Biodiversity preservation in German higher education institutions: existing approaches, challenges and future developments

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to explore the current stage of biodiversity preservation in higher education institutions (HEIs), using samples from German universities and investigating three different dimensions, namely, existing approaches, challenges and future developments.

Design/methodology/approach

Semistructured expert interviews were conducted with employees from 14 German Universities. To analyze the data, both deductive and inductive methods of content analysis were conducted to systematically code the results.

Findings

This research shows that efforts for biodiversity preservation are frequently made in the areas of student and staff initiatives, green space management, as well as in research and teaching. However, German HEIs face numerous hurdles such as interest conflict, lack of prioritization and financial restrictions, some of which are difficult to overcome. In the future, HEIs should seek a deeper integration of biodiversity into curricula to further raise biodiversity awareness.

Research limitations/implications

This study provides practical implications by providing good practices, which can serve as a guide for implementing measures for biodiversity preservation. By understanding the struggles and future expectations, stakeholders and policymakers could promote targeted measures and relevant policies to advance biodiversity initiatives at and beyond universities. Moreover, the research shows the importance of involving students and staff actively in the planning and executing stage for biodiversity preservation through initiatives to achieve green campuses.

Originality/value

The paper presents an essential research field which is still in its earlier stage. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, it is the first study that focuses on German Universities in this context. This study adds value in providing in-depth insights into this topic to raise awareness of biodiversity preservation in both practice and research.

Citation

Yerokhin, S.-M., Lin Feuer, Y.-S. and Sassen, R. (2024), "Biodiversity preservation in German higher education institutions: existing approaches, challenges and future developments", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-12-2023-0608

1. Introduction

The impact of biodiversity on human well-being has been recognized for decades. At the first Earth Summit in 1992, the Convention on Biological Diversity [Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 2024] was signed by 193 countries to focus on the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources [Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 2016]. Nevertheless, Butchart et al. (2010) indicated that biodiversity loss remains an ongoing global crisis, with an increased loss rate. International goals and targets for biodiversity preservation have been set, such as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets aimed for 2011–2022 [Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 2020a], the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (United Nations, 2023) and the recent Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework [Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 2022]. More biodiversity efforts from diverse actors are needed, as none of the past Aichi targets have been fully met [Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 2020b].

University campuses are spaces for plants and animals, which helps enhance species diversity, especially in urban areas (Arjona et al., 2023; Guthula et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2021; Susilowati et al., 2021). Possessing greenspace, knowledge and expertise, universities play an essential role in biodiversity preservation (Verheyen et al., 2023). University campuses can have direct impacts on biodiversity loss through land use change and through new roads and buildings, affecting large and small species, which can further change the campus character (Muller and Tempelhoff, 2016). Verheyen et al. (2023) show how universities can serve as a bridge to enhance urban biodiversity through developing and implementing a Biodiversity Action Plan at Ghent University. University campuses can also be viewed as living laboratories to tackle sustainability issues, where biodiversity preservation has become an emerging topic (Rivera and Savage, 2020). Plant diversity on university campuses enhances urban cultural services areas by providing aesthetic beauty and improving students’ mental well-being (Pradhan et al., 2020; Ha and Kim, 2021). Through native landscaping, universities support biodiversity preservation and raise awareness of sustainability activities in wider urban communities (Kermath, 2007).

Biodiversity consists of three different dimensions, namely, species, genetic resources and ecosystems. Drivers of biodiversity loss include habitat change, overexploitation, climate change, invasive species, and pollution (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Moreover, biodiversity is frequently associated with the term ecosystem services. Ecosystem services are the “benefits that people obtain from an ecosystem” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005, p. v). The services are classified into four different categories: “provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting services” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005, p. 40). Declining biodiversity can destabilize ecosystem services and reduce human well-being. However, unlike other global crises such as climate change, there is a lack of measurement approaches covering all three dimensions, limiting our ability to understand our impacts on biodiversity loss. This further increases the complexity of biodiversity.

