homemark.pdf

Integrating environmental sustainability into universities

Author(s): Meredith Ralph and Wendy Stubbs

Source: Higher Education , January 2014, Vol. 67, No. 1 (January 2014), pp. 71-90

Published by: Springer

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43648636

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

Terms and Conditions of Use

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Higher
Education

This content downloaded from
������������168.156.40.175 on Thu, 10 Jun 2021 04:02:52 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43648636

High Educ (2014) 67:71-90
DOI 10.1007/s 10734-0 13-964 1-9

Integrating environmental sustainability into universities

Meredith Ralph * Wendy Stubbs

Published online: 5 June 2013

© Springer Science+ Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract Universities play a fundamental role in addressing global environmental challenges
as their education, research and community involvement can produce long-lasting environ-
mental effects and societal change. By demonstrating best practice in their operations, research

and teaching, universities have both multiple and multiplier effects on society. For universities

to comprehensively address sustainability, a ‘learning for sustainability’ approach needs to be
embedded across every aspect of institutional operations in a synergistic way. Using semi-
structured interviews, this research explored the factors that influence the integration of sus-

tainability into the operations, teaching and research activities of universities in Australia and

England. The research found that individuals, committed to the goal of a more sustainable world,

play a vital role in the success of integrating environmental sustainability into universities. The

factors critical to enabling universities to undertake the transformational changes necessary to

embed environmental sustainability into all university areas included: a strong policy envi-
ronment, resourcing of strategies, and encouragement of leaders and environmental sustain-
ability advocates. Educating and building the awareness of university staff of the importance of

environmental sustainability to future generations was key to a successful strategy.

Keywords Universities • Environmental sustainability • Education for sustainability •
Integration • Drivers • Barriers

Introduction

Addressing the current state of the global natural environment constitutes one of the most
urgent and significant challenges in recent history. Mounting environmental pressures have

M. Ralph
Environmental Sustainability, Facilities and Services, Monash University, Clayton, Australia

W. Stubbs (El)
School of Geography and Environmental Science, Monash University, Building 1 1, Wellington Road,
Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia
e-mail : wendy .stubbs @ monash.edu

â Springer

This content downloaded from
������������168.156.40.175 on Thu, 10 Jun 2021 04:02:52 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

72 High Educ (2014) 67:71-90

arisen from population growth and from its associated economic activities and consump-
tion patterns in a world that is increasingly industrialised and interconnected. The nature of
the environmental crisis is wide-ranging as it includes increasing pollution, loss of habitat,
loss of biodiversity and diminishing resources (Sharp 2002). Increased human development
and its industrialisation has resulted in increasing levels of greenhouse gas emissions that
are a major contributor to climate change, which has a range of serious consequences for
life on earth (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007).
The overwhelming view of scientists is that organizations, industries and governments

must adopt sustainable practices and commence mitigation action to prevent further
degradation, to decrease current greenhouse gas emissions and to prevent further increases
in emissions in order to minimise these impacts (Stern 2006). Universities play a dis-
tinctive role in addressing environmental pressures and in creating a sustainable society as
their education, research and community involvement can produce long-lasting environ-
mental effects and societal change (von Oelreich 2004). Through demonstrating best
practice, researching solutions to problems, educating future communities and leaders and
promoting sustainability, universities have both multiple and multiplier effects on the
sustainability of today’s and future society (Ferrer-Balas et al. 2008; Fisher and Bonn
2011; Tilbury et al. 2005).
In universities, the strategic implications of sustainability reach beyond individual cur-

riculum changes, isolated environmental practices and environmental policies, with adjust-
ments also required to academic priorities, organisational structures and financial systems
(Ryan et al. 2010). For universities to comprehensively address sustainability, ‘there is a need
to link campus management to research, curriculum and administrative practice, such that a
learning for sustainability approach is embedded across every aspect of institutional opera-
tions in a synergistic way’ (Tilbury and Cooke 2005: 62). Previous studies have identified
drivers and/or barriers to integrating environmental sustainability into universities but have
not explored how the factors may differ across the three facets of operations, teaching and
research activities. This paper seeks to address this gap in knowledge.
The paper first reviews the literature on sustainability in the university sector, including

the drivers and barriers to integrating sustainability into universities. The research methods
are then described, followed by a discussion of the factors influencing integration of
environmental sustainability into operations, research and education. Finally, the impli-
cations of these findings are considered.

