Download Assessment of Sustainable Development in Technical Higher Education Institutes of India - 2019...
Journal of Cleaner Production 21 214 4 (201 (2019) 9) 975 975e e994
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect at ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production co m / l o c a t e / j c l e p r o j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . co
Assessment of sustainable development in technical higher education institutes of India Nikhat Parvez*, Avlokita Agrawal Department of Architecture and Planning, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, 247667, India
a r t i c l e
i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 20 December 2017 Received in revised form 28 December 2018 Accepted 29 December 2018 Available online 4 January 2019
This paper assesses the sustainability related performance of Indian Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) based on the parameters and indicators listed under the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System (STARS), and the University of Indonesia GreenMetric World University Ranking (UI GreenMetric WUR). Qualitative assessment of Indian HEIs based on the two selected frameworks is provided. Data were collected for parameters pertaining to sustainable development (SD) at nine Indian HEIs through surveys, documentation, direct observations, and interviews with professors, research scholars, students,
Keywords: Sustainable development Higher education institutions Sustainability assessment framework STARS UI GreenMetric world university rankings
and employees. The study shows that although Indian campuses are implementing SD strategies, the approa app roach ch is not compre comprehen hensiv sive e and sys system temati atic, c, as alm almost ost 50% of the STARS STARS and UI Gre GreenM enMetr etric ic framework frame work parameters parameters are not currently currently bein being g complied complied with. Out of the two selected selected assessme assessment nt frameworks, Indian HEIs showed greater compliance with the UI GreenMetric, which can be attributed to its Asian origin. A lack of policies, monitoring and reporting mechanisms were common across all the HEIs. This study highlights the need to report specic rating parameters that are widely present on Indian campuses campuses and those which are not currentl currently y being being emphasise emphasised. d. The nding ndingss contr contribut ibute e to developing a contextualised rating system for assessing Indian HEIs that can help boost SD. This study can further help other developing countries aiming to progress along similar lines. © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Higher Hig her Educa Educatio tion n Ins Instit tituti utions ons (HE (HEIs) Is) ar are e eff effect ective ively ly mini mini autonomous cities with their own governance system, economy, hat and Abub Abubakar akar,, 2008 2008). ). and socio socio-cul -cultura turall syst system em (Alshuwaik Alshuwaikhat They are real-time laboratories where future citizens are trained (Velazquez et al., 2006). 2006). Through the demonstration of environmentally sensitive practices and applicable research, sensitive citizens can be nurtured in HEIs (Sharp ( Sharp,, 2009 2009), ), enabling HEIs to lead the way in Sust Sustainable ainable Develo Development pment (SD) ((Lozan Lozano o et al., 2013; 2013; Tapia-Fonllem et al., 2017 2017). ). SD in an HEI occurs in the spheres of education, research, outreach/extension, and administrative managemen age mentt (Als Alshuw huwaik aikhat hat and Abu Abubak bakar ar,, 2008 2008;; Jabbour Jabbour,, 201 2010 0; 2018). ). However, most researchers base their Albareda-Tiana et al., 2018 studies only on environmental issues, which is not holistic SD (Wu ( Wu and Shen, 2016). 2016). Generally, SD in HEIs across the world is lacking and/or and/ or its pro progress gress is ve very ry slow (Stephens and Graham, 201 2010 0; Blake
* Corresponding
author. E-mail addresses E-mail addresses::
[email protected] (N. Parvez), Parvez),
[email protected] (A. Agrawal). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.305 0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
and Sterling, 2011; 2011; Barth and Rieckmann, 2012; Lambrechts et al., 2013). 2013 ). Studies reveal reveal a scarcity of rese research arch on SD of HEIs HEIs,, particuparticularly in developing countries, with the majority of the research on this topic having focusing on developed countries (Bhandari (Bhandari and Abe,, 2000; Ryan et al. Abe al.,, 20 201 10; Wang et al. al.,, 20 201 13). Ind Indian ian HEIs HEIs represent a very slow SD pace (Leal ( Leal Filho, 1997; De Castro and Jabbour,, 201 Jabbour 2013; 3; Bantanur et al., 201 2015 5) and the SD concept is less investigated. To ll th this is ga gap, p, th this is st stud udy y in inve vest stig igat atesthe esthe st stat ate e of SDin Indian HEIs. The Indian higher education sec sector tor has witnessed a tremendou tremendouss growth in the last two decades. India's HEIs have two categories, unive uni versi rsitie tiess and col colleg leges es (UGC rep report, ort, 201 2013 3). Unive Universi rsitie tiess are autonomous bodies while colleges are af liated to the universities. Universi Univ ersities, ties, ther therefor efore, e, have the prime responsi responsibility bility for imple imple-menting SD in the education system and maintaining its quality. However, Indian HEIs have been facing several pressures due to continuous changes in the economy economy and population, thus requiring requiring more mor e research research (Altbach, 2009). 2009). In India, some residential campuses are making efforts toward achieving SD, including Manipal University in Karnataka, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in Delhi, the National Institute of Information Technology (NIIT), the
976
N. Parvez, A. Agrawal / Journal of Cleaner Production 214 (2019) 975 e994
University of Rajasthan, the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) in Madras, the IIT in Bombay, and the IIT in Kanpur (IGBC, (IGBC, 201 2010 0). However, there is a lack of holistic SD on Indian campuses; those which are are working towards SD are more focused only on some parameters such as academics, energy, etc. Indian campuses do not have a contextual assessment system for SD and suitable indicators remain rema in unesta unestablishe blished. d. Thus, the there re is a gener general al lack of asses assessment sment of SD on Indian campuses. The context context of HEIs in deve developin loping g coun counties ties is differ different ent from developed countries (Saadatian (Saadatian et al., 2009). 2009). Hence, there is a need to identify and establish indicators that are relevant to the regional and societal context. Identication of these indicators will lead to long-term monitoring, which would help HEIs achieve similar and scalable scala ble succ success ess stra strategie tegiess and prac practices tices ((Son Sonett ettii et al., 20 201 16). External and internal factors, such as the institutional, social, and enviro env ironme nmenta ntall cha charac racter terist istics ics of a cam campus pus,, pro provid vide e scope scope for developing targeted sustainable strategies for various parameters, which can expand the scale of SD in HEIs (Washington-Ottombre (Washington-Ottombre and Bigalke, 2018). 2018). Thi Thiss stu study dy focuss focusses es on assess assessing ing the cur curre rent nt sta state te of SD in Ind Indian ian HEIs with the aim developing an assessment framework that can support the move towards SD. It aims to identify parameters that are widely adhered tto o on Indian ccampuses, ampuses, includ including ing those that ar are e notcurrentl notcurre ntly y being being emp emphas hasise ised. d. A che checkl cklist ist of par parame ameter terss and the their ir associated indicators specically relevant to Indian HEIs is developed to help these institutes work towards SD. In doing so, this study seeks to adapt existing rating systems to the needs of Indian HEIs. The aim of this study is to assist campus personnel in understa der standi nding ng the differ different ent dim dimens ension ionss of SD mor more e eff effect ective ively ly.. Furthermore, this study acts as an example for other developing countries wishing to undertake similar research and those seeking to achieve SD in HEIs. 2. Back Backgrou ground nd Sustainability programmes function within the triple bottom line framework, made up of environmental, social, and economic factors. facto rs. Susta Sustainabil inability ity has both individua individuall and instit institution utional al appl appliicabili cab ility ty,, and is usual usually ly a bala balanci ncing ng act ((Ridgw Ridgway ay,, 2005; Lozan Lozano o 2006a,b). 2006a,b ). In order to regulate the sustainability process on campuses, initiatives must be aligned with speci c goals. This is only possib pos sible le if the there re is aware awarenes nesss of the curre current nt level level and state of Fiselier ier et al., 201 2018 8). Ratings Ratings and sustainabil sust ainability ity on the campus ((Fisel certication systems dene a sustainable project, and its social and economic soundness, and provide clarity regarding the extent to which sust sustainabi ainability lity para parameter meters, s, princ principles iples and prac practices tices hav have e 2017). ). For been incorporated (OECD, (OECD, 2008; 2008; Fiselier and Longhurst, 2017 this, vario various us camp campus us sust sustainabi ainability lity asses assessment sment tools have been developed around the globe (Gale (Gale et al., 2015 2015). ). HEIs are inuenced and encouraged encouraged by asses assessment sment tools that give incentiv incentives es to institutions for attaining SD (Ferrer-Balas (Ferrer-Balas et al., 2008; Yarime and Tanaka, 2012). 2012). As Shriberg As Shriberg (2002) (2002) notes, notes, these tools should be allinclusive, inclu sive, computa computable ble and comp comparab arable, le, and shou should ld ident identify ify and give appropriate credit to the various SD processes and motivational programmes that may be running in the institutions. The frameworks currently used to assess SD in HEIs, along with their strengths and weaknesses, are shown in Table in Table 1 1 along along with their respective regions of development and application. Mo Most st of the ex exist isting ing fra framew mework orkss ha have ve bee been n dev develo elope ped d and applied appli ed to HEIs in deve develope loped d coun countries tries,, with a few excep exceptions tions “
”
(environmental 1). The majority Table 1). of the rating systems also focus solely on sustainability. Since the UI GreenMetric WUR has the advantage of being developed in Asia and has a comprehensive lis listt of indica indicator tors, s, it is most most suit suited ed for dev develo elopin ping g cou countr ntries ies.. ST STARS ARS is a holistic rating system developed in the United States with an
exhaustive list of indicators. Both of these frameworks formed the focuss on this study; these frame focu framework workss enco encompas mpasss the environmental dimension of sustainability along with social and economic aspects. Using these two assessment frameworks, the current state of SD in Indian HEIs was assessed and relevant indicators for India were identied. 2.1 2.1.. Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System (STARS) STARS is one of the most popular and commonly used sustainability rating systems systems for HEIs, especiall especially y in the United States. States. Established in 2006 by the Association for the Advancement of Sustainabil Sust ainability ity in Highe Higherr Educ Education ation (AASHE), STARS pro provides vides a comprehensive guide for promoting sustainability in HEIs (AASHE, (AASHE, 2012). 2012 ). It provide providess campuses campuses,, both establi established shed and new, with a roadmap for moving in a sustainable direction, with a common set of benchmarks and goals (Urbanski ( Urbanski and Leal Filho, 2014 2014). ). There are four STARS ratings available as follows: Bronze (25 e44 credits); Silver (45e64 credits); Gold (65e84 credits); and Platinum (85 credits). STARS addresses the following ve parameters: (a) Academics (AC) (28% weighting): weighting): this parameter focusses on formal education programmes, courses and research that deals with SD. The intent should be to provide students with the knowledge to lead society to a sustainable future; (b) Engagement (EN) (20% weighting): weighting): this parameter focusses on act activi ivitie tiess tha thatt pr provi ovide de stu studen dents ts wit with h sus sustai tainab nabili ility ty learni learning ng ex exper perien iences ces out outsid side e the formal formal cur curric riculu ulum, m, and tha thatt help help cataly catalyse se sus sustain tainable able commu communit nities ies thr throu ough gh pu public blic engagement, community partnerships, and service; (c) Operations (OP) (35% weighting): weighting): this parameter assesses environme envir onmental ntal sust sustainabi ainability lity in dayday-to-d to-day ay oper operation ations. s. It focusses focu sses on: gree greenhou nhouse se gas emiss emissions ions and air pollu pollution; tion; sustainable buildings and transportation systems; sustainable grounds and zero waste throug through h redu reducing, cing, reusing, rec recyc yclin ling, g, and com compos postin ting; g; and ene energy rgy consu consump mptio tion, n, including conservation and ef ciency, and cleaner, renewable sources sources of ener energy. gy. It also promot promotes es sustainab sustainable le food systems syst ems and a sust sustainabl ainable e econ economy omy through purchas purchasing ing power. (d) (d) Planning and Administration (PA) (15% weighting): weighting) : this paramete para meterr focu focusses sses on instit institutio utionalisi nalising ng sust sustainabi ainability lity by dedicating dedi cating reso resource urcess to the coor coordinat dination ion of sust sustainabil ainability ity programmes and on engaging students, staff, faculty, and community comm unity stake stakeholde holders rs in gov governan ernance. ce. It pro promote motess sustainable investment and the incorporation of sustainability into institutio institutions' ns' human reso resource urcess pro programm grammes es and polic policies; ies; (e) Inn Innov ovati ation on and Lea Leader dershi ship p (IN) (IN) (2% wei weigh ghtin ting) g):: th this is parameter focusses on innovative solutions to the challenges of sustainability and on demonstrating sustainability leadership in ways that are not otherwise listed in STARS.