To overcome the complex issue of biodiversity loss, actions from diverse actors are needed. Here, higher education institutions (HEIs) can make a major contribution through research. They can also serve as a living laboratory for species conservation, climate adaptation and biodiversity restoration to prevent environmental damage caused by rapid urbanization and overexploitation of resources. Research on biodiversity preservation at HEIs is still in its early stages (Zhang et al., 2021). Lozano (2011) points out that there is still limited reporting at universities on biodiversity. Biodiversity preservation is still not a priority in ecological planning on university campuses (Orenstein et al., 2019). Furthermore, a recent study from Yerokhin et al. (2023) found that both biodiversity reporting and management are still in their early stages in universities of the Global North and South.

Various approaches to bringing biodiversity to university campuses have been researched. Through case studies, Orenstein et al. (2019) show how biodiversity and ecosystem services can be better included through strategic and spatial planning. Other studies show that biodiversity preservation can be achieved through eco- or food gardening, green roofs or planting trees on campuses (Duram and Klein, 2015; Cheang et al., 2017; Kılkış, 2017). Preservation approaches can also increase the importance and know-how of biodiversity with the support of stakeholders (Cheang et al., 2017). Other studies also focus on students’ involvement in enhancing biodiversity preservation on campuses (Balasha et al., 2022; Hane and Korfmacher, 2022).

Most studies focus on species richness and campus greening for urban biodiversity (Liu et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2021a; Wang et al., 2021b; Zhang et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2021). There is, however, a research gap concerning biodiversity preservation at HEIs in Europe. Germany has adopted the National Strategy on Biological Diversity, involving various governmental and non-governmental stakeholders, addressing the younger generations [Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 2024]. Although biodiversity indicators are disclosed in sustainability reports of some German HEIs, they receive limited attention compared to other environmental indicators (Azizi et al., 2018). Further research and suggestions to preserve biodiversity at HEIs are necessary (Yerokhin et al., 2023). For this reason, the main research objective of this paper is to assess the current state of biodiversity preservation in German HEIs. To achieve this, the research question is as follows:

RQ1.

What is the current status of biodiversity preservation in German HEIs?

This question is further explored through three key perspectives, namely, existing approaches, challenges and future developments.

For the study, 14 semistructured expert interviews are conducted with employees from German universities. The collected data are analyzed by qualitative content analysis to generate an exploratory deductive and inductive category system to classify the results systematically. The study further explores how German HEIs contribute to the SDGs of the United Nations, as HEIs can help promote and implement the SDGs (Leal Filho et al., 2023). Overarching strategies for biodiversity preservation, raising awareness and knowledge transfer, such as quality education (SDG 4), Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure (SDG 9), Life on Land (SDG 15) and Partnership for the Goals (SDG 17), are covered.

To the authors’ best knowledge, this is the first study to explore biodiversity preservation in HEIs in the European context. It offers academic and practical insights, potentially opening a new research field by examining biodiversity preservation in German HEIs and suggesting future research opportunities in this area. From a practical viewpoint, the research results can provide concrete measures for biodiversity preservation, highlight current challenges for implementation and demonstrate how future development potential can support overcoming these challenges. The results can be helpful for universities to plan and develop biodiversity strategies and for policymakers to further drive biodiversity initiatives within and beyond HEI settings.

This paper is structured in four main sections. Section 2 provides a detailed methodological process. Following, the findings and discussions Section 3 provides an overview of the three main perspectives of the research (biodiversity strategies, implementation challenges and outlook) alongside considerations of existing studies. Finally, the conclusion Section 4 summarizes the core findings, implications and limitations and proposes future research pathways.

2. Methodology

2.1 Research design

This study adopts a qualitative explorative approach (Bryman, 2016) to examine biodiversity preservation in German HEIs, given the limited existing literature. This qualitative explorative approach investigates the current state of biodiversity preservation, where the research field is still in its initial stage. First, data is collected by conducting semistructured interviews, with questions designed based on Castillo-Montoya’s (2016) four-phase interview protocol refinement framework. Attention was given to ensure questions were relevant for background information or covered the research aspects.

This open-ended approach can provide new insights and enhance research quality (Bryman, 2016). Finally, the interview data is analyzed using a conventional content analysis approach following Hsieh and Shannon (2005), which involves direct processing of the verbatim content to develop an initial coding framework. This inductive analytic approach explores a relatively uncharted context and integrates findings with relevant theories or previous research (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). Therefore, a qualitative content analysis aligns well with the research design, facilitating systematic generation of new findings in a young research field.