Addressing environmental sustainability in universities

Sustainability is a paradigm for thinking about the future in which the economic, envi-
ronmental and social dimensions are intertwined, not separate, and are balanced in the
pursuit of an improved quality of life (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural
Organization 201 1). In order to achieve this, the economic and ecological considerations of
institutions must be fully integrated (Brundtland 1987).
Generally, the higher education sector has lagged behind government and business

sectors in rising to the environmental challenge, but over the last decade universities have
demonstrated increasing initiative in applying sustainability principles (Merkel and Litten
2007). Significant numbers of senior university leaders have signed one or more interna-
tional declarations that promote sustainability in higher education. The translation of
signing these non-binding commitments into effective action, however, rarely results in
lasting institutional transformation (Bekessy et al. 2007).

£) Springer

This content downloaded from
������������168.156.40.175 on Thu, 10 Jun 2021 04:02:52 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

High Educ (2014) 67:71-90 73

Recognising their large environmental impact in energy used and waste generated,
increasing numbers of universities have improved the environmental management of their
campuses to reduce their ecological footprint (Corcoran and Wals 2004; Tilbury et al.
2005; Wals and Blewitt 2010). Urgent environmental issues led to the inclusion of envi-
ronmental topics in the curriculum of higher education institutions in the 1970s (Wals and
Blewitt 2010). However, the extent of curriculum ‘greening’ appears to be limited by
internal, interdisciplinary barriers, requiring governmental assistance and student pressure
to effect greater change (Haigh 2005). Full integration of sustainability into the overall
curriculum is progressing more slowly than ‘greening’ of campuses, with the emergence of
a ‘third wave of sustainability’ in higher education now focusing on teaching and learning
(Wals and Blewitt 2010). The numbers of higher education institutions undertaking sus-
tainability reporting, and the level of that reporting, is still in its early stages compared to
corporations (Lozano 201 1).
Large-scale changes to institutional culture are necessary to embed sustainability into

universities so that it influences decisions, management procedures, curricula and research

(Tilbury et al. 2005). A university that has comprehensively integrated sustainability can
been described as displaying the following characteristics (Clugston and Calder 1999;
Tilbury et al. 2005; Ferrer-Balas et al. 2008):

• Leadership and vision that expresses commitment to, and promotes, sustainability;
• Incorporation of the concepts and practices of sustainability into the teaching and
research of all academic disciplines;

• An emphasis on fostering the inter- and trans-disciplinary teaching and research needed
to provide solutions to sustainability challenges;

• Recognition of the ecological footprint of the institution, together with sustainable
policies and practices in operations, support and services that minimise this footprint;
and,

• Engagement in community outreach that enhances environmental sustainability.

Drivers for integrating sustainability into universities

The requirements of international and national policy directives and statements are external
drivers for universities to adopt sustainability (Wright 2002). A number of sustainability
declarations relevant to higher education have been developed since the Stockholm Dec-
laration in 1972, which recognised the need for environmental education (Wright 2002).
Over 400 university presidents and chancellors in over 50 countries have signed the
Talloires Declaration (TD). The TD is a ten-point action plan for incorporating sustain-
ability and environmental literacy in teaching, research, operations and outreach at colleges
and universities (University Leaders for a Sustainable Future 2008).

The United Nations (UN) Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 placed education for
sustainable development on the global agenda and as one of the top priorities in national
policy documents (Anderberg et al. 2009). The Kyoto Declaration of 1993, adopted by 90
universities across the globe, also challenged higher education to take on sustainability in
the education of students and in public outreach activities to the broader community
(Anderberg et al. 2009). UN-sponsored initiatives have continued to strengthen and focus
global efforts in this area, culminating in the current Decade of Education for Sustainable
Development (2005-2014). These international declarations have been implemented, both
at a national and at an organisational level, through legislation (Sammalisto and Lindhqvist
2008; Niu et al. 2010), government policy (Nomura and Abe 2010), government funding

£) Springer

This content downloaded from
������������168.156.40.175 on Thu, 10 Jun 2021 04:02:52 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

