that all new buildings must comply with LEED Gold standards; and
eventually, will meet or surpass the CIRS for regenerative sustainability. It
promotes the idea that promotes positive action, rather than simply ‘less bad’
(Robinson et al., forthcoming). Primarily, the barriers of regenerative
sustainability are due to its novelty, one interviewee asks “can we have
regenerative buildings, can we have industrial processes, regenerative
transportation systems, regenerative cities” (Interviewee 1)?
4.2.1.6 Framework Application to CIRS
Table 5: Framework for Sustainability Initiatives - CIRS
Criterion: Integrate attention to the three pillars of sustainability
✓
Comments: Aims to integrate environmental sustainability, human health (an aspect of social sustainability) and economic feasibility. The social benefits are yet to be seen and are still undergoing research. Criterion: Be designed for the context ✓ Comments: Both context and scale were considered in the design of this building. Criterion: Be goal oriented ✓ Comments: The building itself was designed to reach the goal of net positive in all resource usage, carbon storage, and human health and productivity. It is not clear whether this will be completely accurate, but is certainly working towards
-
22
the goal. Criterion: Involve all stakeholders to the extent possible ✓ Comments: Research facility is shared with private, public and NGO partners. There were also various partnerships involved in the design and construction. Criterion: Build the resilience of desirable systems ✓ Comments: By increasing the energy scale of the building to a two building system, providing some of its own water management, and striving to provide positive feedbacks, resilience has increased. Criterion: Raise awareness of sustainability; promote communication
~
Comments: Tours are available on request. More communication is required. Criterion: Work with the surrounding community ~ Comments: Facilities are shared with third party partners. There was a great amount of contribution during the design and construction of the building, but there is insignificant evidence of continued community outreach. Criterion: Be fundamentally linked to learning ~ Comments: The primary function of this building is to serve as a research facility. In this sense, it is linked to learning. However, there could be more incorporation of education, in using the building to teach regenerative sustainability and as a living lab.
As is evident in the table, CIRS meets the majority of criteria, with only three
areas where they require some improvement before being considered completely
met. CIRS could improve the educational and communicative aspects of its
building design and strive to work more with the community by linking all of their
operations to learning. It is worth questioning whether a Life Cycle Assessment
was completed to consider how much energy was required to build CIRS, and
whether this data is included in the calculations promoting the net-positive
energy consumption of CIRS. Still, the social aspects being considered in the
building design, and the regenerative sustainability goals of CIRS are truly
innovative.
4.2.2 Campus as a Living Lab
As a societal test bed, UBC sees their campus as a sort of ‘sandbox’ in which to
explore and experiment (University of British Columba, 2013f). One interviewee
-
23
defined the objectives of the Campus as a Living Lab as “trying to integrate
sustainability into projects on campus that involve campus infrastructure, our
operational teams, researchers, students, and working on innovative solutions for
pressing issues such as climate change” (Interviewee 2). One of the major
barriers identified during interviews was the gap between the mainly academic
mission of the university and the operational activities. The Campus as a Living
Lab works to bridge this gap by enabling researchers, students, and faculty to
address operational issues.
The criteria for a Campus as a Living Lab project is that it must provide a
solution to a pressing operational need on campus, whether it be improving
energy efficiency in existing building, reducing GHG emissions, reducing water
usage, or anything similar (Interviewee 2). The final aspect of the Living Lab
Program is that it must include the participation of an external partner to
demonstrate or test a new technology that’s not been previously introduced into
the market place, “something that’s brand new” (Interviewee 2). This criterion is
not fully recognized in the reality of Campus as a Living Lab projects, as many of
the technologies are not ‘brand new’ such as battery storage, yet they are in
many ways still innovative. Interviewee 2 stated that a barrier in the beginning
was amazingly, an overwhelming amount of interest from external parties
(Interviewee 2). The same interviewee also explained that the reason for third
party interest is that these companies have developed innovative new technology
and are in need of somewhere to test it and to demonstrate that it works at a
larger scale than just a small pilot project, to see it in a community (Interviewee
2).
Examples of Campus as a Living Lab projects include a new bioenergy facility,
CIRS, and an electric vehicle initiative to set up electrical vehicle charging
stations on campus (Interviewee 2). These projects have all included the
-
24
collaboration of operational staff, researchers, students or faculty, and an
external company.