2.2. UI GreenMetric world university ranking (UI GreenMetric WUR) The UI Gre GreenM enMetr etric ic WUR WUR,, an init initiat iative ive of the Unive Universi rsity ty of Indonesia, is a rati Indonesia, rating ng fram framewo ework rk based on nume numerical rical score scoress for quick comparison between HEIs. The ranking aims to contribute to academ aca demic ic discou discourse rsess on sus sustai tainab nabili ility ty in edu educat cation ion and the greening of campuses by promoting social change with regard to sustainability goals. It university-led informs governments, international and local environmental agencies, and society about susta tain inab abili ility ty pr prog ogra ramm mmes es on camp campus uses es and and th thei eirr su succ cces esss (UI GreenMetr Gree nMetric ic Wo World rld Univ Universit ersity y Ranki Rankings, ngs, 201 2016 6). Acco Accord rding ing to
N. Parvez, A. Agrawal / Journal of Cleaner Production 214 (2019) 975 e994
977
Table 1 2002). ). Summary of major sustainability assessment frameworks (adapted from Shriberg, from Shriberg, 2002 S. Framework No.
Description
Strengths
Weaknesses
1
The Auditing Auditing Instrumen Instrumentt for Sustainability in Higher Education (AISHE), 2001
Based on the environmental dimension of 2001). ). sustainability in HEIs (Roorda, (Roorda, 2001
Dif cult to comprehend. Developed and Motivationss are Motivation extensively used potentially excluded. in Europe and the United States.
2
Campus Campus Repor Reportt Card (CRC (CRC), ),
Based on SD under broad categories of
A exible framework for institutional comparison. It is process-oriented, which helps prioritise and set goals through developmental stages. Created through international international consensus. A cross-functional, cross-functional, practical guide and
2001
academics, engagement, operations, planning framework. The baseline for current tools. and administration, and innovation (CRC, (CRC, 2008). 2008 ).
“
”
Application (Countries)
Environmentally
Developed and
focussed (i.e. not holistic). No longer state-of-theart . Not a comprehensive and holistic framework.
used used inthe United United States.
“
”
3
The Coll College ege Sustainab Sustainabilit ility y Report Card (CSRC), 2005
4
Graphical Graphical Assessment Assessment of Sustainability in Universities (GASU), 2006 (framework proposed by Lozano by Lozano (2006a,b) 5 Cool Schools (CS), 2007 (an initiative of Sierra Magazineand Maga zineand the online online Sierra Sierra Club) 6
7
Based on the aim to encourage incorporation of sustainability into the operations, academic and research programmes, student activities and community outreach of educational campuses. Sustainabi Sustainability lity Tracking Tracking,, Based on four categories: (a) Academics; (b) Assessment and Rating System Engagement Engagement;; (c) Operations; and (d) Planning 2012). ). (STARS), 2007 and Administration (STARS, (STARS, 2012
The framework framework proposed proposed by Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar (2008)
8 Greenopia College and University Rankings (GCUR), 2009 9
Based on policies, practices and a grading system. The process includes selection, survey composition, data collection, verication and assessment. Based on the comparison of SD of universities according to selected sustainability variables using a graphical tool.
UI GreenMetri GreenMetricc W WUR, UR, 2010
10 The The re rened Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework (CSAF), 2012
A grading system focussed on policies and practices.
Uses graphs to facilitate comparison universities' efforts towards sustainability. It benchmarks universities for SD. Promotes sustainability in the operations, academic and research programmes, student activities and community outreach of educational campuses. The most comprehensive and holistic framework. Based on an exhaustive list of sustainability indicators.
Based on the evaluation of sustainability A co comp mpre rehe hens nsiv ive e fram framew ewor ork. k. practices adopted by universities to preserve the environment, stimulate economic growth and improve society. Based on environmental parameters of SD in Assesses a universities' environmental universities. strengths and weaknesses.
Based on an online online survey survey to measu measure re campus campus sustainability efforts, and to portray sustainability programmes and policies in universities around the world. Based on CSAF revised to suit the Malaysian context (Saadatian (Saadatian et al., 2013 2013). ).
Ragazzi and Ghidini (2017), (2017) , this tool lays a good foundation for incorporating the principle of sustainability within HEIs and for implementing a technical tool to quantify efforts made to achieve this. The framework is based on the following parameters: (a) Settin Setting g and Inf Infras rastru tructu cture re (SI) (SI) (15% (15% weigh weightin ting) g):: this this parameter focusses on the policies towards a healthy and green environment, environment, pro promotin moting g abund abundant ant green spaces on campus; (b) Energy Energy and Climat Climate e Chang Change e (EC) (21 (21% % weig weighting hting)): th this is parameter para meter asse assesses sses the pro progres gresss tow towards ards energ energy y ef cie ciency ncy in bui buildi ldings ngs and emp emphas hasise isess env enviro ironme nmenta ntall pr prot otect ection ion,, reducing redu cing energ energy y cons consumpt umption, ion, developin developing g rene renewabl wable e energy, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and smart building implementation; (c) Waste (WS) (1 (18% 8% weig weighting hting)): this parameter focusses on sustainable solid waste management programmes through re recy cycl clin ing, g, orga organic nic wa wast ste e tr trea eatm tmen entt an and d ap appr prop opri riat ate e sewerage disposal;
Most suited for developing countries. A holistic framework. Simple to apply, with a comprehensive list of sustainability indicators. A comprehensive and holistic framework.
Developed and used used inthe United United States.
Does not include an Extensively used exhaustive list of in developed sustainability indicators. countries. Not a holistic frameworkddoes not include an exhaustive list of sustainability indicators. Each category has equal weighting, but subcategories are weighed differently. Some indicators are interrelated.
Developed and used used inthe United United States.
Environmentally focussed rather than a holistic sustainability framework. Some indicators are interrelated and are not clearly described in the ranking. Indicators of sustainability overlap.
Developed and used used inthe United United States.
Extensively used in Europe and the United States. Not being extensively used in developing countries. Do Does es no nott incl includ ude e an Proposed for exhaustive list of developing sustainability indicators. countries.
Developed in Asia and used throughout the world. Specically developed for Malaysia.
(d) Water (WR) (10% weighting): weighting) : this parameter focusses on reducing red ucing wate waterr usage usage,, incre increasing asing wate waterr cons conserva ervation tion and ensuring good quality water for the campus inhabitants; (e) Transportation (TR) (18% weighting): weighting) : the parameter promotes sustainable transportation by supporting policies that limit the number of motor vehicles on campuses, increase the use of pu public blic transp transpor ortt and bic bicyc ycles les,, str stren ength gthen en the pedestrian policy, and support the use of environmentally fri friend endly ly pu public blic transp transport ortati ation on to decrea decrease se the car carbon bon footprint; (f) Educat Education ion (ED) (1 (18% 8% weig weighting hting)): thi thiss parame paramete terr focuss focusses es on sustainabi sust ainability lity issu issues es thro through ugh teac teaching hing and incor incorpor porating ating sustainability practices in daily life.
3. Data colle collection ction and selec selection tion of HEIs Nine Nin e Ind Indian ian HEIs were were sel select ected ed for this stu study dy,, all of whi which ch deliver technical education on residential campuses, funded by the central centr al gov governme ernment, nt, and locat located ed in comp composit osite e clima climate te of India (Energy Conservation Building Code, 20 07). Government-funded
978
N. Parvez, A. Agrawal / Journal of Cleaner Production 214 (2019) 975 e994
institutio instit utions ns are enco encourag uraged ed to wor work k tow toward ardss SD as per the direc directive tive of the Min Minist istry ry of Human Human Re Resou sourc rce e and Dev Develo elopme pment nt (MHRD, 2017). 2017 ). The selected HEIs, being the premier institutions for technical nical edu educat cation ion in Ind India, ia, were were mor more e lik likely ely to actas goo good d ex examp amples les of sustainable sust ainable campu campuses ses for othe otherr HEIs HEIs.. A brief descri descriptio ption n of the selected HEIs is provided in Table in Table 2. 2. These institutes are: 1. The Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee (IITR) 2. The Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi (IITD) 3. The Delhi Technological University (DTU) 4. Gian Gianii Zail Zail Sing Singh h Co Colle llege ge of En Engi gine neer erin ing g an and d Techn echnol olog ogy y (GZSCET), Bhatinda, Punjab 5. The National Institute of Technology, Jalandhar (NITJ), Punjab 6. The The Nat Natio ional nal Ins Instit titute ute of Te Techn chnolo ology gy,, Kuruk Kurukshe shetra tra (NITK) (NITK),, Haryana 7. Deenbandhu Chotu Ram University of Science and Technology (DCRUST), Murthal, Haryana 8. Punjab Engineering College (PEC), Chandigarh 9. Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology (NSIT), Delhi This study reports the compliance of these instructions against the indic indicator atorss of the two chosen assessme assessment nt frame framewor works ks (see 2)) under the following three categories, as suggested by De Section 2 Section Castro and Jabbour (2013): (2013) : Formally
implemented (FI), where a HEI has formally incorporated an indicator in their campuses through policies; Existsinform Existsinformall ally y (EI (EI), ), whe where re a HEI has incor incorpor porate ated d an indica indicator tor,, but this is not formalised through policies; No evidence (NE), where a HEI does not have any incorporation of an indicator. Surveys were conducted by the authors in all the nine selected HEIs over a period of 10 months, between December 2015 and Septembe Sept emberr 201 2016. 6. Data were collect collected ed as (a) prima primary ry data (eld observat obse rvations ions and inter interviews views with pro professo fessors, rs, stud students ents and employe ployees, es, and (b) second secondary ary dat data a (in the form form of recor recorded ded do docum cument entss fro from m the rel releva evant nt cam campus pus aut author horitie ities). s). The mem member berss (facul (faculty ty members, membe rs, staff members and stud students) ents) were selec selected ted rand randomly omly based bas ed on the their ir avail availabi abilityand lityand wil willing lingnes nesss to par partic ticipa ipate te.. Abo About ut 50% of the student body participated and 30% of the staff and faculty members participated in the research. The questionnaire used for the interviews was developed based on the technical manual of STARS and the guidelines for UI GreenMetric WUR. The survey was rst condu conducte cted d on the IIT IITR R cam campu pus. s. Bas Based ed on these these initial initial respon responses ses and discussions with the research team, the questions were subsequently modied and the survey was again conducted at the IITR and on the remaining eight campuses. Appendix A presents the focus and corresponding questions asked for each indicator within STARS and UI GreenMetric WUR. In each case, the qualitative data collected during interviews and surveys for each indicator were translated into one of the three categories above (FI, EI, and NE). 3 shows a typical example of the data collected and complied Table 3 shows
for the indic indicator ator Academic Courses from STA STARS. RS. Appe Appendix ndix B compiles the compliance status of all the indicators for all nine campuses. “
”
4. Results Results and dis discussio cussion n The qua qualitati litative ve data on the sustainab sustainability ility paramete parameters rs for the nine Indian HEIs (Appendix (Appendix B) B) were analysed graphically. This was done by plotting percentage adherence values for each parameter (i (in n te term rmss of FI FI,, EI EI,, an and d NE cate catego gori ries es)) fo forr each each camp campus us in ba barr gr grap aphs hs.. Pie charts were used to assess the percentage adherence for each parameter across all the campuses. 4.1 4.1.. STARS (a) Academics (AC): (AC): Fig. 1 shows that all nine campuses have introduc intro duced ed cour courses ses on sust sustainabil ainability ity in their curricul curriculum, um, eit either her for formal mally ly or inform informall ally. y. Howev However er,, onl only y IITR IITR and IIT IITD D are engaging students (both at undergraduate and postgraduate level) in experiential learning. IITR and IITD are promoting their faculty members to develop new courses on sustainabi abilit lity, y, and are also also su suppo pporti rting ng res resear earch ch in ar areas eas focuss focussing ing on su susta staina inabil bility ity thr throug ough h sch schola olarsh rships ips and other other fun fundin ding g mechan mec hanism isms. s. All the cam campus puses es und under er stu study dy have have op open en access access to research. These results imply that this indicator should be formally implemented at all the campuses through curriculum, assessment, research and incentives. (b) Engagement (EN): (EN): Fig. 2 shows 2 shows that stud students ents are inv involve olved d in SD through informal learning in all the HEIs studied. Apart from IITR and IITD, there is an absence of orientation programmes, incorporation of sustainability in daily lives of the occupants occu pants,, and inter intercamp campus us collab collabora oration tion to support support sustainability learnings. Hence, there is a need to enhance sustain tainab abil ilit ity y lear learni ning ng expe experi rien ence cess fo forr th the e st stud uden ents ts an and d employe empl oyees es thro through ugh educ education ation pro programm grammes, es, prof professio essional nal de deve velo lopm pmen ent, t, pu publi blicc en enga gage geme ment nt,, an and d comm commun unit ity y partnerships. (OP): Fig. 3 shows shows that operational indicators (c) Operations (OP): such as ener energy, gy, waste, waste, water water,, food food,, emiss emissions, ions, transpor transportatio tation, n, and pu purch rchasi asing ng aremostl aremostly y neg neglec lectedacro tedacross ss all the cam campus puses, es, with wit h the NE cat categ egory ory having having hig high h percen percentag tages. es. To som some e extent, this parameter is being addressed either formally or inform informally ally at the IITD and the IITR IITR via ren renew ewabl able e ene energy rgy generation and tran generation transpor sportation tation policies. Acr Across oss othe otherr campuses, there is limited evidence of formal implementation of this parameter parameter.. (d) (d) Planning Planning and admin administra istration tion (P (PA) A):: Com Compli plianc ance e for thi thiss parameter is, comparatively, greater at the IITR and the IITD because these institutions have administrative policies and plans in place to promo promote te campus sustainability by inv involving olving stu studen dents, ts, staff, staff, facult faculty, y, and com commu munity nity stakeh stakehold olders ers in governance (Fig. (Fig. 4). 4). For example, they have a green campus committee to implement SD on campus.