To ensure systematic, unbiased and reliable categorization of data into predetermined groups and to identify emergent patterns in the presentation and reporting of findings, qualitative content analysis is conducted according to Guthrie et al. (2004). These patterns provide valuable insight into the weighting of various themes within the textual material. It is worth noting that content analysis has long been a preferred method for disclosure analysis (Sassen and Azizi, 2018), as well as in inductive thematic analysis (Braun et al., 2019).

2.2 Sample selection

This section explains the sample selection process, focusing on sustainability reporting in German HEIs with biodiversity content. Sustainability reports support the sample selection process as universities use them to communicate their sustainable development efforts. Furthermore, a study by Azizi et al. (2018) shows a slightly increasing trend regarding German HEIs reporting on biodiversity indicators in their sustainability reports. After collecting a potential sample of 45 German HEIs for our work, their current sustainability reports were evaluated through a screening process conducted from March to April 2023. A set of predefined keywords associated with biodiversity, including “biodiversity,” “biological diversity,” “nature,” “species” and “ecosystem” were used. Only 32 sustainability reports were analyzed due to data access issues and lack of related publications, leading to the exclusion of some HEIs. These selected reports were classified into: “yes” (focus on biodiversity content), “maybe” (some presence of biodiversity content) and “no” (no significant biodiversity-related information). Predefined keywords can help in better understanding biodiversity preservation (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). The categorization also supports strategy development for approaching potential interview partners afterwards.

A total of 20 sustainability reports were identified in the categories “yes” (13) and “maybe” (7). These universities and the respective contact persons for sustainability topics were invited individually via e-mail to participate in the interview study. Ultimately, 14 universities participated. Due to anonymous and confidential agreements with the interviewees, more detailed information is not disclosed.

2.3 Data collection

The data is collected from 14 semistructured interviews aimed at gaining insights into participants’ perspectives and experiences related to biodiversity practices within respective HEIs. The interview questions first cover a few open questions to understand the interviewee’s personal connection to biodiversity, following a structured framework consisting of three distinct blocks of questions (see Table 1), and closing questions covering additional remarks and feedback.

The semistructured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders and experts and were characterized by a flexible yet structured approach that allowed participants to provide comprehensive responses while ensuring consistency in data collection. The interviews were conducted between May and June 2023. All interviews were conducted online, with participants providing prior consent for recording and subsequent anonymous analysis.

2.4 Data analysis

Following the interviews, rigorous transcription procedures were used to convert the recorded audio data into written transcripts and conduct a qualitative content analysis. The rigorous transcription procedures support systemization within the data analysis process, which ensures the generation of unbiased findings (Guthrie et al., 2004).

To minimize subjectivity, data coding was independently conducted by two researchers for each data set. They then reviewed, compared and discussed the coded data to mitigate discrepancies arising from differing interpretations during the coding process (Deegan and Gordon, 1996). Additionally, rigorous transcription procedures were implemented to ensure data accuracy, and Guthrie et al.’s (2004) systematic coding approach was followed for unbiased data categorization. Further efforts to reduce subjectivity included piloting the interview protocol and refining questions based on initial participant feedback.

To provide a meaningful framework for organizing biodiversity-related activities and processes, a comprehensive approach was used that included both deductive and inductive content analysis methods. Deductive codes are first developed from the research question and interview questions, whereas the inductive approach is later applied while analyzing the interview data to create new codes or eliminate unnecessary ones. Both steps ensure that the research objectives are reached, and the three key perspectives of the research question are fully covered. This methodology drew on established qualitative research techniques (Corbin and Strauss, 2014; Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007).

3. Findings and discussion

3.1 Descriptive analysis

The code book consists of nine main categories and 29 subcategories. A holistic overview of the categories, their definitions and the number of coded segments within each subcategory can be found in Table 2. Categories A–D can be assigned to Topic 1: “Existing biodiversity approaches.” Topic 2: “Challenges” comprises the categories E–G, while Topic 3: “Future Developments” contains the main categories H–I. To present the weighting of the individual categories clearly, the percentage of the category in the total number of coded indicators was given in addition to the absolute number of coded segments. These values were determined with the software MAXQDA.