4.2.2.1 Application of Framework to the Campus as a Living Lab Init iative Table 6: Framework for Sustainability Initiatives - Campus as a Living
Lab
Criterion: Integrate attention to the three pillars of sustainability
✕
Comments: Campus as a Living Lab projects seem to be predominantly associated with the technical aspects of campus operations. There is some research activity surrounding the human aspects of buildings such as building design for effective study spaces, but no sign yet of this being incorporated into a living lab project. Criterion: Be designed for the context ✓ Comments: Every project included in the Living Lab program is designed specifically for possible broader application on the campus. Criterion: Be goal oriented ~ Comments: Projects are meant to aid in meeting university wide goals, but the Campus as a Living Laboratory initiative does not have any overarching and specific goals. Criterion: Involve all stakeholders to the extent possible ✕ Comments: There is much opportunity for a wider sample of university stakeholders to be involved in these projects. Currently, Living Lab projects tend to focus on technology-driven projects, and therefore limit the range of stakeholder involvement. Criterion: Build the resilience of desirable systems ✓ Comments: Projects centred on soft path approaches to energy, water, and other material resources (such as CIRS and the bioenergy plant) favour resilience. Criterion: Raise awareness of sustainability; promote communication
✕
Comments: An interviewee identified this as one of the program’s weaknesses. There is not enough communication of successes to raise awareness of the involvement of Living Lab projects with sustainability improvements. Criterion: Work with the surrounding community ✓ Comments: All living lab projects require the involvement of university stakeholders and outside partners. These partners come from the private, public, and NGO sectors. Criterion: Be fundamentally linked to learning ~
-
25
Comments: Every Living Lab project has a research or education component associated with it. However, there could be more effort made to include undergraduate students. The Campus as a Living Laboratory program excels at working with the
surrounding community but fails to meet three of the designated criteria. The
programs have yet to incorporate social aspects of sustainability into their active
projects, this addition would help expand their stakeholder participation, by
including students and researchers in broader range of faculties. Finally,
communication of the projects and the promotion of sustainability could be
integrated more clearly into the program design. In addition, there are two
criteria that could be met once improvements were made. These conditions
would easily be met once the above criteria were achieved. The Campus as a
Living Lab programs excel at working with the broader community, and this is
quite possibly their largest attribute. Further, these projects enhance the
resilience of the campus as a whole and contribute to improving overall
sustainability.
4.2.3 Sustainability Curriculum
Sustainability content can be found in over 480 undergraduate and graduate
courses (University of British Columbia, 2013b). A course is considered to have
sustainability content if it can fit within at least one area of the three pillars.
Courses can either fall under the category of environment, society, economy and
technology, or they can be considered “sustainability focused” (University of
British Columbia, 2013b). In order for a course to be considered sustainability-
focused, it must incorporate a combination of the three pillars, or address an
issue using a sustainability lens. UBC provides this diagram (See Figure 3) on
their sustainability website in order to better illustrate this concept, where the
yellow area is sustainability focused courses.
-
26
Figure 1: Sustainability Content of Courses
UBC’s modification of the typical three pillars to include technology was intended
to engage more of the technical-focused courses. One interviewee explained
that it was included because of the emphasis on sustainable technology evident
in particularly in the applied sciences, the fuel centre, and the clean energy
group. By explicitly including technology in the economy pillar these strong
student groups can be engaged (Interviewee 3). In addition, it was a way of
incorporating more courses under the sustainability umbrella, or as one
interviewee said, “there are a lot of courses…that have a role to play in
sustainability, but aren’t specifically addressing sustainability themselves, but are
very important…this was a way of capturing [those courses]” (Interviewee 3).
UBC is working on offering students the opportunity to follow ‘pathways’ of
sustainability courses. These pathways would consist of a combination of
courses to equip students with a significant knowledge of sustainability.
They could function as a major, minor, or concentration, resulting in a
transcript designation, or could be informal pathways. One interviewee
reveals the issues surrounding transcript designations. The interviewee
states that the belief is that most students would “do less than a minor”
-
27
which is why UBC has developed this language of pathways, thinking it’s a
little less prescriptive (Interviewee 3). However, the interviewee also
revealed that there would be major barriers to creating a sustainability
minor since at UBC, minors are faculty maintained, and therefore a minor
for sustainability would have to be created in every faculty, and it would be
a long and difficult process. The interviewee concluded it might result in a
situation where there are 30 minors in sustainability, causing loss of
appetite towards that idea of this very formal designation. (Interviewee 3).