Table 2 Overview of the Indian HEIs selected for this study (see main text for institution abbreviations). Description
IITR
IITD
NITJ
NITK
DTU
NSIT
GZSCET
DCRUST
PEC
Year of establishment Total area (m2)
1847 1,450,798
1961 1,184,815
2000 630,682
1963 1,194,312
1941 662,807
1997 573,697
1989 608,718
1987 1,104,792
1953 623,335
Student population (2016) Faculty population (2016) Staff population (2016) Total number of campus residents (2016) Student: Faculty ratio
7818 485 716 12,622 16:1
7829 543 717 12,869 14:1
3500 107 250 5178 33:1
5663 211 458 8339 27:1
6489 202 378 10,393 32:1
3652 107 263 5492 34:1
4846 218 125 6218 22:1
4094 174 294 4946 24:1
2355 124 175 3851 19:1
N. Parvez, A. Agrawal / Journal of Cleaner Production 214 (2019) 975 e994
979
Table 3 A typical example of data collection and compilation (both general and speci c for the Academic Courses indicator from STARS). “
Documents
Ge Gen nera eral
D at at a o b btt ai ai n ned ed fr fro om the sustainability website of the institute. Documents about the existing sustainability practices at the institute. Documents on renewable energy generation, water consumption and waste management, etc. collected from the administrative of ces of the institute.
”
Interviews/Sample Questions Faculty
Students
Staff
How have the teaching practices been helping to improve sustainability at the institute? How do you incorporate sustainability concepts into everyday teaching activities? How could teaching activities contribute more to sustainability?
Does the institute promote SD amongst the students? How would you rate the contribution of the institute to the concept and practice of SD? How and what practices are being adopted amongst students to strengthen sustainability sustainability? ?
Does the institute promote SD amongst the staff? What do you think about sustainability om the campus? How and what practices are being adopted to strengthen sustainability? e
For the indicator Academic Courses from STARS
Direct observations and data recording Data were collected through direct observation and surveys about various SD parameters at each institute. Each institute was visited by the authors in person. Data collection for various parameters (e.g. energy, infrastructure, water, waste, dining, engagement, academics, etc.) was performed.
Dat Data a obt obtain ained ed from from thewebsite thewebsite of Is any course completely/ Is any course completely/partially e the institute about the academic partially focussed on focussed on sustainability? Ask for a brief description of the courses. sustainability? Documents about the academic Ask for a brief description of the course. courses from the institute. course. FI: Inclusion of courses completely focussed on sustainability in the curriculum (IITR and IITD had courses focussed on sustainability, including those Translation of data collected on the sustainable built environment, ecology and sustainable development, etc.). EI: Inclu for the Inclusion sion of courses courses thathave susta sustainab inabilit ility y as a partin the curriculum(all curriculum(all institut institutes es except the IITs had cour courses ses wheresustaina wheresustainabilit bility y was part partially ially indicator included, including those on building materials and construction). NE: No courses that focus on sustainability. Academic Courses from STARS “
”
“
”
(e) Innovation and leadership (IN): Since all the HEIs in this study are funded by the government, they are required to support and encourage sustainable innovation and leadership. Fig. ship. Fig. 5 shows that such a focus is only being formally implemented at the IITD, where research focussing on SD is being carried carried out, wher whereas eas this is done informa informally lly at the IITR, NITJ and the NITK. Considering all the STARS parameters together together (Fig. 6) 6), it was observed that the proportion of formal implementation across all the HEIs is generally low, ranging from 11% to 23%. 23% . Out of all ve parameters, EN was the only one that had a no evidence rating below 50%. Indeed, evidence of activities compliant (i.e. rated FI or EI) with parameters AC, OP, PA, and IN was recorded in less than 60% of all cas cases. es. The Theref refor ore, e, bas based ed on the ST STARS ARS fra framew mework ork,, implementation of SD in Indian HEIs is not comprehensive and “
”
Fig. 2. Percentage adherence (%) of individual to against STARS parameter EN “
”
systematicdit is present only to a limited extent.
4.2. UI Green GreenMetri Metricc WUR (a) Sett Setting ing and infras infrastru tructu cture re (SI) (SI): Co Comp mpli lian ance ce wi with th th this is parameter is high owing to an abundance of green space on all the campuses; as shown in Fig. in Fig. 7, 7, this has been informally implemented in all the HEIs. However, there is no formal policy to maintain the area of green space on the campuses. Only the IITD and the IITR have taken steps towards formal
Fig. 1. Percentage adherence (%) of individual campuses to STARS parameter AC “
”
impl im plem emen enta tati tion on space by on maki ma king ng campuses po poli lici cies es and fo forr allocating main ma inta tain inin ing g adequate green their resources for SD. (b) Energy and climate change (EC): (EC): Almost all the HEIs are work workin ing g to tow war ards ds en ener ergy gy ef cien ciency cy an and d ge gene nera ratin ting g
980
N. Parvez, A. Agrawal / Journal of Cleaner Production 214 (2019) 975 e994
Fig. 3. Percentage adherence (%) of individual campuses to STARS parameter OP “
”
Fig. 6. Percentage adherence (%) of all the campuses to all STARS parameters.
(c) Waste (WS): (WS): Fig. 9 9 shows shows that with the exception of the IITD and NSIT, no effor efforts ts are being taken towar towards ds pro promotin moting g sustainabl sust ainable e solid waste manag managemen ementt prog programm rammes; es; for all “
Fig. 4. Percentage adherence (%) of individual campuses to STARS parameter PA “
”
”
other campuses the no evidence (NE) category rating was 100%. This indicates that immediate action should be taken to implement implement solid wast waste e manage management ment program programmes mes and appropriate sewerage disposal on Indian HEI campuses. (d) (d) Water Water (WR): (WR): Due to the absence of water use monitoring and conservation policies, compliance with this parameter was zero at the IITR and the DTU (100% NE rating). However, some activities supporting this parameter were present at the othe otherr campuses, campuses, where wate waterr cons conserv ervation ation has been improved by using more ef cient xtures (Fig (Fig.. 10). However, water conservation and recycling programmes need to be further implemented under this head. (e) Transportation (TR) (TR):: The The II IITRandtheIIT TRandtheIITD D haveef haveef cient cient and formal form al trans transport portation ation polic policies ies in place place.. Fig. 11 shows shows that the DTU and the NSIT are laggi lagging ng behind in this resp respect, ect, whe whereas reas the other institutes have some compliant activities including bicycle bicy cle and pede pedestria strian n polic policies, ies, campus bus serv services, ices, and restricted private vehicle access on campus. (f) Education (ED): (ED): Only the IITD and the IITR have formally implement imple mented ed measu measures res under under this parameter parameter by runn running ing academic courses focussed on SD and by having a sustainability abilit y we website bsite.. The other instit institutio utions ns do have have some inform informal al 12.. Hence, these cammeasures, however, as shown in Fig. 12 puses need to increase the number of courses and research activities activ ities on sust sustainabi ainability lity thro through ugh incen incentive tives, s, and shou should ld organise events to enhance student understanding of sustainability through informal events.
Fig. 5. Percentage adherence (%) of individual campuses to STARS parameter IN “
”
renewable energy on their campuses. Therefore, compliance wi with th th this is para parame mete terr (i (i.e .e.. ra rate ted d FI or EI EI)) is high high (Fig. Fig. 8). However, all the HEIs need to take steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and their carbon footprint.
Fig Fig.. 13 shows the percentage compliance of the nine HEIs to all the UI Gree GreenMet nMetric ric WUR para parameter meters. s. Overall, WS and WR are currently curr ently the least implem implemente ented, d, with NE ratings of 87% and 64%, respectiv resp ectively ely.. In comparison comparison,, measures measures su suppor pporting ting SI, EC, TR, and ED have been implemented at about 60% of HEIs. Out of all six UI GreenMetric WUR parameters, SI is the most widely supported, with more than 70% presence (rated FI or EI) across all the campuses studied.
N. Parvez, A. Agrawal / Journal of Cleaner Production 214 (2019) 975 e994
Fig. 7. Percentag Percentage e adherence adherence (%) of individual individual campuses to UI GreenMetri GreenMetricc WUR parameter SI “
981
Fig. 10. Percentage Percentage adherence adherence (%) of indiv individual idual campus campuses es to UI GreenMetri GreenMetricc WUR parameter WR
”
“
”
Fig. 8. Percentage adherence (%) of campuses to UI GreenMetric WUR parameter EC “
”
Fig. 11. Percentage Percentage adherence adherence (%) of indiv individual idual campuse campusess to UI Green GreenMetri Metricc WUR parameter TR “
”
Fig. Fig. 9. Percentage Percentage adheren adherence ce (%) of individual individual campuse campusess to UI GreenMetric GreenMetric WUR parameter WS “
”
Fig. 12. Percentage Percentage adherence (%) of individual individual campuse campusess to UI GreenMetri GreenMetricc WUR “
4.3. Disc Discussio ussion n Although SD is active in Indian HEIs, the results suggest a need to move move more more to towa ward rdss hol holist istic ic SD. Fig.14 show showss that the perc percentag entage e
parameter SI
”
of forma formally lly imple implemen mented ted para paramet meters ers of both both STAR STARS S and UI
982
N. Parvez, A. Agrawal / Journal of Cleaner Production 214 (2019) 975 e994
encouragement from the government to work towards SD. IITs can therefore act as a model for other HEIs wishing to promote SD, by incorp incorpor orati ating ng simila similarr sus sustai tainab nable le act activi ivitie ties, s, pr progr ogramm ammes es and measures. Courses on sustainability are provided at all the institutes, but very few are being delivered formally or assess the overall understanding of SD by studentsdthere is no inclusion of sustainability learning in their daily lives. Employee education and awareness towards SD are particularly neglected. Also, there is a lack of incentives for achieving SD. Most campuses also lack sustainability
Fig. 13. Percentage Percentage adheren adherence ce (%) of all campu campuses ses to all the UI GreenMetric GreenMetric WUR parameters.
related relat ed activ activities ities in planni planning, ng, admin administra istration, tion, teac teaching, hing, rese research, arch, and engagement. In environmental sustainability, only the concept of energ energy y is being addres addressed. sed. Curren Currently tly,, there are no measures supporting operational indicators of both frameworks at any of the HEI campuses (including IITs). In the majority of cases, parameters such suc h as waste waste,, wat water er,, transp transpor ortat tation ion,, gro ground unds, s, and food food are neglected based on their ratings under both frameworks. It was observed that there is a lack of monitoring and reporting mech me chan anis isms ms fo forr SD on In Indi dian an HE HEII camp campus uses es.. Fo Focu cuss ssed ed an and d informed progress is more likely to be achieved if policies were implem imp lement ented ed tha thatt ena enable bled d the ana analys lysis is and fee feedba dback ck on SD issuesdto direct efforts. Proper monitoring and reporting of the parame par ameter terss along along wit with h the for formal mal imp implem lement entati ation on of SD pol polici icies es on campuses will accelerate sustainable growth. SD should be promoted moted thr throu ough gh incent incentive ivess in edu educat cation ion and res resear earch, ch, and by incorporating it in the daily lives of students and employees.
Fig. 14. Total percentage adherence (%) of all HEIs to all parameters.
GreenMetric WUR is very low for the majority of the HEIs under study, the IITD and the IITR being the exceptions. The IITR campus has the highest percentage of informally existing (EI rated) parameters under under the STA STARS RS framework framework,, followed by the IITD. For the other campuses this gure is less than 30%. On the other hand hand,, the existence of informal measures supporting the parameters of UI GreenMetric WUR was greater (in the range 9 e67%). It is evident, d the there refor fore, e, tha that t compa co mparedto redto oth other er HEI HEIs, s, IIT IITs s are mor more e aware aw are of and are activ actively ely wor working king tow towards ardsdSD, having having imple implement mented ed either formal or informal measures that support the parameters of both ratings systems. The likely reason for this is that these institutes, which whi ch are the pre premie mierr instit institute utess in Ind India, ia, ar are e und under er con consta stant nt
Fig. 15. Total Total percenta percentage ge adherence adherence (%) for FI, EI and NE categories categories under each assessment framework.