The number of segments clearly shows that the focus of the interviews is on communicating the existing approaches and measures (389 segments). The challenges of implementing biodiversity-friendly and biodiversity-preserving measures (149 segments) and future developments (99 segments) were discussed less.

3.2 Biodiversity approaches in German higher education institutions

The category “University campus design” (A) includes approaches for preserving natural living areas, species and habitats, as well as building measures and green space design to enhance environmental sustainability and promote biodiversity.

To protect biodiversity, eight universities mentioned (forest) botanical gardens that contain a variety of plants and provide habitats for insects and small animals. These botanical gardens are assigned to the category “Natural living areas” (A1). In addition, other open spaces and grasslands, as well as fields and forest areas that are not used for construction were assigned to subcategory A1. In the subcategory “Building measures” (A2), several universities reported on various structural measures to protect biodiversity. For example, green roofs are reported by five universities, along with the restrictive use of parking spaces and attractive designs for bicycle and public transportation. Another measure that has already been implemented by two universities is the prevention of bird strikes using special foils and bird protection concepts. Subcategory A1 focuses on habitats like forests, meadows and botanical gardens, while subcategory “Species and habitat protection” (A3) addresses specific measures for species and habitat conservation. Some universities have various protection concepts for bats or birds by installing nesting boxes. The provision of deadwood is also represented to offer insect nesting opportunities. A few universities also have large-scale protected areas with protected wetland habitats and wild plant conservation projects. Five universities mentioned during the interview that there are insect hotels on their campuses. Five universities also have their own beehives, some of which are managed by voluntary working groups. Within the subcategory “Green space management” (A4), the mowing behavior of areas was mentioned 14 times by a total of ten respondents. To protect insects and maintain biodiversity, some universities only partially mow selected areas so that insects are offered alternative spaces. Additionally, the mowing intervals have increased. Another major topic in this subcategory is the introduction and maintenance of wildflower meadows, especially with native seeds, which was mentioned by nine respondents.

The category “Personnel and structure” (B) covers diverse organizational and personnel aspects of the university related to biodiversity and discusses wider environmental aspects.

Segments of the interviews in which universities talked about, for example, their EMAS and EMASplus certifications were assigned to subcategory B1. However, the implementation of a universities’ own environmental measures, such as framework concepts for environmentally friendly campus design and sustainability strategies, are mentioned quite frequently in subcategory B2. These concepts play a key role in creating a biodiversity-friendly atmosphere by setting concrete goals and measures. In addition to biodiversity preservation goals, other related goals such as climate protection, resource management and concrete goals for nature conservation are also mentioned. In addition, the existence of sustainability offices and sustainability-related positions at six universities is also mentioned in subcategory B3. This illustrates the efforts being made within the university structure to promote environmental awareness and biodiversity.

The category “Education, research, and engagement” (C) includes raising awareness of biodiversity conservation, conducting biodiversity-related research and collaborating with students and staff.

Sub-category C1 discusses the relevance of the whole institution approach as well as inter and transdisciplinary cooperation, involving different departments within the university, practitioners, renowned institutes and international universities. Subcategory C2 covers the integration of biodiversity issues into the curricula. In subcategory C3, research programs in areas such as soil cultures, aquatic ecosystem research, mapping and interdisciplinary projects were reported. These research efforts demonstrate the universities’ commitment to advancing biodiversity conservation strategies. The most-mentioned subcategory is “student and staff initiatives” (C4), with a total of 59 segments from all interviewed universities, highlighting their biodiversity efforts through student and staff involvement. Examples include managing campus gardens by students, environmental committees and student-led biodiversity projects. These activities not only protect biodiversity but also promote environmental awareness among students and staff.

The category “Knowledge transfer and awareness building” (D) includes activities to disseminate research findings, engage stakeholders, as well as raise awareness about biodiversity preservation.