A major limitation to the current sustainability pathways, or courses
available to students is the lack of a ‘capstone’ course to synthesize the
knowledge students have learned throughout their pathways. One
interviewee discussed how a capstone course would be a critical aspect of
an effective sustainability pathway. However the interviewee cited barriers
regarding the development of new courses, and again introduced the idea
that capstone courses might have to be created for every department, but
maintained that this issue was on their radar (Interviewee 3).
Other barriers to integrating sustainability into curriculum identified during
interviews were mostly institutional barriers. These institutional barriers, in terms
of curriculum, are seen as very significant because universities are inclined to
teach discipline -focused courses and sustainability requires an interdisciplinary
or transdisciplinary lens (Interviewee 3). The same interviewee also noted that
there are structures in place in universities that make interdisciplinary curriculum
difficult such as silos, institutional structures, and flexibility within programs are
all issues (Interviewee 3). In addition to silo thinking and inflexibility of
programs, there are professional courses that may provide an even greater
opposition to sustainability integration. On this topic, Interviewee 3 states that
curriculum governed by professional boards have additional barriers as these
boards may not want or see the need for sustainability in the curriculum
(Interviewee 3). It is then difficult then for the university to change the course
-
28
content if the professional organization that governs the overall learning
objectives isn’t supportive of it (Interviewee 3).
Faculty members are encouraged to incorporate sustainability into their courses.
A ‘Spotlight’ program, through the Teaching and Learning Office, provides funds
for faculty members so they may develop sustainability curriculum (University of
British Columbia, 2013c). In addition, each year five faculty members are elected
as fellows, to work with the Teaching and Learning Office and to undertake
research to improve upon sustainability curriculum. Although the uptake is small
(Interviewee 3), these programs are working towards building the capacity
(Interviewee 1) of the university as a whole to incorporate sustainability into
curriculum, and circulate sustainability knowledge.
4.2.3.1 Applying the Framework to Sustainability Curriculum
Table 7: Framework for Sustainability Initiatives - Curriculum
Criterion: Integrate attention to the three pillars of sustainability
~
Comments: Every course with sustainability content is linked to at least one of three pillars. However, courses should strive to combine all three pillars in order to better promote sustainability. Criterion: Be designed for the context ? Comments: It is difficult to ascertain whether courses are designed for particular context because course contents are mostly left up to individual lecturers. Criterion: Be goal oriented ~ Comments: There were inclinations during interviews that sustainability curriculum development was working towards a more absolute goal of offering students a sustainability major or distinction. However, incorporating sustainability broadly into curriculum is promoting the end goal of increasing the sustainability capacity and understanding of university stakeholders Criterion: Involve all stakeholders to the extent possible ~ Comments: This is dependent on individual lecturers and is not guaranteed by the sustainability content of a course. Criterion: Build the resilience of desirable systems ~ Comments: As more courses incorporate sustainability, knowledge about sustainability will increase and should result in positive feedback loops of sustainability promotion and curriculum resilience. This is not yet evident in
-
29
sustainability curriculum learning outcomes. Criterion: Raise awareness of sustainability; promote communication
✓
Comments: Incorporating sustainability into curriculum components will increase the awareness of sustainability and issues relevant to UBC students. Programs to encourage sustainability curriculum content have also improved awareness and communication. Content should be monitored to ensure that misconceptions are not being taught. Criterion: Work with the surrounding community ? Comments: This is dependent on specific courses and lecturers. Criterion: Be fundamentally linked to learning ✓ Comments: Incorporating sustainability into curriculum ensures that the content is linked to learning and is relevant to the students’ fields.
Due to the lack of monitoring of sustainability content, and the further research
required, many of these criteria are only somewhat achieved. Further research
into individual course content is needed before any definitive statements on the
quality of sustainability curriculum could be made. It is unknown whether the
sustainability curriculum works with the surrounding community, or is designed
for context due to the ambiguity surrounding the sustainability content of
courses. It could be assumed that, if each lecturer had implemented the
suggestions from the toolbook provided by the Teaching and Learning Office that
these criteria might be met as it promotes the development of active citizens.