N. Parvez, A. Agrawal / Journal of Cleaner Production 214 (2019) 975 e994
983
Fig. 15 shows that only 25% of the STARS and 35% of the UI GreenMetric WUR paramet parameters ers are infor informally mally supported in the nine Indian HEIs considered. Compared to STARS, more UI GreenMetric WUR parameters are being implemented, which can be attributed to the Asian origin of this rating framework. Hence, an improved ratin rating g system system for Ind India ia and oth other er devel develop oping ing cou countr ntries ies sho should uld focus focus more on the parameters of the UI GreenMetric WUR. Also, HEIs in developed countries are leading the way in SD meaning that relevant policies and measures are already operational in many cases. In com compar pariso ison, n, devel develop oping ing cou countr ntries ies lik like e Ind India ia nee need d a greate greaterr
ter terms ms of compl complianc iance e wit with h SD ass assess essmen mentt fra framew mework orkss and should act as model examples for other Indian HEIs. 3. Framing of p policies olicies and the pro provision vision of incentives is required at a governmental and institutional level to formalise SD policies on campuses. 4. Ther There e is a ne need ed to de deve velo lop p a mo moni nito tori ring ng,, ve veri ricat cation ion and reporting mechanism for Indian campuses to help better assess performance with respect to sustainability. This is required to pinpoint the areas requiring improvements. 5. A comprehensive and holistic framework incorporating more
allocation alloc ation of reso resourc urces es and incen incentive tivess to imple implement ment oper operatio ational nal policies in support of SD parameters such as waste, water, transportation, grounds and food. A comparison of the results of this study with that of De of De Castro and Jabbour (2013) shows that Indian campuses have partial or incomplet incom plete e comp compliance liance with SD para parameter meters. s. Bot Both h these studies highlight highli ght that India Indian n camp campuses uses should strength strengthen en the form formalalisation of sustainability related teaching and research activities to contribut cont ribute e tow towards ards SD. Ulkh Ulkhaq aq et al. (20 (201 16) stud studie ied d SD at an Indonesian university campus, also nding only partial/incomplete compliance with SD parameters. In this case, waste management and renewable energy generation were found to be the neglected parameters. Jain parameters. Jain and Pant (2010) (2010) also also analysed an Indian university (TERI) (TERI) and con conclu cluded ded tha thatt ther there e was was a nee need d for imp impro rovem vement ent in the case of waste management, transportation and landscaping, which is similar to the ndings of this study. As identied here, there should be greater recognition of some neglected parameters such as waste, water, transportation, grounds and food in order for Indian campuses to focus on them more. It was also found that IITs are performing better than all other HEIs with respect to SD. This was also the case in the study carried out by Bantanur et al. (2015) (2015).. Furthermore, Furthermor e, the reduction of ene energy rgy consumption and an increase in the generation of renewable energy are a prime focus on Indian campuses camp uses.. Pro Provisio vision n of incen incentives tives and monit monitorin oring g bodie bodiess is an 2008). ). Based important factor in achieving SD (Ferrer-Balas ( Ferrer-Balas et al., 2008 on their study of a university campus in Bangladesh, Hoque Bangladesh, Hoque et al. (2017) inferred inferred that prop proper er polic policies, ies, manage management ment and gov governernme ment nt su supp ppor ortt ar are e esse essent ntial ial fo forr SD in deve develo lopi ping ng co coun untr trie ies. s. Although Altho ugh India is a coun country try where envir environme onmental ntal educatio education n is mandated at all levels of formal education, this is not re ect in formal form al polic policy y initiat initiatives ives ((Chhokar Chhokar,, 201 2010 0). Gove Governme rnment nt supp support, ort, continuou cont inuouss monit monitoring oring mechanis mechanisms ms and framin framing g of polic policies ies are therefore important factors in achieving holistic SD.
parameters from the UI GreenMetric WUR should be developed for India as this framework has a greater relevance to Indian HEIs. HEI s. Suc Such h a rating rating sys system tem sho should uld focus focus mor more e on curr current ently ly neglected negle cted paramete parameters rs on Indian camp campuses uses,, placin placing g grea greater ter emphasis on improving them.
5. Conc Conclusion lusionss
6. Initi Initial al guideline guideliness for the develo developmen pmentt of a rating system Thi Thiss stu study dy shows shows tha thatt SD ass assess essmen mentt par param amete eters rs wit with h the greatest level of compliance on Indian HEI campuses relate to ed14). ). This will ucation, ucat ion, acade academics mics,, and engag engagemen ementt (Figs. Figs. 7 and 14 continue to be the case in order to comply with the international standards of education. Howev However, er, parame parameters ters related to operations operations,, planning, administration, and innovation are currently neglected on all the campuse campusess stud studied, ied, with the excep exception tion of ener energy gy and transportation. This situation is not expected to change in absence of any new, focussed rating system. Hence, a modi ed rating system should place more importance on these particular SD parameters. eter s. Some operational operational para paramete meters, rs, such as wast waste, e, wate water, r, food, innov inn ovati ation, on, and par partic ticipa ipatio tion n of the com commun munity ity in decis decision ion mak making ing,, are currently much neglected and this needs immediate attention. Therefore, greater credit and recognition should be given to these indicators in any modied rating system, including suggestions of ways to implement supporting measures on Indian campuses. 6.1. 6.1. Limitation o off the study In this investigation, a qualitative assessment of the sustainability parameters of Indian HEIs was carried out. More extensive res research earch is need needed ed based on quan quantitati titative ve asse assessmen ssmentt of SD parameters to obtain more data and to arrive at more justi ed conclu clusio sions. ns. This This will will help help dev develo elop p gui guidel deline iness and setbench setbenchmar marks ks for a rened rating system for Indian campuses. It is speculated that the development of such a rating system will help Indian campuses achiev ach ieve e com comple plete te SD. Qua Quanti ntitat tative ive dat data a would would mak make e set settin ting g benchmarks for different parameters easier. Only two rating systems were selected for this study; the inclusion of other rating systems might have led to a more exhaustive list of SD indicators, from which those most applicable to India can be identied.
This qualitative assessment of Indian HEIs has implications for researchers and campus personnel seeking to develop or improve the existing SD frameworks in India and other developing countries.. This study offers the following ve reco tries recommend mmendation ationss for achieving SD in Indian HEIs:
Acknowledgement Acknowle dgement
1. Indian HEIs are far from fully incorporating sustainability into their operational systems, with only 50% of the parameters in assessment frameworks found to be currently implemented at nine campuses. Therefore, there is a need to formally develop sustainable campuses in India and to work towards parameters for which there are currently few or no supporting measures, including inclu ding plann planning ing and admin administr istration, ation, innovati innovation on and some
The authors express their sincere gratitude to the nine campuses for providing their support in conducting the case studies. Also gratefully acknowledge the participation of their faculty staff and stu studen dents ts in the interv interview iews. s. The aut author horss would would also also like like to tha thank nk the Government of India's Ministry of Human Resource Development for funding this research through the IIT-Roorkee Institute Scholarship to the rst author (ID- 14902003).
indica indicator torss of ope operat ration ional al sus sustai tainab nabili ility ty suc such h as wa waste ste,, wat water er,, and transportation. 2. Constant encouragement from the government is required for all HEI HEIss to ach achiev ieve e SD thr throug ough h incent incentive ives. s. Althou Although gh IIT IITss hav have e not fully fully imp implem lement ented ed SD pol polici icies, es, the they y are ach achiev ieving ing better better in
Appendix A
984
N. Parvez, A. Agrawal / Journal of Cleaner Production 214 (2019) 975 e994
Table A1 Example of how the data has been collected for STARS parameters Academics (AC) No.
Title
Intent
Data collection/questions
Answers
AC 1
Acad Academ emic ic Co Cour urse sess
To have have co cour urse sess th that at ad addr dres esss sustainability as a part of the curriculum
Data collection about the courses on sustainability. Interviews with student and faculties about a brief description of the courses.
AC 2
Le Lear arni ning ng Ou Outc tcom omes es
To pr prep epar are e the the stud studen ents ts wi with th sustainability knowledge and skills.
AC 3
Underg Undergrad raduat uate e Progra Program m
To have have underg undergrad raduat uate-l e-leve evell deg degree ree programs focused on sustainability.
Assessment record of students that graduate from programs which focuses on sustainability. Interviews with student and faculties about assessment. Data collection of the undergraduate-level degree programs focused on sustainability. Interviews with student and faculties about a brief description of these programs.
AC 4
Gr Grad adua uate te Prog Progra ram m
To ha have ve grad gradua uate te-l -lev evel el de degr gree ee programs focused on sustainability.
Data collection of the graduate-level degree programs focused on sustainability. Interviews with student and faculties about a brief description of these programs.
AC 5
Immers Immersive ive Experi Experienc ence e
To equip equip stu studen dents ts wit with h in-dep in-depth th knowledge about sustainability problems and their solutions through community-based community -based internships and
Interviews with students about internships and exchange programs on sustainability. What are their learnings from such programs?
FIe Inclusion of courses completely focused on sustainability EI- Inclusion of courses partially focused on sustainability NE- No courses which focus on sustainability FIe Record of such students maintained EI- No formal record of such students maintained but assessment exists NE- No courses exists so no such assessment of students. FIe At least one program completely focused on sustainability exist EI- Program partially focused on sustainability exist NE- Sustainability is not a part of any program FIe At least one program completely focused on sustainability exist EI- Program partially focused on sustainability exist NE- Sustainability is not a part of any program FIe Policy for such internships and student exchange programs EI- No policy for such internships and student exchange programs but they do
student exchange programs.
exist on campus NE- No such internships and student exchange programs exists on campus Assessment record of students. FIe Record of assessment of students for Interviews with student and faculties about their sustainability knowledge. assessment. EI-No recordbut recordbut assess assessmen mentt hasbeen don done e NE- No assessment A description of the sustainability FIe Policy to provide incentives to programs. sustainability programs Interview with faculty about the incentives EI- No policy but incentives are being that faculty members receive for provided developing such courses. NE- No policy and no incentives Collecting data about the sustainability FIe Research focused on sustainability and research which utilizes the campus as the utilizing the campus as the study area. study area. EI- Research partially focused on sustainability and utilizing the campus as the study area. NE- No such research exists on campus Data collection of sustainability research on FIe Such research exists as a result of a the camp campus us and scho scholarsh larships ips for susta sustainabl inable e dedicated policy to conduct sustainable research. research EI- No policy to conduct such research but research exists NE- No policy and no research Interviews with students and staff about FIe Support to such research exists on any kind of fellowships, nancial support, campus as a result of a dedicated policy and mentorships available for sustainable EI- Support to research exists in absence of research. any policy to NE- No policy and no research
AC 6
Sustainab Sustainabilit ility y Literacy Literacy Assessment
To assess the student's knowledge of sustainability topics and challenges.
AC 7
Incentives Incentives for Developin Developing g Courses
To increase institutional support for increased sustainability course offerings.
AC 8
Campus Campus as a Liv Living ing Laboratory
To make the campuses sustainable by student participation. participation.
AC 9
Research Research and Scholars Scholarship hip
To promote promote research research on susta sustainab inabilit ilityyrelated topics.
AC 10 Suppor Supportt for Res Resear earch ch
AC 11 Open Access Access tto o Researc Research h
To dem demon onstr strate atess that that sus sustai tainab nabili ility ty is an institutional priority and can help deepen students' understanding of sustainability issues and attract new researchers to the eld. To empo empower wer faculty faculty to dist distribut ribute e their their scholarly writings, help stimulate learning and innovation, and facilitate the translation of this knowledge into public benets that advance sustainability.
The availability of the research to be checked through campus website and library visits.
FIe Such researches are freely accessible EI- Such researches are not freely accessible NE- All such researches are not accessible
Data collection/questions
Answers
Interviews with students about their participation and learnings from focused
FIe students are formally appointed to serve as peer educators, given formal
sustainability curriculum. programs exclusive of the
training and appointment nancial resources EINo formal or nancial resources but peer educators exist NE- No peer educators exist
Engagement (EN) No.
Title
Intent
EN 1
Student Student Educa Educators tors Program Program To spread spread susta sustainab inability ility concepts concepts and sustainability ethics throughout the campus community. community.
N. Parvez, A. Agrawal / Journal of Cleaner Production 214 (2019) 975 e994
985
Table A1 ( A1 (continued continued ) Academics (AC) No.
Title
Intent
Data collection/questions
EN 2
Stud Studen entt Or Orie ient ntat atio ion n
To en enco cour urag age e stud studen ents ts to adop adoptt sustainable habits in their new campus environments.
Interviews with students about the orientation programs, learning and use of sustainability habits in their daily lives.