Subcategory D1 covers biodiversity reporting, including preparing environmental reports and presenting research findings. Stakeholder engagement (D2) is an important task for universities. Many universities have leased campus land from their respective city, so they rely on good cooperation and the recognition of biodiversity-friendly measures as an important core issue when renovating or replanting. Universities also have initiatives in which students work together with the city and help with the successful realization of biodiversity-promoting initiatives. Initiatives with residents are also represented in some universities. A basic prerequisite for the successful realization of biodiversity measures is to raise awareness and educate (D3). To achieve this, universities regularly organize events open to the public to raise awareness of the relevance of biodiversity. Not only students and staff shall be addressed but also, for example, the surrounding communities and schools. This knowledge transfer and active exchange is a basic prerequisite for creating awareness of the relevance of biodiversity protection, which leads to the successful implementation of the mentioned measures.

This section revealed various biodiversity approaches at German Universities, addressing the first key research question on the current state of biodiversity preservation strategies. The involvement of students and staff in biodiversity initiatives (C4) by initiating, leading or participating in practical projects is an essential measure taken in German HEIs. Through the engagement of students and staff, it not only promotes the conservation of biodiversity but also encourages dynamic platforms for raising awareness within and beyond the university community among other stakeholders. This finding aligns with some existing studies which stress that it is important to cooperate and involve various stakeholders, both on and off campus (Kurtaslan, 2020; Liu et al., 2021), and addresses SDG 17 by seeking partners for sustainable development.

Another important focus in relation to biodiversity strategies is on green space management (A4), where universities implement strategic measures to promote biodiversity on their campuses and pay attention to SDG 15 (Life on land). This includes the rare and selective mowing of certain areas, as well as planting initiatives, particularly those that focus on endemic species. This deliberate selection of plant species is instrumental in promoting biodiversity and helps to create ecologically balanced environments on the university campus. It also promotes a harmonious coexistence between humans and nature in an urban context, which is also pointed out by Liu et al. (2017) and Liu et al. (2021), suggesting university campuses can fulfill a role model function by showing how the enhancement of urban biodiversity can be achieved.

The integration of biodiversity issues into research (C3) and teaching (C2) underscores an HEI’s core mission and commitment to instilling environmental awareness across all disciplines. A holistic approach to embedding biodiversity awareness into academic education includes offering biodiversity-related modules or even degree programs as well as inter and transdisciplinary research projects within universities. These research efforts not only underline the commitment of universities to generate knowledge and provide quality education in accordance with SDG 4 (Quality education) but also emphasize the central role of universities in developing strategies to counteract biodiversity loss. This further confirms the studies showing that education, e.g. service-learning programs or environmental-oriented education programs, plays an essential role in raising awareness of biodiversity conservation (Huang et al., 2023; Servia et al., 2020), where Huang et al. (2023) indicate that, through education programs for ecosystem services, participants increase their knowledge and recognition of environmental issues.

3.3 Challenges to implementing biodiversity approaches in German higher education institutions

The category “Perception and resources” (E) includes barriers from the internal university structure hindering biodiversity approaches.

A crucial obstacle to the implementation of biodiversity-preserving measures is a lack of awareness and responsibility (E1). Ten universities noted this, especially in the administrative structures of universities and cities. It is, therefore, essential to continue increasing the visibility of this issue and to expand education, as biodiversity protection is often a question of priority. Unfortunately, this topic is often not prioritized in the decision-making processes. According to the interviewees, insufficient prioritization (E2) is the second biggest hurdle for biodiversity conservation. Universities need to deal with conflicting usage interests, especially regarding grassland areas and a lack of space on campuses. Balancing the need for biological diversity and the need for event areas or areas for students is a constant challenge because biodiversity-friendly areas should have limited access and are, therefore, no longer suitable for learning and relaxing activities. Universities face trade-off decisions, for example, between solar roofs or green roofs. Trade-offs become necessary and decision-makers are continually faced with the dilemma of reconciling biodiversity strategies with broader concepts such as mobility and accessibility. Implementing biodiversity-promoting measures can also be time and resource-intensive (E3). Eleven universities mentioned limited personnel and time resources as an obstacle. The other recurring challenge is the financial burden on universities (E4). The need to tighten budgets and address job losses is a pressing issue. Poor prioritization (E2) comes along with financial constraints, as biodiversity initiatives often compete with other budgetary needs. Particularly in the context of campus design, a category that inherently requires financial investment, universities struggle with the complexities of balancing limited resources against ecologically supportive environments.

The category “Challenges in planning and implementation” (F) touches upon obstacles that are associated with planning and implementing biodiversity-related measures.