4.3 Additional Sustainability Initiatives
Throughout the interviews various other initiatives and plans for sustainability
were introduced by the interviewees. One of these was the Climate Action Plan,
created by the Campus Sustainability Office. This plan outlines the commitments
UBC has made towards greenhouse gas emissions reductions and the actions
that will be taken to reach these ambitious goals (University of British Columbia,
2013g). One interviewee outlined these goals. They included a 33% reduction in
emissions by 2015 and a 67% reduction by 2020. The steps to achieve the first
goal have already been planned and include the bioenergy facility, continuous
building optimization, converting the steam system to hot water, and the district
-
30
energy system (Interviewee 1). But, to achieve the later goal, this interviewee
believes there will be a need for to treat the whole campus as a single integrated
system by adding waste and water to the mix, and potentially food as well
(Interviewee 1).
The key action areas outlined in the Climate Action Plan include campus
development and infrastructure, energy supply and management, fleets and fuel
use, travel and procurement, food, and transportation. In addition to these
action areas that were outlined in the official plan, interviewees also showed an
emphasis on residences. There seemed to be a significant interest in creating
and improving the sense of community on campus through the development of
on-campus residences. One interviewee explained, there is a large residential
community on campus, with about 8,000 private residents, which is expected to
double over the next thirty years (Interviewee 4).
Another project that is deserving of attention is the UBC Farm, a 20-acre farm on
the UBC campus that produces a variety of different fruits, vegetables, and
poultry (Interviewee 2). What is produced from the UBC farm is sold to campus
food service outlets (Interviewee 2) and ensures local produce and quality food.
The farm is currently experimenting with a fish-aquaculture operation as a
research project (Interviewee 2) and will certainly contribute to campus
emissions reductions.
4.4 Summary
Through various plans such as Place and Promise and the Climate Action Plan,
creation of offices such as the Campus Sustainability Office, and the Teaching
and Learning Office, UBC has communicated its intentions of promoting
sustainability across the three pillars. These official plans and designations have
ensured funding and commitment from the university to implement programs
-
31
such as Campus as a Living Laboratory, to invest in green design, and
incorporate sustainability into curriculum. In terms of the initiative based
framework, CIRS meets almost all of the criteria, and of the two that are only
somewhat met, there are definite strides towards their integration. The Campus
as a Living Lab initiative only meets three of eight criteria, and the main reason
for its shortcoming appears to be its lack of incorporation of social sustainability.
Finally, on an initiative scale, sustainability curriculum only meets two of eight
criteria clearly, and the main reason for the uncertainties is lack of detailed
information about course content and lack of evident effort so far to encourage
some harmonization of course content.
5.0 Applying the Sustainability in Higher Education Framework to UBC
The following section will present the performance of UBC’s overall sustainability.
The same legend used above will be applied to these criteria.
5.2 Applying The Sustainability in Higher Education Framework
Table 8: The Sustainability in Higher Education Framework - UBC
Identified Focus Areas and Requirements for Sustainability Sustainability curriculum Integrates attention to the three pillars
~ Comments: Courses are organized based on their three pillar content, but are not required to include all three pillars in the curriculum to be considered a course with sustainability content. Mobilizes and builds a knowledgeable faculty
✓ Comments: Through the integration of sustainability content in courses in various departments, the overall capacity for sustainability knowledge increases. Is designed for the context
~ Comments: This is dependent on individual courses and lecturers. However, allowing lecturers determine the sustainability content ensures that it will be applicable to the course content. Raises awareness of sustainability; promotes communication across campus as well as between the campus and the larger ✓
-
32
community
Comments: Increasing both the student body’s and faculty’s understanding of sustainability will increase awareness. Projects such as the Spotlight Program improve communication of sustainability education. Educates students to be effective citizens and incorporate sustainability into their daily lives
~
Comments: This criterion could be fulfilled, based on the materials available for lecturers, if these materials were truly incorporated into their courses. However, from the preliminary analysis of curriculum carried out for this study, it does not appear that students are being taught sustainability beyond its application to field, nor into their daily lives. It is impossible to tell if this criterion is, in reality, being met without an analysis of course syllabi and content. Encourages collaborative as well as individual actions by students and other stakeholders
✓
Comments: This is dependent on individual course requirements and structure. There is evidence of emerging student initiated projects, campaigns, and clubs that may have been inspired by the University’s sustainability efforts, such as the AMS Sustainability Program, which provides students with grants to implement projects to promote sustainability on or off campus. This evidence of student involvement demonstrates the success of curriculum in fostering collaboration and individual actions by students. Incorporates means of fostering positive feedback and mutually reinforcing initiatives