EN 3
Stu Studen den t L iife fe
EN 4
Outr Outreach each Materials Materials and Publications
EN 5
Ou Outr trea each ch Camp Campai aign gn
EN 6
Assess Assessing ing Sustainab Sustainability ility Culture
EN 7
Empl Employee oyee Educ Educator atorss Program
EN 8
Employ Employee ee Ori Orient entati ation on
Answers
FIe Record of all such programs and their details EI- No record but they exist under different programs NE-No such programs exist Interviewswith Inter viewswith stude students nts for the prese presence nce of FIe Programs totally focused on T o enh enha nc nc e stud studen entt' s l e ea ar ni ni n ng g a bo bout co-curricularr programs or activities focused sustainability co-curricula sustainability outside of the formal EI- Programs partially focused on classroom. on sustainability. sustainability. NE- No such programs exist. FIe Data available on all the three Data collection about sustainability To enhance student learning about EI- Data available on some these publications from the institute website, sustainability outside of the formal NE- No data available newsletter or signage. classroom. To en enco cour urag age e stud studen ents ts an and d em empl ploy oyees ees Interviews with students, staff and faculty FIe Sustainability-related outreach campaign during the previous three year about the campaign held related to to adopt sustainable practices and EI- During more than the previous three sustainability and its details. lifestyles. year NE- None of the above FIe Record of formal assessment present To evaluate the success of sustainability Interviews with student, staff and faculty outreach and education initiatives and about the sustainability values, behaviours, EI- No record but informal assessment present beliefs and the awareness of different improve them. NE- No such assessment campus sustainability initiatives. To spread sustainability messages Interviews with staff and faculty about FIe Employees are formally appointed to widely and encourage participation in serve as peer educators, given formal programs held to improve their sustainability initiatives of campus training and nancial resources understanding of sustainability sustainability.. employees. EI- No formal appointment or nancial resources but peer educators exist NE- None of the above
To encour encourag age e th the e adopti adoption on of Interviewswith staff and facul Interviewswith faculty ty about their FI-Formal orientation programs on environmentally environment ally and socially preferable orientation programs, learnings and use of sustainability habits, routines and choices. sustainability habits in their daily lives. EI- No formal formal orien orientati tation on prog programsbut ramsbut they exist NE- None of the above EN 9 Sta Staff ff Profes Professio sional nal To equip the staff to implement Interviews with the staff about professional FIe Institution conducts professional Development sustainable practices and systems and development and training opportunities in development and training programs in sustainability to all staff at least once per model sustainable behaviour for the sustainability? campus community. community. year. EI- Not focused training, only a part of it includes sustainability and it is not conducted at regular intervals NE- None of the above EN 10 Comm Communit unity y P Partn artnershi erships ps To plan and create create a sustai sustainabl nable e future future Nameof the institut institution' ion'ss form formal al comm communit unity y FIe At least one partnership which is in the region in which campus is partnership to advance sustainability or multiyear/ongoing located. does the institution provide nancial or EI- Short term partnership project or event material support for the partnership? NE- None of above EN 11 Inter-Campus Collaboration Collaboration To help help oth other er inst institutions itutions realize Whether the employee and student of the FIe Any of these formally implemented and ef ciencies that accelerate the institution are an active member of a recorded movement to sustainability. sustainability. national or internation international al sustainability EI- Existing but not recorded network netwo rk or the staff staff,, facul faculty, ty, or studen students ts has NE- None of the above served as peer reviewers of another institution's institution 's sustainability data. EN 12 Contin Continuin uing g Edu Educat cation ion To provi provide de the tr train aining ing to obt obtain ain and Interview with employees and students FIe Training completely focused on perform sustainability jobs. aboutt the continui abou continuing ng educa educationcourses tioncourses that sustainability address sustainability and their details. EI- Training partially focused on sustainability. NE- No such training EN 13 Co Comm mmun unit ity y Se Serv rvic ice e To he help lp stud studen ents ts de deve velo lop p le lead ader ersh ship ip Interview with students about their FIe Mandatory engagement of students in skills and deepen their understandings engagement in community service. community service of practical problems. EI- Optional engagement of students in community service NE- No involvement EN 14 Particip Participatio ation n in Public Public To advance sustainability through Questioning the employees whether the FIe mandatory involvement of the Policy legislation and policy. institution advocates advocates for public policies that institution support campus sustainability at municipal, EI- optional involvement of the institution state, national or international level? NE- no involvement EN 15 Tra Tradem demark ark Licens Licensing ing To ensure ensure that that th the e pro produc ductt is made made Questioning the authorities whether the FIe Mandatory member under fair working conditions and the institution is a member of such associations EI- Optional member institutions promote health, safety, and which work for sustainable productions. NE- Not a member secure livelihoods for domestic and global workers. (continued on next page) page)
986
N. Parvez, A. Agrawal / Journal of Cleaner Production 214 (2019) 975 e994
Table A1 ( A1 (continued continued ) Academics (AC) No.
Title
Intent
Data collection/questions
Answers
Operations (OP) No.
Title
Intent
Data collection/questions
Answers
OP 1
Greenhous Greenhouse e Gas Emission Emissionss (GHG)
To create a GHG emissions inventory and reduce the net GHG emissions on the campus.
Has the institution conducted a GHG emissions inventory? Does the institution have policies to reduce GHG emissions?
FIe Publicly available GHG emissions inventory and policy to reduce GHG emissions EI- GHG emissionsinventor emissionsinventory y presen presentt but no
OP 2
Ou Outd tdoo oorr Air Air Qu Qual alit ity y
To pr prot otec ectt ec ecos osys yste tems ms an and d hu huma man n health by minimizing atmospheric pollution and protecting outdoor air quality.
OP 3
Building Building Operatio Operations ns and Maintenance
OP 4
Buildi Building ng Des Design ign and Construction
To conserve energy and water, minimize impacts on the surrounding site, reduce waste generation, promote indoor environmental quality, and support markets for environmentally preferable materials. To have comprehensive green construction for new buildings and renovation programs.
Does the institution have policies and/or guidelines to improve outdoor air quality and minimize air pollutant emissions from mobile sources on campus (e.g., prohibiting vehicle idling, restrictions on the use of powered lawn care equipment, and similar strategies for minimizing on-site mobile emissions)? Are the buildings certied under a green building rating system focused on the operations and maintenance of existing buildings?
OP 5
Buildi Building ng En Energ ergy y Consumption
OP 6
Clean Clean and Ren Renewa ewable ble Energy
OP 7
Foo Food d and Bevera Beverage ge Purchasing
OP 8
Su Sust stai aina nabl ble e Di Dini ning ng
To reduce their building energy energy usage.
Landsc Landscape ape Man Manage agemen mentt
O P 10 B Biiodiv diversi ersitty
OP 11 Sustainab Sustainable le Procureme Procurement nt
OP 12 Ele Electr ctroni onics cs Purcha Purchasin sing g
FIe Green certied operations like energy savings, water conservation, etc. EI- Buildings are not certi ed but the presence of green building elements NE- None of the above
Are the buildings certied under a green FIe Certied under a green building rating building build ing rating rating system system for new cons construc truction tion system and major renovations EI- Not certied but having green building elements NE- None of the above Documentation Documentation to support the performance year energy consumption gures. A brief description of any of the energy conservation and ef ciency technologies or strategies employed by the institution.
FIe Policy to reduce total building energy consumpt cons umption ion per gros grosss squar square e foot/mete foot/meterr of oor area EI- No policy but reduced total building energy consumption per gross square foot/ meter of oor area NE- None of the above To reduce the pressure on nonTotal clean and renewable electricity FIe Generating clean and renewable energy renewable resources and reduce generated on-site/offsite during the on campus pollution. performance year. EI- Installed the renewable energy generators but not in use NE- None of the above To reduce the social and environmental Is there any sustainable food and beverage FIe Use of certied products impacts of food production and help purchasing program? How the EI- Use of locally available products but not foster robust local economies. sustainability impacts of products in certied specic categorie categoriess are ad addresse dressed d (e.g., (e.g., meat meat,, NE- None of the above poultry, sh/seafood, eggs, dairy, produce, tea/coffee)? Is there any policy for preventing food To su supp ppor ortt the the loca locall fa farm rmer erss an and d FIe Sustainable dining policy exists wasteand dive divertin rting g foodmaterial foodmaterialss fromthe EI- No policy but sustainable dining is address the environmental and social waste stream, making low impactitsdining options available, and educating customers about more sustainable options and practices. To ma maint intain ain cam campus pus gro ground undss for Percentage of the managed ground area economic, social and ecological (observed by the author) considerations and healthy ecosystems. If anyother anyother pol policy icy such such as theuse of organ organic ic fertilizers. What type of irrigation systems are used? Is the existing vegetation being protected? Use of ecologically appropriate plants? T o pr pro otect ect t he he v ul ul n ner era a bl bl e eco ecosyst system emss Does the institution own or manage land and species on campus and prevent, that includes or is adjacent to legally damage to natural habitats and protected areas, internationally internationally recognized sensitive areas areas, priority sites for biodiversity, or regions of conservation importance? To use environm environmenta entally lly and socially socially Interviews with staff about the institution's preferable products and services. To policies to support sustainable purchasing support companies with commitments across commodity categories. to sustainability. To suppor supportt market marketss for Whether the purchasing of electronic
impact of dining operations.
OP 9
policy NE- None of the above FIe Policies and/or guidelines to improve outdoor air quality and minimize air pollutant emissions from mobile sources on campus EI- No policies or guidelines but working towards it NE- No work in this regard
environmentally preferable computers environmentally and other electronic products.
products is done as per any standards for sustainability?
implemented NE- None of the above
FIe An Integrated Pest Management (IPM) progra program m or an organi organicc land land care care standa standard rd or landscape management program EI- No dedicated program but certain practices are followed from these NE- None of the above FIe Policy and assessment of such habitats and areas EI- No policy and assessment but the protection of the habitats exists NE- none of these FIe Policy and guidelines for procurement EI- No policy but sustainable purchasing occurs to some extent NE- None of the above FIe Policy to purchase sustainable electronic products. EI- No policy but sustainable purchasing occurs to some extent NE- None of the above
N. Parvez, A. Agrawal / Journal of Cleaner Production 214 (2019) 975 e994
987
Table A1 ( A1 (continued continued ) Academics (AC) No.
Title
Intent
Data collection/questions
OP 13 Cleaning Cleaning and and Janit Janitoria oriall Purchasing
To reduce exposure of occupants to Interviewing the purchasing department toxic chemicals and promote clean and about the products purchased? healthy work, living, and learning spaces.
OP 14 Of ce Pape Paperr Purchasi Purchasing ng
To cons conserve erve the water, water, energy energy and forest.
Details of the paper used by the students, staff and faculty.
OP 15 Ca Campus Fleet
To use fuel ef cient and alternative fueled vehicles.
OP 16 Student Student Co Commut mmute e Modal Modal Split
To reduce local air pollution and GHG emissions.
OP 17 Employee Employee C Commu ommute te Modal Modal Split
To reduce local air pollution and GHG emissions.
OP 18 Support Support for S Sustai ustainabl nable e
To decrease air pollution and GHG
Does the institution implements strategies
emissions on campus
to encourage sustainable modes of transportation and reduce the impact of student and employee commuting
Data collection/questions
Transportation
OP 19 Waste Waste Minimizat Minimization ion an and d Diversion
OP 20 20 Construct Construction ion and Demolition Waste Diversion OP 21 21 Hazardou Hazardouss Wa Waste ste Management
OP 22 W at ater Use
OP 23 Rainwater Rainwater Managemen Managementt
A total number of motorised vehicles (e.g., cars, carts, trucks, tractors, buses, electric assist cycles) in the institution's eet. Number of gasoline-electric, non-plug-in hybrid vehicles in the institution's eet. Interview and observation of students means of transportation. Policies such as students cannot use motoriz motorized ed vehi vehicles cles on camp campus, us, use of publi publicc transportation, transportat ion, sustainable commuting options, etc. Interview and observation of employees regardin rega rding g the use of susta sustainab inable le commut commuting ing options as their primary means of transportation.
Answers FIe Policy to check whether all purchasing is sustainable EI- No policy but sustainable purchasing occurs to some extent NE- None of the above FIe Policy to check whether all purchasing is sustainable EI- No policy but sustainable purchasing occurs to some extent NE- None of the above FIe Total no of motorized vehicles maintained under a policy EI- Maintained but no policy NE- None of the above FIe Transportation policy EI-No policybutthe policybutthe presen presence ce ofsusta ofsustaina inable ble commuting options NE- none of the above
FIe Policy such as employees cannot use motorized vehicles in campus, carpooling, etc. EI-No policybutthe policybutthe presen presence ce ofsusta ofsustaina inable ble commuting options NE- None of the above FIe Policy such as bicycle/walking track,
free campus shuttle, etc. EI- No policy but the support of sustainable commuting options exists NE- None of the above To minimize waste, divert materials What is happening regarding waste- Is the FIe Implementation of source reduction from landlls and incinerators, and waste recycled, composted, donated or re- strategies to reduce the total amount of conserve resources by recycling and sold? waste composting. EI- Not implemented fully, only some practices followed NE- None of the above To recovering the useful products from Programs, policies, infrastructur infrastructure e FIe Policy to divert construction and the waste and protect the environment. investments, outreach efforts, and/or other demolition (C&D) wastes factors that contribute to the diversion rate EI- No Policy only some practices followed for construction and demolition waste NE- None of the above To ensure workers' basic safety and Does the institution have strategies in place FIe Policy to manage hazardous wastes meet the environmental standards. to safely dispose of all hazardous waste? If EI- No Policy only some practices followed not where is the hazardous waste disposed NE- none of the above of? To re edu ducc e pr pres essu surr e ess on l oc oc a all a qui quife ferrs, Does the institute take some active FIe Monitoring of reduced water use streams, rivers, lakes, and aquatic measures to reduce water usage on EI-Reductio EI-Reduc tion n inthe water water used used witho without ut any wildlife. campus? If yes what are they? monitoring NE- None of the above To replenish replenish natu natural ral aqui aquifers, fers, reduce reduce Is there any rainwater management FIe Monitored rainwater management erosion impacts, decrease pressures on program on campus? If yes what are the program fully implemented public infrastructure and minimize details? EI- Only some parts of the programs local water contamination. contamination. implemented and not monitored NE- None of the above
Planning and Administration (PA) No.