74 High Educ (2014) 67:71-90

initiatives (Scott and Gough 2006) and through partnerships with non-governmental
organizations (Wright 2002; Nomura and Abe 2010).
One of the most compelling internal drivers for integrating sustainability into univer-

sities is the ethical obligation to address this significant global challenge. Given their
collective knowledge and research capacity, there is a moral responsibility for universities
to educate future leaders and to advance knowledge that can lead to the creation of a
sustainable environment (Moore 2005; Nicolaides 2006). In addition, universities, as large
greenhouse gas emitters with significant financial influence, should also provide leadership
for the broader society (Sharp 2002) by setting an example in their own operations (Kirwan
2010).

Increasingly, universities are being pressured by their staff and students to address
sustainability by providing solutions to the global crisis and by using their knowledge to
add a voice to national and international policy development (Helferty and Clarke 2009;
Sharp 2002). The enhanced public image resulting from environmental leadership within
the sector can also provide universities with improved financial viability through increased
student recruitment and through the financial savings achieved from environmental effi-
ciencies (Nicolaides 2006; Nomura and Abe 2010).

Barriers to integrating environmental sustainability into universities

The barriers to integrating sustainability into universities identified in the literature are
predominantly internal. Financial constraints can limit the implementation of sustainability
initiatives at universities due to competing priorities for limited resources and because the
long term savings of these projects are not accounted for in budget modelling (Wright
2010). Within university communities, there is often a lack of understanding and aware-
ness of sustainability issues, resulting in confusion and a lack of staff commitment to
implementing sustainability programs (Evangelinos and Jones 2009; Wright 2010). As in
all large organizations, there can be resistance to change, particularly when imposed from
another area or discipline of the university – all levels of stakeholders must be engaged in
the decision-making process and initiatives in order to ensure their long-term success
(Sharp 2002; Nicolaides 2006). The most significant challenge to integrating sustainability
into universities is to achieve a coherent institutional approach, where operations, teaching,
research, and outreach are synergised (Tilbury et al. 2005; Nomura and Abe 2010).

Research methods

The case study method was used to guide this research study. Case study research
‘investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context’, using
multiple sources of evidence such as archives, interviews and observations as well as
numerous levels of analysis, often combining qualitative and quantitative data (Yin 2009,
p. 1 8). This study utilised interviews and universities’ websites, combining qualitative and
quantitative data, to investigate how universities were integrating environmental sustain-
ability into operations, teaching and research. Whilst acknowledging the three dimensions
of sustainability (economic, environmental and social), this research focused on the
environmental dimension, in particular, actions taken by universities to address the chal-
lenge of climate change, because it is considered to be a ‘super wicked’ problem (Levin
et al. 2009).

â Springer

This content downloaded from
������������168.156.40.175 on Thu, 10 Jun 2021 04:02:52 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

High Educ (2014) 67:71-90 75

The study examined four English and four Australian universities. The dissimilarity in
the policy, regulatory and climate change actions of these countries provides contrasting
contexts to analyse the factors influencing environmental sustainability integration. Eng-
land is world leading in its approach to climate change with advanced climate change
legislation setting challenging, legally binding emissions targets (Fankhauser et al. 2009).
Higher education institutions in England have specific governmental requirements to
address these targets, which include measurement and reporting processes, together with
linking of capital funding to reductions in carbon emissions (Hopkinson 2011; Tilbury
2011).

Australia’s higher education policy for environmental sustainability has focused on
systemic change rather than direct governmental regulation, with the national action plan
emphasising the role of education in addressing sustainability throughout society
(Chambers 2010). National research funding is available to address environmental sus-
tainability issues and to inform policy and practice (The Australian Research Institute for
Environment and Sustainability 2012). In contrast to English universities, Australian
universities have indirect incentives to reduce operational carbon emissions in order to
avoid paying a carbon tax introduced in 2012.

Four Australian universities were selected using the Sustainable Campus Group Report
(Sustainable Campus Group 2011) and from an assessment of the presence and depth of
environmental sustainability information on the university’s website. Four English uni-
versities were selected using the People and Planet (2010) Green League tables, the results
of which are increasingly important in the planning and strategies of universities
(Breakwell and Tytherleigh 2010). The universities selected were:

• publicly funded;
• generalist, not specialist, universities. From their public websites, it was ascertained

that each university had at least three faculties/schools covering at least three
disciplines, e.g. humanities, science and business;

• of comparable size, as determined from student numbers; and,
• had general university statistics and environmental sustainability information available

on their website.