~ Comments: Building the university’s capacity for sustainability knowledge is one aspect of response to this criterion; however it is also necessary to continue to develop and improve pathways that build upon knowledge students learn and integrate their understanding of sustainability. Operational initiatives Engage multiple stakeholders
✓ Comments: Operations staff regularly partners with faculty, research, and third party partners. Incorporate academics/learning
~ Comments: This criterion is specifically fulfilled through Campus as Living Lab operational initiatives. These are typically incorporated only in technical fields, and could work to incorporate a broader selection of academic fields. Strive to deliver positive contributions to sustainability as well as to minimize negative effects ✓ Comments: The university’s concept of regenerative sustainability
-
33
directly addresses this criterion. It is assumed that if CIRS is to be the benchmark for all further operational developments, then this will continue to be incorporated Promote multiple mutually reinforcing gains
~
Comments: Some operations initiatives seek to be net positive and strive for mutually reinforcing gains such as the CIRS carbon storage, or the bioenergy plant, but this is fairly new and innovative. The majority of operations on campus do not promote multiple mutually reinforcing gains. Reflect long term planning
✓ Comments: UBC has a multitude of long term plans for the operation and facility management of their campus. These plans include Place and Promise and The Climate Action Plan. Incorporate comprehensive and integrated consideration of the three pillar of concerns
~ Comments: Some research is being done to incorporate social sustainability into building design and planning. However, design and management of existing buildings and other campus infrastructure do not integrate all three pillars of sustainability. Apply the precautionary principle, addressing human and ecological factors in open, dynamic, multi-scalar systems
~ Comments: New building standards set by CIRS would ensure that this criterion is met. If UBC continues to strive for the level of sustainability set by CIRS and outlined in The Climate Action Plan, this criterion should be met. However, in existing buildings, this is not necessarily accomplished. Raise awareness of sustainability; promote communication
✕ Comments: Operations initiatives don’t actively promote communication or spread awareness of sustainability. Reduces material and energy demands; enhances efficiency of material and energy use; reduces stresses on ecosystems and ecosystem services
✓ Comments: UBC has a strong focus on resource efficiency and on reducing energy and material demands. This criterion is met both my new building standards set by CIRS, but also in ongoing building retrofits. Sustainability Research Engages multiple stakeholders
✓ Comments: Research often involves external partners, and incorporates multiple faculty, staff, and students. Encourages collaboration and shared understanding across disciplines, mandates and areas of expertise
✓ Comments: Through the Teaching and Learning Office Fellow positions, faculty from multiple departments, collaborate, research
-
34
sustainability, and disseminate their findings.
Serves multiple objectives and seeks positive feedbacks
~ Comments: Some research is able to reinforce positive feedbacks and serve multiple objectives, but some research performed by faculty is very limited by disciplines. Is open-ended, applicable to broader opportunities
✓ Comments: All of the research completed by the Sustainability Fellows is open ended and is continually seeking contributions and expansion from the following years’ fellows. Fosters innovation, builds and mobilizes capacity for innovation
✓ Comments: Sustainability Fellows aim to foster innovation in campus sustainability and by adding new fellows each year, the capacity for innovation on campus is improved. Is grounded within a conception of what a better future looks like; seeks to help society reach that future.
~
Comments: Much of the sustainability research at UBC is centred around energy systems and building design. Just as many projects at UBC are technical-focused, the research could benefit by embracing a wider undertaking of sustainability research. It is possible that this research exists, but is not publicized on the sustainability research website. Community Outreach Bridges gaps within the university and between university and broader communities
~ Comments: The university seeks many partners with public, private, and NGO partners. This is done at the administrative and operation scales, but it is unclear whether community outreach occurs in education. Demonstrates widely applicable exemplary design and positive behaviour
✓ Comments: UBC has a portfolio of actions to empower community engagement on multiple scales. They have organized community outreach actions through goals and corresponding steps to implement said goals through the UBC official plan. Administrative Support Provides a consistent and reliable basis for longer term planning ~ Comments: There is potential for significant change in administrative policy every five years with the election of a new university president. Encourages continual improvement
✓ Comments: The administration has many support systems in place such as steering committees and official plans to ensure continual
-
35
improvement. Celebrates accomplishment
~ Comments: Successes are celebrated in terms of media and marketing, but there could be communication of accomplishments within the university community. Overall, UBC accomplishes the majority of criteria for campus-wide sustainability.