Title
Intent
PA 1
Sustainab Sustainability ility Coordinat Coordination ion
PA 2
Sustai Sustainab nabili ility ty Pla Planni nning ng
To help institut institutions ions orga organize, nize, Does the institution have a sustainability implement, and publicize sustainability committee? initiatives. Does the institution have at least one sustainability of ce? Does the institution have at least one sustainability of cer? To commit commit to sus sustai tainab nabili ility ty and help help Does the institution have a published infuse an ethic of environmental, scal strategic plan that includes sustainability at and social social respo responsibi nsibilitythrough litythroughout out the a high level? campus community. community. Does the institution have a published
PA 3
Particip Participator atory y Governanc Governance e
To empower empower stakehold stakeholder er groups groups to cometogetherand workcollaborativ workcollaboratively ely to address sustainability challenges
climate action plan?students, staff and Do the institution's faculty have a representative body through which they can participate in governance?
Answers FIe Presence and monitoring of all EI- Presence of some and no monitoring NE- None of the above
FIe Presence of comprehensive plans to move toward sustainability EI- No plans but working towards sustainable development NENone of theparticipation above FI e Mandatory of all EI- Optional participation of all NE- None of the above (continued on next page) page)
988
N. Parvez, A. Agrawal / Journal of Cleaner Production 214 (2019) 975 e994
Table A1 ( A1 (continued continued ) Academics (AC) No.
Title
Intent
Data collection/questions
Answers
PA 4
Divers Diversity ity and Equit Equity y Coordination
through access and involvement in institutionall governance. institutiona governance. To effectively address sustainability issues such as diversity, equity, inclusion and human rights work on campus.
Does the institution have a diversity and equity committee?
PA 5
Assess Assessing Diversity and Equitying Diversity
PA 6
Su Supp ppor ortt for for Underrepresented Groups
PA 7
Aff Afford ordabi abilit lity y and Access Access
To ma make ke schoo schools ls access accessibl ible e to low low-income populations and nontraditional students.
PA 8
Commi Committe ttee e on on Inve Investo storr Responsibility
To make responsible investment decisions that promote sustainability.
Does the institution have a formally established and active committee on investor responsibility responsibility? ?
PA 9
Sustai Sustainab nable le Invest Investmen mentt
To ma make ke respon responsib sible le invest investmen mentt decisions and promote sustainable companies.
What are the sustainable investments made? Sustainable industries, sustainable business, sustainability funds, etc.? Does the institution make its investment
FIe Formal committee EI- No committee but efforts are made such as cultural competence training and activities NE- None of the above e FI of a Monitoring committee the assessment in presence EI- Monitoring in absence of any committee NE- None of the above FIe Formal help and support like reserved seats and extra time, etc. EI- Informal support without reservation. NE- None of the above FIe Formal policy like fee waivers, scholarships, etc. EI- Informal support without any policy NE- None of the above FIe The presence of the formal committee EI- No committee but some investment decisions are sustainable NE-None of the above FIe Policy for sustainable investment EI- No policy but sustainable investment exists NE- None of the above FIe Complete accessibility of investment to
PA 10 Invest Investmen mentt Disclo Disclosur sure e
To identify strengths and areas for improvement in terms of student diversity and equity, and employee diversity and equity. To help individuals in underrepresented groups thrive academically and socially.
To ma make ke public public dis disclo closur sure e of
Has the institution in adiversity, structured assessment processengaged to improve equity and inclusion on campus? Does the institution have programs specically designed to recruit students, faculty and staff from underrepresented groups? Does the institution have policies and programs to make it accessible and affordable to low-income students?
investmentt which investmen which actsas a learn learning ing tool available to the public? for students and stakeholders.
PA 11 Empl Employee oyee Comp Compensat ensation ion
PA 12 12 Assessing Assessing Employee Employee Satisfaction
PA 13 Well Wellne ness ss Prog Progra ram m
PA 14 Safety Workplace Workplace Health Health and and
the public EI- Partial accessibility of investment to the public NE- No accessibility of investment to the public To provide provide employees employees'' wages and Whether the lowest paid workers receive a FIe Wages to all working on the campus benets that meet basic needs. living wage or not? regulated by a policy. EI- Wages to all working on the campus are not regulated by a policy. NE- None of the above FIe Formal assessment of the employee Has the institution conducted a survey or To help institutions improve as an other evaluation that allows for anonymous satisfaction regularly under a policy employer and identify strengths and feedback to measure employee satisfaction example- survey. areas for development. EI- Irregular and informal assessment, and engagement? example- verbal NE- None of the above FIe Availability of facilities like hospital, To en enha hanc nce e the the he heal alth th an and d we well llbe bein ing g of Does the institution have wellness and/or employee assistance program that makes gym, etc. to all. the entire campus community. counselling, referral, and wellbeing services EI- Only some facilities are available. available to all members? NE- None of the above. e To reduce workplace injuries What are the institution's workplace Formal safety implemented occupational disease and haveand a safe and safety initiatives, including how health FI EI- The safety rulesrules are followed informally working environment. environment. workers are engaged in monitoring and NE- None of the above advising on health and safety programs?
Innovation & Leadership (IN) No.
Title
Intent
Data collection/questions
Answers
IN
In Inn n ov ova ttii on on & Leadershi Leadership p
To seek innovati innovative ve solut solutions ions to sustainability challenges.
Is there any emerging best practices for sustainability that are not otherwise recognized in STARS
FIe Practices specially adopted to increase SD EI- Partially sustainable practices NE- None of the above
N. Parvez, A. Agrawal / Journal of Cleaner Production 214 (2019) 975 e994
989
Table A2 Example of how the data has been collected for UI GreenMetric parameters Setting and Infrastructure (SI) No.
Title
Intent
Data collection/questions
Answers
SI 1
Th The e ra rati tio o of open open sp spac ace e area towards the total area
Toincreaseand max Toincreaseand maxim imizethe izethe open open area area on campuses.
Calculating the total open area on campus through a survey.
SI 2
Th The e ra rati tio o of open op en sp spac ace e area towards campus population
Toincre Toincreaseand aseand max maxim imizethe izethe open open area area available on campus per person.
Calculating area on campus andthe thetotal totalopen population (through survey or documents)
SI 3
Th The e ar area ea on camp campus us covered in forested vegetation
To increase natural vegetation on campus.
Finding out the total forested vegetation area on campus through a survey
SI 4
Th The e ar area ea on camp campus us covered in planted vegetation
To incr increase ease vegetati vegetation on on campus. campus.
Calculat Calculating ing the total total plan planted ted veget vegetatio ation n area on campus through a survey
SI 5
Th The e ar area ea on camp campus us for for water absorbance
To maximize water percolation and avoid a surface runoff.
Calculating total area for water absorbance on campus.
SI 6
Uni Univer versit sity y budget budget for
To focus on the sustainable
Interview with the administration for
FIe Form Formallymaintai allymaintained ned ratio ratio to a maxi maximumby mumby increasing open space and reducing ground coverage EI- Informally maintained in absence of any policy NE- None of the above e FI Formallymaintai Form allymaintained ned ratio ratio to a maxi maximumby mumby increasing open space EI- Informally maintained in absence of any policy NE- none of the above FIe Form Formallymaintai allymaintained ned ratio ratio to a maxi maximumby mumby increasing forests EI- Informally maintained in absence of any policy NE- None of the above FIe Form Formallymaintai allymaintained ned ratio ratio to a maxi maximumby mumby increasing vegetation EI- Informally maintained in absence of any policy NE- none of the above FIe Form Formallymaintai allymaintained ned ratio ratio to a maxi maximumby mumby increasing percolation area EI- Informally maintained in absence of any policy NE- None of the above FIe A specic budget for the sustainable effort
the sustainable effort
development of the campus.
the availability of any such budget.
EI- No specic budget but nancial support to it NE- none of the above
Energy and Climate Change (EC) No.
Title
Intent
Data collection/questions
Answers
EC 1
Ener Energy gy ef cient appliances usage
To decrease decrease energy energy consumpt consumption ion
Inter Interviews views with the admi administ nistrati rative ve staff for use of such options.
EC 2
Sm Smar artt buil buildi ding ng implementation
To decrea decrease se energ energy y con consum sumpti ption on
Observ Observati ation on survey survey by visiti visiting ng th the e buildings on the campuses
EC 3
Re Rene newa wabl ble e en ener ergy gy usage
To decrease the use of non-renewable resources and pollution.
Interviews with the staff from the energy department of the campuses.
EC 4
Th The e ra rati tio o of tota totall electricity usage towards campus population The ratio ratio of renewa renewable ble energy produce towards energy usage
To decrease the per person energy usage on campus.
Interviews and procuring documents from the energy department of the campus.
To increase renewable energy production on the campuses.
Interviews and procuring documents from the energy department of the campus.
EC 6
El Elem emen entt of gree green n building implementation
To have comprehensive green construction for new buildings and renovation programs.
Observation survey by visiting the buildings on the campuses
EC 7
Green Gr eenho hous use e ga gass emission reduction program
To reduce reduce the net GHG emi emissi ssion ons. s.
EC 8
Th The e ra rati tio o oftotalcar oftotalcarbo bon n footprint towards campus population
To reduce reduce ca carbon rbon emissions emissions on campus campus
Do Does es the the instit institute ute calcul calculat ate e GHG emissions on its campus? Does the institution have policies to reduce GHG emissions? Coll Collecti ecting ng dataabout vehicles vehicles and other other emission factors. Is there any policy to reduce carbon emissions on campus.
FIe Policy to use only such appliance EI- use of such appliances in absence of any policy NE- none of the above FIe Policy to decrease energy consumption EI- Decreased energy consumption in absence of any policy NE- None of the above FIe Benchmark for renewable energy usage EI- No benchmark but the use of renewable energy NE- None of the above FIe Formally maintained ratio to a minimum by decreasing energy usage policy EI- Informally maintained in absence of a policy NE- none of the above FIe Formally maintained ratio to a maximum through a policy EI- Informally maintained in absence of a policy NE- none of the above FIe Policy to increase the elements to the maximum in all buildings EI- Presence in some buildings NE- none of the above FIe Policy to decrease GHG emissions EI- No policy but steps are taken to reduce GHG emissions NE- None of the above FIe Policy to decrease the carbon footprint by controlling emissions EI- No policy but emissions are being controlled NE- None of the above
EC 5
Waste (WS) No.
Title
Intent
Data collection/questions
Answers
WS 1
Pr Progr ogram am to reduce reduce th the e use of paper and plastic on campus
To decrease the pressure on existing forests and reduce pollution.
Are there any policy in place such as: The double sided-printing policy program
FIe Presence of a policy to support the program EI-Some parts of the program are implemented in absence of any policy NE- None of the above (continued on next page) page)
990
N. Parvez, A. Agrawal / Journal of Cleaner Production 214 (2019) 975 e994
Table A2 ( A2 (continued continued ) Setting and Infrastructure (SI) No.
Title
Intent
Data collection/questions
WS 2
Recycling Recycling program program for university waste
To reduce waste and energy spent on waste management.
Use of reusable bags Print only when necessary Interviews of the campus residents and waste collection authorities.
WS 3
Tox Toxic ic waste waste han handle dled d
To ensure ensure wor worker kers' s' basic basic saf safety ety and and
Does the institution have strategies in
meet the environmental standards.
place toIfsafely dispose of all hazardous waste? not where is the hazardous waste disposed of? Does the institution have strategies in place for organic waste treatment?
WS 4
Org Organi anicc waste waste treatment
To ensure on-campus organic waste treatment.
WS 5
Inorga Inorganic nic waste waste treatment
Reduce land pollution on campus and surroundings
WS 6
Sewer Sewerag age e disp dispos osal al
Re Redu duce ce wa wate terr po poll llut utio ion n on camp campus us an and d its surroundings
What is being done to the inorganic waste? Burned in an open area? Taken off campus to a dump site? Partially recycled? Fully recycled? What is being done to the sewerage? Disposed of untreated into waterways? Treated individually in septic tanks? Centralized treatment before disposal? Treatment for recycling?
Answers
FIe Presence of a policy to support the program EI- some parts of the program are implemented in absence of any policy NE- none of the above FIe Presence of a fully implemented strategy EIparts of the strategy are implemented likeSome segregation NE- None of the above FIe Presence of a fully implemented strategy EI- Some parts of the strategy are implemented NE- None of the above FIe Presence of a fully implemented waste treatment program EI- Some parts of the program are implemented NE- None of the above
FIe Presence of a fully implemented waste treatment program EI- Some parts of the program are implemented NE- None of the above
Water (WR) No.
Title
Intent
Data collection/questions
Answers
WR 1
Water conserva conservation tion program
To decrease water usage, increase conservation and protect the habitat.
WR 2
Wat Water er recycl recycling ing program
If any policies are being implemented by the campus authorities for the conservation of water such as water recycling program, water ef cient appliances and other water treatment plants. Is there any water conservation program?
WR 3
The use of water water ef cient appliances
WR 4
Tre Treate ated d wat water er consumed
e FI Water is conserved and recorded EI- Implemented at an early stage (e.g. measurement of potential surface runoff volume) NE- Conservation program is needed, but nothing has been done FIe Water is recycled and recorded EI- Implemented at an early stage (e.g. measurement of waste water) NE- None (Water recycling program is needed, but nothing has been done) FIe All appliance installed are water ef cient EI- Some appliance installed are water ef cient NE- None (Water ef cient appliances are needed, but nothing has been done) FIe Treated water is consumed EI- Water is treated but not consumed NE- None of the above
Transportation Transportatio n (TR) No.