Half of the universities stated that the ongoing growth of the universities and the associated construction activity and land sealing (F1) is one of the greatest threats to promoting biodiversity on campus, as building projects approved in the past are causing environmental damage in the present. The total available area is constant, meaning that the expansion of buildings and sealed surfaces has a negative impact on biodiversity. Moreover, different ideas and existing conflicts of interest (F2) prove to be a major challenge. Numerous stakeholders are involved in the decision-making process, resulting in complicated communication dynamics. A different perception of aesthetics (F3) can also have a negative impact on the implementation of measures that promote biodiversity. This aspect partly overlaps with the other subcategories, as this perception often goes hand in hand with a lack of prioritization (E2) of biodiversity on campus. The universities state that some administrative staff and decision-makers prefer short mowing periods, for example. Here as well, transparent communication (F2) and the creation of awareness (E1) are important.

The category “Framework conditions and research challenges” (G) includes external conditions that affect implementing biodiversity initiatives.

Universities often face legal hurdles when implementing biodiversity approaches (G1). Campus buildings are often under monument protection, which can present a hurdle for structural changes such as green roofs or facades or the implementation cannot be reconciled with other regulatory framework conditions and ordinances. These hinder the planning and implementation of biodiversity measures. The other major obstacle to the continuity of various initiatives and measures is the fact that there is a high and continuous fluctuation of students (G2). Initiatives are often driven forward and carried out by particularly committed individuals, but students are only on campus for a limited period. Consequently, eight universities report that initiatives are not able to be continuously implemented or that projects are repeatedly abandoned.

Overall, German Universities face several difficulties while implementing biodiversity preservation approaches, addressing the second key perspective of the research question, which focuses on the current state of challenges encountered. Although this study shows a commitment to preserving biodiversity and many initiatives have already been launched, German Universities face several major challenges that can hinder the implementation of these measures. The most mentioned challenges result from a complex landscape of stakeholder involvement in which conflicting ideas and interests (F2) hinder smooth interaction and straightforward implementation. The complexity of university structures further exacerbates internal communication problems and limits the efficient exchange of information and ideas, where potential trade-offs would be necessary under these circumstances. Comparing this challenge to the most mentioned biodiversity measures, which are the initiatives raised by students and staff (C4) focusing on green space management approaches (A4), this implicates the importance of building up transparent communication approaches and constant exchanges between different actors to ensure that most interests can be reached so that biodiversity measures can be more effectively implemented.

Unfortunately, biodiversity seldom occupies a high priority in decision-making processes at HEIs, which can also be considered a challenge for the effectiveness of implementing biodiversity measures mentioned in Topic 1. Decision-makers are regularly confronted with the difficult dilemma of making compromises, struggling with financial constraints, and balancing the needs of biodiversity-friendly areas and those used for events or student activities. This balancing act requires those responsible to have a deep understanding of the complex interactions between human activities and biodiversity conservation to ultimately make sustainable and balanced decisions that consider both the protection of biodiversity and the needs of stakeholders.

The findings in this topic not only bring new insights to the research in this field but also bring new perspectives to the HEIs, requiring an investigation into potential future developments (Topic 3).

3.4 Future development potential for biodiversity preservation in German higher education institutions

The category “Green campus and expansion” (H) focuses on the expansion of biodiversity-friendly construction measures and campus development.

In subcategory H1, parking options for cars are planned to be further restricted so that students and employees switch to environmentally friendly alternatives and the space gained can be used in a biodiversity-friendly manner. Green seminar rooms, like outdoor settings with native plants to promote biodiversity and a connection to nature, are also planned to be built to further enhance students’ environmental awareness. Ideally, green facades, green roofs and bird protection approaches should be considered in new building planning and the roof surfaces of existing buildings should be upgraded with greening measures. Subcategory H2 comprises measures that serve to increase the campus’ own biodiversity through the expansion of green spaces in the future. Renaturation projects of wetlands and efforts to increase the proportion of unsealed areas are highlighted. The creation of gardens or plant and flower beds and the enhancement of existing green spaces are also in focus. The introduction of regional seed mixtures and the replacement of alien species with native plants reflect the commitment to improving biodiversity in university landscapes. Further insect hotels are to be installed and dead wood will be left lying around to provide more habitat for insects.