There are a few areas where improvement could be made, as well as some areas
where the university excels, such as building a knowledgeable faculty and
incorporating stakeholders in operational initiatives. In general their weaknesses
include promotion of sustainability awareness, consistent curriculum
expectations, and true integration of the three pillars. The following section will
outline significant findings from the framework analysis.
5.3 Summary and Implications
Overall, UBC appears to be making progress towards meeting the majority of
these criteria. There is only one criterion of the Sustainability in Higher Education
Framework that they do did not meet, 13 of 27 criteria they have addressed only
partially. Further research is required to fully explore the impacts of the various
sustainability initiatives and programs, especially regarding curriculum.
5.3.1 Sustainability Curriculum
It is worth further mentioning that much of the sustainability curriculum at UBC
does not appear to attempt integration of the three pillars, and instead focus on
the pillars as separate elements. It is safe to say that, perhaps outside of
Resource Management, that majority of courses do not integrate social,
environmental, and economic concerns, and instead contain content on either
one or two of the three pillars. The analysis showed that, even when a course
contained content in all three pillars, it still rarely claimed to be ‘sustainability
focused’ suggesting that the course did not function from a sustainability lens.
There is no monitoring of sustainability content for courses once lecturers claim
they contain sustainability content. Interviewees were adamant that it was not
-
36
acceptable to control the definition of sustainability; instead the university offers
resources for lecturers in hopes that they will incorporate sustainability into their
courses. Without any monitoring of course content, and without knowing how
many lecturers employ the resources provided, it is difficult to truly assess
sustainability content without further investigation. Further, without ensuring
that the three pillars and their relationships are all represented in courses, there
is no way to evaluate how much progress towards sustainability-based education
is being made.
5.3.2 Operational Initiatives
CIRS has set the highest standard for building sustainability and net positive
design. By incorporating net positive resource systems, social sustainability
aspects and human health, productivity, and happiness into the building design it
embraces the concept of regenerative sustainability. Operational initiatives at
UBC would greatly benefit from further retrofitting to bring existing buildings up
to standards set by CIRS. The Campus as a Living Lab program incorporates
academics and learning into operations, but as was outlined above, there are
shortcomings in the reach of these projects. Operational initiatives administered
through the Campus as a Living Lab program would not only increase
stakeholder cooperation, but would better integrate social sustainability into their
projects by widening their perspective from only technical projects to include
projects from other research fields such as arts. One area that undeniably needs
improvement is the ability of operational initiatives to raise awareness of
sustainability initiatives and issues. This may be simply a matter of better
communicating successes and shortcomings, or it could be because of a lack of
community involvement in projects.
5.3.3 Sustainability Research
Sustainability research at UBC is partially mandated through the Teaching and
Learning Office faculty fellows. This program ensures that each year there are
-
37
multiple faculty members involved in researching sustainability, and more
specifically, campus sustainability. Each year, the new fellows build upon the
research of the previous years’ work, ensuring that the research is open ended
and seeks positive feedback. Much of the sustainability research at UBC supports
campus initiatives and campus sustainability with research focus areas such as
energy systems, water management and policy development. There may be a
plethora of research on sustainability at the university that is not publically
available from the UBC Sustainability Research webpage. This prevents
communication the full extent of the sustainability research undertaken at UBC
and further, limits awareness.
5.3.4 Community Outreach
The amount or degree of community outreach at UBC is presently unclear. There
is evidence of partnerships with third party companies in operational initiatives,
and some cooperation with provincial government bodies. However, there is
limited evidence of local scale outreach. The outreach initiated in the Campus as
a Living Lab projects is a widely applicable approach that could be easily
replicated at other institutions. This type of community outreach not only
connects the university with public and private institutions but also promotes
sustainability application. However, the reoccurring issue of limiting endeavors to
technical-based projects appears to also be evident in community outreach
projects.
5.3.5 Administrative Support
Generally, the administration at UBC works well to inspire and promote
sustainability initiatives. There is proficient support in the form of official plans nd
funding. The administrative leadership at UBC cycles on five-year terms
(University of British Columbia, 2013h); because of this, there is a potential for
major changes in university policy. The most recent President, Stephen J. Toope,
began his second term in 2011, and therefore another three years of consistent
-
38
policies can be expected, however; it us unknown what type of leadership will
follow. It can be assumed that because of UBC’s reputation and long track record
of sustainability, these initiatives will continue, but ba