Title
Intent
Data collection/questions
Answers
TR 1
The ratio ratio of veh vehicl icles es (cars and motorcycles) towards campus population The ratio ratio of campus campus bus services towards campus population The ratio ratio of bic bicyc ycles les found towards campus population Park Parkin ing g ar area ea type type Initi Initiati atives ves to decrea decrease se private vehicles on campus Par Parkin king g area area red reduct uction ion for private vehicles Campus Campus bus ser servi vices ces Bicycl Bicycle e and pedest pedestria rian n policy on campus
To limit the number of motor vehicles on campus hence reduce pollution and carbon footprint. It will encourage a healthier environment environment..
To interview and record all the policies implemented on the campus for transportation for example- use of only non-motorized vehicles by students, use of public transport running on cleaner fuel, etc.
FIe Policy and strict rules to implement all of these on the campus and record the outcomes EI- No policy and only some of these are implemented on the campus without any formal record of outcomes NE- None of the above
Intent
Data collection/questions
Answers
To have courses as a part of the curriculum that addresses sustainability
Data collection about the sustainability course offerings and description
TR 2
TR 3
TR 4 TR 5
TR 6 TR 7 TR 8
Education(ED) No. Title ED 1
N. Parvez, A. Agrawal / Journal of Cleaner Production 214 (2019) 975 e994
991
Table A2 ( A2 (continued continued ) Setting and Infrastructure (SI) No.
Title
ED 2
The ratio of sustainability courses towards total courses Th The e ra rati tio o of sustainability research funding towards total research funding
ED 3
Sustai Sustainab nabili ility ty publications
ED 4
Sustai Sustainab nabili ility ty eve events nts
ED 5
ED 6
Intent
Data collection/questions
Answers
through interviews with staff, students and faculty.
FIe Courses totally focused on sustainability EI- Courses partially focused on sustainability NE- No courses courses whic which h incorpor incorporate ate susta sustainabi inability lity FIe Policy to provide support to such research EI- No policy to provide support to such research but research exists NE- No policy and no research e FI Sustainable research available freely EI- No free availability of is the research NE- No availability of the research
To deepen students' understanding of sustainability issues and attract new researchers to the eld.
Interviews with students and staff about fellowships, nancial support, and mentorships available for sustainable research.
To empower faculty to facilitate distributethe their scholarly writings and translation of this knowledge into public benets that advance sustainability. To spr spread ead sus sustai taina nabil bility ity con concep cepts ts and a sustainability ethic throughout the campus community. community.
The availabil availability ity ofcampus the resea research rch hasand been checked through website library visits.
Sustai Sustainab nabili ility ty studen studentt organisations
To encourage and actively increase participation of students in sustainability
Interviews with students for such organizations and visiting the institute website.
Sustai Sustainab nabili ility ty websit website e
To dem demons onstra trate te the sustai sustainab nable le activities of the institute to the people.
Vi si si ttii n ng g t he he i n nst stii tut tute e web ebsi sitte.
Interviews with campus residents about their their partition and learnings fr from om such programs.
FIe Formal dedicated events which are occurring regularly and are recorded EI- No dedicated events but sustainability is a part of any event. NE- None of the above FIe Formally dedicated organisations for SD. EI- No dedicated organisations for SD but some organisations promote SD. NE- None of the above FIe Separate webpage or website EI- Campus website incorporates sustainabili sustainabilitytyrelated activities and programs/policies NE- None of the above
Appendix B
Table B1 Checklist to Check Adherence with STARS Sustainability Parameters No
Cr C riteria and Indicators
Campuses IITR
NITJ
NITK
DTU
NSIT
GZSCET
D DC CRUST
PEC
FI
EI
NE F I
EI
NE F FII E EII
NE F FII E I
NE F I EI EI
NE F I EI EI
NE F I EI EI
NE F FII E I
NE F FII E I
NE
3
0
3
0
6
6
9
9
9
9
9
1
Academics (AC)
8
AC 1 AC 2 AC 3 AC 4 AC 5 AC 6 AC 7 AC 8 AC 9 AC 10 AC 11 2 EN 1 EN 2 EN 3 EN 4 EN 5 EN 6 EN 7 EN 8 EN 9 EN 10 EN 11 EN 12 EN 13 EN 14 EN 15 3
Academic Courses Learning Outcomes Undergraduate Program Graduate Program Immersive Experience Sustainability Literacy Assessment Incentives for Developing Courses Campus as a Living Laboratory Research and Scholarship Support for Research Open Access to Research Engagement (EN) Student Educators Program Student Orientation Student Life Outreach Materials and Publications Outreach Campaign Assessing Sustainability Culture Employee Educators Program Employee Orientation Staff Professional Development Community Partnerships Inter-Campus Collaboration Continuing Education Community Service Participation in Public Policy Trademark Licensing Operations (OP)
X
O OP P OP OP
Gruetedn Gu asalEitm O oh oo r uAsier Q y issions Building Operations and Maintenance Building Design and Construction
1 2 3 4
IITD
8 X
X X X X X
7
3
X X X
X 2 9
X
X
X X X
X
X X 9
X X X
X X
X X X X 1 10 0 11 6
6
X
X
X X X
X
1
X
18 18 1 X X X X
X
X
X
1 18 8 0 X X X X
6
X X X X
6
X
X
X X X X
6
X X
X X X
X X X 1 15 5 3
X X
X
X X X
X X 1 17 7 2
X X X
X
X
X X X
X X X 1 14 4 3 X X X X
7 X
X
X
X
X X
X 2 6
X X X
X
7 X
X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X
X
X 2 6
X
X
X
7 X
1
X X X X X X X X X
X
X X
X X X X X 4
X 2 6
X
X
X
7 X
1
X X X X X X X X X X
X
X X
X X X X X 4
X 2 6
X
X X X X
X X
7 X
1 1
X X X X X X X X X X
X
X X
X X X
X
X 2 6
X
X X X
4 X
X X
X X
X
X 2 9
1 1
X X X X X X X X X X
X X 4 X
1 1
X X X X X X X
X X X X
X X
4
1
1 1
X X
X X 9
4
X X X X X X
X X X X X X X 5 X X
1
X X
X
X X
X X X X X 5 X X
1 4
6
X X X 1 14 4 3 X X X X
6
X X 1 14 4 X X X X
(continued on next page) page)
992
N. Parvez, A. Agrawal / Journal of Cleaner Production 214 (2019) 975 e994
Table B1 ( B1 (continued continued ) No
C Crriteria and Indicators
Campuses IITR
1
Academics (AC)
OP 5 OP 6 OP 7 OP 8
Building Energy Consumption Clean and Renewable Energy Food and Beverage Purchasing Sustainable Dining
OP 9 OP 10 OP 11 OP 12 OP 13 OP 14 OP 15 OP 16 OP 17 OP 18 OP 19 OP 20 OP 21 OP 22 OP 23 4 PA 1 PA 2 PA 3 PA 4 PA 5 PA 6 PA 7 PA 8 PA 9 PA 10 PA 11 PA 12 PA 13 PA 14 5
Landscape Management Biodiversity Sustainable Procurement Electronics Purchasing Cleaning and Janitorial Purchasing Of ce Paper Purchasing Campus Fleet Student Commute Modal Split Employee Commute Modal Split Support for Sustainable Transportation Waste Minimization and Diversion Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion Hazardous Waste Management Water Use Rainwater Management Planning & Administration (PA) Sustainability Coordination Sustainability Planning Participatory Governance Diversity and Equity Coordination Assessing Diversity and Equity Support for Underrepresented Groups Affordability and Access Committee on Investor Responsibility Sustainable Investment Investment Disclosure Employee Compensation Assessing Employee Satisfaction Wellness Program Workplace Health and Safety Innovation & Leadership (IN) Total
IITD
NITJ
NITK
DTU
NSIT
GZSCET
D DC CRUST
PEC
FI
EI
NE F I
EI
NE F I EI EI
NE F I EI EI
NE F I EI EI
NE F FII E I
NE F FII E I
NE F I EI EI
NE F I EI EI
NE
8
3
0
3
0
6
6
9
9
9
9
9
8
X
1 4
X
X
X
X X X X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X X X
X
X
X X 3
X X X X
6
X 5 X X
X X X X X X X
X
3
6
X
X X X X X X
X 11 2 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1 0 0 X 14 45 7 14
X X
X
X
X X X 11 2 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1 0 0 X 43 8 14
11 2 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 0 0 0
X X
X X
X
X X X X X X
X X
X
X X X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X X X X X
X
X
X X
X X X X
X X
X
39 5
X
X X X X X X
1 1
X X X X
X X X
1 1
X X
X
X X X X X X
X
X 2 1
1
X X
X
X
X 11 2 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 X X X X 22 23 19 30 21 13 6 19 39 6 19 5 X X
X
1
X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X X X
X
X X X X X
1 1
X X
X X X
X
X X
1 1
X X X X
X X X
1 4
X
X
X
X 11 2 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1 0 0 X 42 8 14
X 11 2 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1 0 0 X 42 8 14
11 X X X X X X X X X X X 1 X 42
Table B2 Checklist to Check Adherence with UI GreenMetric WUR Sustainability Parameters No
Criteria and Indicators
Campuses IITR IITD NITJ NITK DTU NSIT GZSCET DCRUST PEC FI EI NE F FII EI NE F I EI EI NE FI FI E I NE FI FI EI EI NE FI FI EI EI NE FI EI EI NE F FII EI EI NE F I E EII NE
1 SI 1 SI 2 SI 3 SI 4 SI 5 SI 6 2 EC 1 EC 2 EC 3 EC 4 EC 5 EC 6 EC 7 EC 8 3 WS 1
Setting and Infrastructure (SI) The ratio of open space area towards total area The ratio of open space area towards campus population Area on campus covered in forested vegetation Area on campus covered in planted vegetation Area on campus for water absorbance University budget for sustainable effort Energy and Climate Change (EC) Energy Energy ef cient appliances usage Smart building implementation Renewable energy usage The ratio of total electricity usage towards campus population The ratio of renewable energy produce towards energy usage Element of green building implementation Greenhouse gas emission reduction program The ratio of total carbon footprint towards campus population Waste (WS) Program to reduce the use of paper and plastic in campus
WS 2 WS 3 WS 4 WS 5 WS 6
Recycling program for university waste Toxic waste handled Organic waste treatment Inorganic waste treatment Sewerage disposal
1
4 X X
1
1
4 X X
X
2
2
X 4 X
X
2
2
X X 6 X X X X X X
1
X 3
X X X X X
X 3
0 0
X
0 0
X X 6 X
X 3
1 4 X
X
X X X X X
X 3
X X X X X
1 4 X
X 3
X X X X X
2 3 X
X 3
X
2 3 X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X X X X
X 3
X
X X X 6 X
2
X X
X
0 0
0 4 X X
X
X X X X
X X 3
2
X X
X
1 2 X
0 4 X X
X
X X X X
X X 6 X
2
X X
X
0 0
0 4 X X
X
X X X
X
X X X X X
1 4 X
2
X X
X
X X X 6 X
0 4 X X
X
X
X X
3 X
2 3 X
2
X X
X
X X X 2
0 4 X X
X
X
X
2
X X
X
X X
0
2 3 X
X
X
0 4 X X
X X
X
X X
2
X
X X
X
0
0 4 X X
X
X X X 4 X
1
0 0
X X X 6 X X X X X X
0 0
X X 6 X X X X X X
N. Parvez, A. Agrawal / Journal of Cleaner Production 214 (2019) 975 e994
993
Table B2 ( B2 (continued continued ) No
Criteria and Indicators
Campuses IITR
IITD
NITJ
NITK
DTU
NSIT
GZSCET
DCRUST
PEC
FI EI NE F FII EI NE F I EI EI NE F I E EII NE F FII EI EI NE F FII E I NE FI E I NE F FII E I NE F FII EI EI NE 4 WR 1 WR 2 WR 3 WR 4 5 TR 1 TR 2 TR 3 TR 4 TR 5 TR 6 TR 7 TR 8 6 ED 1 ED 2 ED ED ED ED
3 4 5 6
Water (WR) Water conservation program Water recycling program The use of wa water ter ef cient appliances Treated water consumed Transportation (TR) The ratio of vehicles (cars and motorcycles) motorcycles) towards campus population The ratio of campus bus services towards campus population The ratio of bicycles found towards campus population Parking area type Initiatives to decrease private vehicles on campus Parking area reduction for private vehicles Campus bus services Bicycle and pedestrian policy on campus Education(ED) The ratio of sustainability courses towards total courses The ratio of sustainabili sustainability ty research funding funding towards total research funding Sustainability publications Sustainability events Sustainability student organizations Sustainability website TOTAL
0
4
0
3 X
4 X X X X 1
1
1 1 X
X
4
3 X
X 1
3 2 X
1
X X X X X 13 10 15
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE), 2012. STARS available at: at: https://stars.aashe.o https://stars.aashe.org/ rg/.. (Accessed 20 October 2016). Albareda-Tiana, S., Vidal-Ramentol, S., Fernandez-Morilla, M., 2018. Implementing the sustainable development goals at University level. Int. J. Sustain. High Educ. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-05-2017-0069.. 19, 473e497. 497. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-05-2017-0069 Alshuwaik Alshu waikhat, hat, H.M., Abuba Abubakar kar,, I., 2008. An integ integrat rated ed approach approach to achi achievin eving g campus camp us susta sustainab inability ility:: assessment assessment of the curr current ent campus campus environme environmental ntal management practices. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1777 e1785. 1785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2007.1 jclepro.2007 .12.002 2.002.. Altbach, P.G., 2009. One-third of the globe: the future of higher education in China and India. Prospects 39, 11 e31 31.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-009-9106-1 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-009-9106-1.. Bantanur,, S., Mukherjee, M., Shankar, R., 2015. Emerging Bantanur Emerging dimensions of sustainability in institutes of higher education in India. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 4 (2), 323e329. 329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2015.03.004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2015.03.004. Barth, M., Rieckmann, M., 2012. Academic staff development as a catalyst for curriculum ricul um change change towards towards education education for sustainabl sustainable e devel developm opment: ent: an outp output ut perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 26 (1), 28 e36. 36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011. 12.011.. 12.011