Semi-structured interviews were supplemented by secondary data from universities’
websites. Eighteen interviews were conducted from the eight participating universities,
either face-to-face (thirteen), or by phone (five). Each 1-2 h interview was audio taped.
Transcripts were sent to all interviewees for confirmation, enhancing the validity of the
data (Yin 2009). While an interviewee was sought from operations, teaching and research
areas at each university, some universities were unable to provide all three representatives
(see Table 1 ).

Each staff member interviewed was an authority in implementing environmental sus-
tainability programs in their area of expertise of operations, teaching or research, as well as
being in a position of sufficient seniority to provide an overview of the university’s
programs in that area of expertise. Interviewees were asked about: their university’s
environmental sustainability activities; the drivers and barriers to integrating environ-
mental sustainability into their area of responsibility; how they ranked the importance of
the drivers and barriers; their view on how successful their university had been in inte-
grating environmental sustainability into their area of expertise; and, the key success
factors. To maintain anonymity of the research participants, the names of the universities
and interviewees are not identified in this paper.

â Springer

This content downloaded from
������������168.156.40.175 on Thu, 10 Jun 2021 04:02:52 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

76 High Educ (2014) 67:71-90

Table 1 Summary of interview
participants University Role at university Type of position

Australian universities

1 Operations Professional
1 Research Professional

2 Operations Professional

2 Teaching Academic
2 Research Academic

3 Operations Professional

3 Teaching and research Professional
4 Operations Professional

4 Teaching Academic
4 Research Professional

English universities

1 Teaching Academic

2 Operations Professional
2 Operations Professional

2 Teaching and research Academic

3 Operations Professional

3 Teaching Academic
3 Research Academic

4 Operations Professional

The activities were scored against a comprehensive list compiled from the literature, as
a measure of environmental sustainability activity (see Table 2). Each response was given
a score, with the presence of the activity given a score of 1, the absence of an activity given
zero, and partial development of an activity given 0.5.
The interview transcripts were coded (Gagnon 2010) to draw out the drivers, barriers

and key success factors. As patterns emerged within the data the codes were grouped
together under sub-themes, which were combined into themes of like categories (see
Tables 2 and 3).

Findings

Figure 1 summarises the environmental sustainability activities across operations, teaching
and research areas. The scores achieved by each university are summarised in Fig. 2,
expressed as a percentage of the maximum possible score from Table 2 (Operations = 32,
Teaching = 6, Research = 7). The data showed similar levels of integration in Australia
and in England, particularly in the operational areas of the university, where five of the
eight universities achieved scores of greater than 60 %. The results confirm previous
findings that universities are concentrating on, or finding it easier to, ‘green’ the opera-
tional areas of their campuses, rather than undertaking transformational change across all
university activities (van Weenen 2000; Dahle and Neumayer 2001; Noonan and Thomas
2004; Tilbury 2010).

Although integrating environmental sustainability into teaching in Australia lagged
English universities, environmentally sustainable research activities at Australian

Springer

This content downloaded from
������������168.156.40.175 on Thu, 10 Jun 2021 04:02:52 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

High Educ (2014) 67:71-90 77

Table 2 Key to the environmental sustainability activities at universities, graphed in Fig. 1

Area of Number of Environmental sustainability (ES) activity
university activity

Operations 1 Publicly available ES policy published in the last 5 years
2 Externally audited environmental management system

3 Publicly reports on ES annually

The university engages with the university community through:

4 ES awards to staff and/or students

5 ES awareness-raising campaigns

6 Staff training in ES

7 A staff engagement scheme (green representatives, eco-champions)

8 Staff inductions include ES policy and issues
9 ES newsletter

10 Student representation on ES committees

1 1 Student involvement (course work, volunteering) in ES projects

1 2 Student inter-halls competitions

1 3 Availability of funds for student or staff-led ES projects

14 Provision of land for student/staff food-growing projects

The university sets targets to reduce environmental impact in the following areas:

1 5 Waste management

16 Transport
17 Water

1 8 Construction and refurbishment

19 Emissions and discharges

20 Biodiversity

21 Sustainable procurement

22 Publicly available carbon management plan published in the last 5 years:

23 With a specific carbon reduction target within a specified time frame

The carbon management plan includes:

24 Energy
25 Procurement

26 Staff and student business or study trips, for example, flights to
conferences and field trips

27 Staff and students commuting to university on a daily basis
28 Carbon emissions associated with the travel between students’ homes and

the university (including international students’ travel to and from their
home country)

The university invests in renewable energy, including:

29 Green energy or GreenPower

30 On-site renewable energy

31 Publicly-available Sustainable Food Policy published in last 5 years

32 Accredited Fairtrade University with the Fairtrade Foundation

Ö Springer

This content downloaded from
������������168.156.40.175 on Thu, 10 Jun 2021 04:02:52 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

78 High Educ (2014) 67:71-90

Table 2 continued

Area of Number of Environmental sustainability (ES) activity
university activity

Teaching 1 Policy for integrating ES into the curriculum

2 Co-ordination body (for example, a committee) for integrating ES into the
curriculum

3 Plan for integrating ES into the curriculum

4 Target for integrating ES into the curriculum

5 Economic incentives for faculties/schools to integrate ES into the
curriculum

6 Professional development to assist staff to integrate ES into the curriculum

Research 1 Group(s), centre(s) or institute(s) dedicated to sustainability/environmental
research

2 Policy for integrating ES into research

3 Coordination body (for example, a committee) for integrating ES into
research

4 Plan for integrating ES into research

5 Target for integrating ES into research

6 Economic incentives for faculties/schools to integrate ES into research

7 Professional development to assist staff to integrate ES into research

universities were more advanced. This finding suggests that, in the absence of direct
governmental regulation, programs or funding, Australian universities have been driven by
other factors to adopt environmental sustainability as a guiding principle, particularly in
operational and research areas.

The marked variability in the extent of integration of environmental sustainability
between operations, teaching and research suggests that transforming different areas of the
university occurs at different rates and/or that different factors contribute to the success of
the integration in each of these areas. The factors were found to differ between countries as
well as between the operational, teaching and research areas of universities.

Drivers, barriers, key success factors: Australia and England

Table 3 summarises the three most frequently cited drivers, barriers and key success factors
for integrating environmental sustainability into Australian and English universities.

Drivers

Previous studies have focused primarily on the barriers to integrating environmental sus-
tainability into the curriculum or campus operations, rather than the drivers (Lang et al.
2006; Sharp 2002; Sterling and Scott 2008). This study found that in Australian univer-
sities, policy/programs and leadership and support, particularly of senior management and
individuals , were the most cited drivers for integrating environmental sustainability. It was
predominantly policy/programs at a university level, rather than at state, national or
international level that were driving integration. Pressure applied by both internal and
external stakeholders was the second highest driver, supporting previous studies (Lang

Springer

This content downloaded from
������������168.156.40.175 on Thu, 10 Jun 2021 04:02:52 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

High Educ (2014) 67:71-90 79

CA

.22

e

‘5
3

if
“ob
e
tí
“O

§

.1
I
to
3

< O C c Ti tí >‘

1
c

‘3
CA
3
CA

‘S
C
V

E

J
>
c
0)

00
c

1
00
22
c

1
%
I
TD
22
‘Õ

1
I
to
0

E
D

E
£
D

ß

1

(A

0

1
U : ¿ a. -s i 2 e s?

i S I I ļ ss •§ -S -S 2 g g> £ I •S | f I 1 ļ § <_ J ss £ £ £ S g > ļ g> S I s
•ÉJ! -H s <_ a! E ¡II E E J -s ļ ! ^ 'Il D c/2 u. cu F> Z c/5 on E E E F o¿ ^ oo D

•o

– * ~
Sř .E .F^o ~

CA . – _ – . 03 £ C
.Ecce _ ~ ^

.Ecce « Sii ~ 8 § s – Ii ^ I f | s § 8 – 2|
! •§ f i I I oč
•golii .E Õ E 1 Ï 15 8. Q. 13 E .E Õ E « E Cd Q.
13 00

Continue to order Get a quote