Bhandari, B.B., Abe, and O., 2000. Environmental education in 1the some problems prospects. Int. Rev. Environ. Strat. (1),asia-Paci 57 e77 77.. c region: Blake, J., Sterling, S., 2011. Tensions and transitions: effecting change towards sustainability at a mainstream university through staff living and learning at an alternative, alternativ e, civil society college. Enviro Environ. n. Educ. Res. 17 (1),125 e144. 144. https://doi. https://doi. org/10.1080/13504622.2010.486477.. org/10.1080/13504622.2010.486477 http://www.nwf.org/campus-eco wf.org/campus-ecology/ logy/ Campus Camp us Repor Reportt Card, 2008, availabl available e at: http://www.n resources/reports/campus-report resources/repor ts/campus-report-card.aspx -card.aspx (accessed (accessed 21 November 2015). De Castro, R., Jabbour, C.J.C., 2013. Evaluating sustainability of an Indian university. J. Clean. Prod. 61 61,, 54e58. 58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.02.033 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.02.033.. Chhokar,, K.B., 2010. Higher education and curriculum innovatio Chhokar innovation n for sustainable https://doi.org/10. /10. development in India. Int. J. Sustain. High Educ. 11, 141 e152. 152. https://doi.org 1108/14676371011031865.. 1108/14676371011031865 http://vault.sierraclub.org erraclub.org/sierra/201 /sierra/201309/ 309/ Cool Cool Sc Scho hool ols, s, 2007 2007. av avai aila labl ble e at at:: http://vault.si coolschools (accessed coolschools (accessed 21 October 2016). Ferr Ferrer er-Bala -Balas, s, D., Adachi, J., Bana Banas, s, S., Davidson, Davidson, C.I., Hoshikosh Hoshikoshi, i, A., Mishra, Mishra, A., Motodoa, Y., Onga, M., Ostwald, M., 2008. An international international comparative analysis of sustainability transformation across seven universities. Int. J. Sustain. High Educ. 9 (3), 295e316. 316. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370810885907. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370810885907. Fiselier, E., Longhurst, J.W.S., 2017. A critical evaluation of the representation of the QAA and HEA guidance on ESD in public web environments of UK higher education institutions. In: Leal Filho, W. (Ed.), Implementing Sustainability in the Curriculum of Universities. WorldG.K., Sustainability Series. the Springer, Cham Cham. . Fiselier, E., Longhurst, J.W.S., Gough, 2018. Exploring current position of ESD in UK higher higher education education institutio institutions. ns. Int. J. Sustain. Sustain. High Educ. Educ. 19 (2), 393e412. 412. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-06-2017-0084. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-06-2017-0084. Gale, F., Davison, A., Wood, G., Williams, S., Towle, N., 2015. Four impediments to embedding education for sustainability in higher education. Aust. J. Environ.
X 3
X X X X
X
1
X 3 2 3 X
1
X X 0 4 X
X X X X X 15 14 9
0 2 X
2
X X X X X 0 4 X
X X X X
2
0 2
X X X X
4 X X X X 6
0 1 X
0 0
X
X
X
1
0 0
X
X
X X X 4 X
2
X
X
X
1 1 X
X
X
X
2
X
X
X X X 4 X
2
X
X X
References
1 X
X X
X X X X X X 4 X X
0 2
X X
3 X X X 8 X X X X X X X X 4 X X
1 1 X
2
1 1 X
X X 3
X
X 3 2 3 X
X
X 3
X X
X X X
X X X X X 0 4 X
X X X X
3 2 X
X X
2
2 X
X
X
X X 0 4 X
1 1 X
X
X 3 2 X
2
2
X X X X X 0 4 X
X X X X
2 X
X X X
X X X X X X X X X 6 14 18 6 14 18 1 12 25 2 13 23 5 15 18 6 14 18 6 14 18
Educ. 31 (2), 248e263. 263. https://doi.org/10.1017/aee.2015.36 https://doi.org/10.1017/aee.2015.36.. Greeno Greenopia pia Colleg College e and Univ Univers ersity ity Rankin Rankings. gs. 2009 2009.. , avail availabl able e at: http:// sustainability.uoregon.edu/of ce-sustainability/greenopia ( ac ac cces esse sed d 22 November 2015). Hoque, A., Clarke, A., Sultana, T., 2017. Environmental sustainability practices in South Asian university campuses: an exploratory study on Bangladeshi universities. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 19, 2163e2180. 2180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668016-9845-0.. 016-9845-0 https://igbc.in/igbc/ /igbc/.. Indian Green Building Council (IGBC), 2010. Available from: from: https://igbc.in Jabbour, C.J.C., 201 2010. 0. Greening of business schools: a systemic view. Int. J. Sustain. High Educ. 11 (1), 49 e60. 60. https:/ https://doi.org/10.11 /doi.org/10.1108/1467637101 08/14676371011010048 1010048.. Jain, S., Pant, P. P.,, 2010. Environmental Environmental management systems for educational institutions: a case study of TERI University, New Delhi. Int. J. Sustain. High Educ. doi.org/10.1108/1467637101 08/14676371011058532 1058532.. 11, 236e249. 249. https:// doi.org/10.11 Lambrechts, W., Mula, I., Ceulemans, K., Molderez, I., Gaeremynck, V., 2013. The integration of competences for sustainable development in higher education: an analysis of bachelor programs in management. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 65 e73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.12.034 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.12.034.. Leal Filho Filho,, W. W.,, 19 1997 97.. Integ Integrati rating ng envi environ ronment mental al educa education tion and envi environm ronmenta entall management. Environ. Manag. Health 8 (2), 80e82 82.. Lozano, R., 2006a. A tool for a graphical assessment of sustainability in universities (GASU). (GAS U). J. Clean Clean.. Prod. Prod. 14, 963 e972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11. 041.. 041 Lozano, R., 2006b. Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities: breaking through barriers to change. J. Clean. Prod. 14, 787 e796. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.12.010.. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.12.010 Lozano, R., Lozano, F.J., Mulder, K., Huisingh, D., Waas, T., 2013. Advancing higher education for sustainable development: international insights and critical reections. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 3e9. 9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.034 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.034.. Ministry of Human Resource and Development (MHRD), 2017. http://mhrd.gov.in/. http://mhrd.gov.in/. OECD, 2008. 2008 Annual Report on Sustainable Development Work in the OECD. OECD available at: at: https://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/42177377.pdf . (Accessed 20 January 2017). Ragazzi, M., Ghidini, F., 2017. Environmental sustainability of universities: critical https://doi.org/10. /10. analysis of a green ranking. Energy Procedia 119, 111e120. https://doi.org 1016/j.egypro.2017.07.054.. 1016/j.egypro.2017.07.054 Ridgway,, B., 2005. Environmental management system provides tools for delivering Ridgway on environ environment mental al impa impact ct asses assessment sment comm commitme itments. nts. Impac Impactt Assess Assess.. Proj. Apprais. 23 (4), 325 e331. 331. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154605781765373 https://doi.org/10.3152/147154605781765373.. Roorda, N., 2001. AISHE: Auditing Instrument for Sustainable Higher Education. Dutch Committee for Sustainable Higher Education. Education. Ryan, Ryan, A., Tilbury, Tilbury, D., Corc Corcoran oran,, P.B., Abe, O., Nom Nomura, ura, K., 2010. 2010. Sustainabi Sustainability lity in higher education in the Asia-Paci c: developments, challenges, and prospects. In Int. t. J. Su Sust stai ain. n. High High Ed Educ uc.. 11 (2), (2), 106e119. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 14676371011031838.. 14676371011031838 Saadatian, O., Salleh, E.I., Tahir, O.M., Dola, K., 2009. Observations of sustainability practices in Malaysian research universities: highlighting particular strengths. Pertan Pertanika ika J. Soc Social ial Sci. Sci. Hum Humani anit. t. 17 (2), (2), 225e244. https://doi.org/10.1080/
994
N. Parvez, A. Agrawal / Journal of Cleaner Production 214 (2019) 975 e994
02640410500130920 02640410500130920.. Saadatian, O., Sopian, K. Bin, Salleh, E., 2013. Adaptation of sustainability community indicators for Malaysian campuses as small cities. Sustain. Cities Soc 6, 40e50. 50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2012.08.002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2012.08.002. Sharp, L., 2009. Higher education: the quest for the sustainable campus. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Pol. 5 (1), 1 e8. 8. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2009.11908023. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2009.11908023. Shriberg, M., 2002. Institutional assessment tools for sustainability in higher education: strengths, weaknesses, and implications for practice and theory. Int. J. Sustain. High Educ. 3 (3), 254e270. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 14676370210434714.. 14676370210434714 Sonetti, G., Lombardi, P., Chelleri, L., 2016. True green and sustainable university campuses? Toward a clusters approach. Sustainability 8 (1), 1 e23. 23. https://doi. https://doi. org/10.3390/su8010083 .
Technol. 6, 616e621. 621. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJIET.2016.V6.761. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJIET.2016.V6.761. University Grants Commission report (UGC report) 2013-14. http://www.ug http://www.ugc.ac.in/ c.ac.in/ pdfnews/7938259_Annual-Report-20 pdfnews/7938259_AnnualReport-2013-1 13-14.pdf 4.pdf (accessed. (accessed. 21 October 2016).. Urbanski, M., Leal Filho, W., 2014. Measuring sustainability sustainability at universities by means of the Sustainability Tracking, Tracking, Assessment and Rating System (STARS): early ndings from STARS data. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 17 (2), 209e220 220.. Velazquez, L., Munguia, N., Platt, A., Taddei, J., 2006. Sustainable university: what can be the matter? J. Clean. Prod. 14, 810 810e819. 819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2005.12.008.. 2005.12.008 Wang, Y., Shi, H., Sun, M., Huisingh, D., Hansson, L., Wang, R., 2013. Moving towards towards an ecologically sound society? Starting from green universities and environmental ment al high higher er educa education tion.. J. Clean Clean.. Prod Prod.. 61 61,, 1 e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2013.09.038 jclepro.201 3.09.038..
STARS, 2012. available at: at: https://stars.aashe. https://stars.aashe.org/ org/.. Stephens, J.C., Graham, A.C., 2010. Toward an empirical research agenda for sustainability in higher education: exploring the transition management framework. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 611 e618. 618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.07.009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.07.009. Tapia-Fonllem, C., Fraijo-Sing, B., Corral-Verdugo, V., Valdez, A.O., 2017. Education for sustainable development in higher education institutions: Its inuence on the pro-sustainability orientation of Mexican students. SAGE Open 7. https:// doi.org/10.1177/2158244016676295.. doi.org/10.1177/2158244016676295 http://greenmetric.ui.ac.id/ c.ui.ac.id/.. UI GreenMetric World University Rankings, 2016. http://greenmetri Ulkhaq, M.M., Prayogo, P.I., Firmansyah, M., Agustina, D., 2016. Assessing campus sustainability: a report from diponegoro university, Indonesia. Int. J. Inf. Educ.
Washington-Ottombre, C., Bigalke, S., 2018. An aggregated and dynamic analysis of innovations innovati ons in campus sustainability. Int. J. Sustain. High Educ. 19 (2), 353e375. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-05-2017-0071 . https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-05-2017-0071. Wu, Y.C.J., Shen, J.P., 2016. Higher education for sustainable development: a syshttps://doi.org/10. /10. tematic review. Int. J. Sustain. High Educ. 17 (5), 633 e651. https://doi.org 1108/IJSHE-01-2015-0004 . Yarime Yarime,, M., Tanaka, Tanaka, Y., 2012. 2012. The issue issuess and methodol methodologie ogiess in susta sustainab inability ility assessment tools for higher education institutions: a review of recent trends and future challenges. J. Educat. Sustain. Dev. 6 (1), 63 e77. 77. https://doi.org https://doi.org/10. /10. 1177/097340821100600113.