The category “Sustainable development and collaboration” (I) focuses on efforts that help develop biodiversity strategies and integrate them into university operations.

Within this category, subcategories I1 and I2 were coded most frequently. The aim is to develop a common vision in teaching and research (I1) to integrate biodiversity more intensively. A focus should also be on the digitization of biodiversity-related data for better accessibility and use. Due to the desire for stronger international networking, a global perspective is sought to jointly address the global challenge of biodiversity loss and to benefit from the knowledge of other research and teaching institutions. Respondents also emphasize the need for greater biodiversity awareness (I2) and the importance of its preservation. The aim is to strengthen interest and initiate proactive engagement among employees and students. There is a consensus that biodiversity initiatives require proactive involvement of all stakeholders and go beyond the remit of any single responsible body. The subcategory “Cooperation with stakeholders” (I3) includes, therefore, measures to increase the involvement of all stakeholder groups (including university administration and local businesses) so that close cooperation to develop biodiversity solutions (e.g. by research projects) can be ensured. Subcategory I4 comprises future measures targeted at developing sustainable structures within the university. For example, a green office with clearly defined responsibilities should manage centrally biodiversity-promoting projects. One idea for more sustainability and commitment is the introduction of green work time, where all employees can voluntarily invest, for example, 2 h per week during working hours in projects that promote biodiversity.

Overall, German universities wish to preserve biodiversity, answering the third key perspective of the research question, which focuses on the current state of further potential developments. Even though German Universities face numerous hurdles in implementing biodiversity activities, they report several visions and expectations that favor biodiversity-friendly development. Some future developments they mentioned tackle the challenges they proposed in Topic 2. For example, lack of awareness (E1) and insufficient prioritization (E2) of biodiversity are frequently mentioned, which can be solved by actively raising the topic of biodiversity on campus (I2) and involving diverse stakeholder groups (I3) to increase the exposure of this essential issue. Furthermore, further green space expansion (H2), as well as more biodiversity-friendly building design (H1), can lower the negative biodiversity impacts of the ongoing construction activities for campus expansion (F1) and help reach SDG 9 to build resilient infrastructure. However, to apply green campus measures (H), challenges such as high costs (E4) and the complicated legal and bureaucratic framework conditions (G1) for the building processes would need to be further considered.

In the area of research and teaching (I1), the vision of greater integration of biodiversity into curricular offerings is emerging, further expanding from the existing measures that focus on conducting biodiversity-related research (C2) and courses (C3). Here, the focus on SDG 4 to provide further quality education is again considered. It is also relevant to digitize and make data accessible. The call for greater international networking and collaboration reflects the collective effort to tackle the global challenge of biodiversity loss collectively, drawing on the expertise of different research and teaching institutions within and outside of Germany and going beyond the existing stakeholder collaboration in this field (D2). This again brings up the focus of SDG 17 (partnerships for the goals) but on a broader horizon.

Raising awareness and integrating stakeholders is a key pillar for future developments. The universities surveyed emphasize the need for greater awareness of the importance of biodiversity to drive biodiversity initiatives through a collective sense of responsibility with a more active involvement of staff and students (C4), which can also help overcome the challenges of conflicting interests (F2). The findings on this topic align well with Yerokhin et al. (2023), who find that raising public awareness and knowledge on biodiversity could be achieved by teaching and research on and beyond university campuses. This holistic approach aims to embed environmental awareness into the structure of university life and promote a community-wide commitment to sustainable practices. This concept is also mentioned by Liu et al. (2021), who find that, through citizen science, different actors can become more interested in biodiversity conservation topics, thereby further promoting awareness. Therefore, campuses can provide further actors, e.g. urban residents, to get engaged in learning about biodiversity (Colding and Barthel, 2017; Huang et al., 2023).

4. Conclusion

This study collected, analyzed and discussed the current state of biodiversity preservation and presents existing biodiversity approaches, challenges and future developments at German Universities. Findings suggest that the most coded biodiversity measure is to involve essential stakeholders, i.e. students and staff, not only in implementing practical projects on campus but also in providing teaching and research activities. When it comes to promote biodiversity preservation, students and staff can be considered the most essential stakeholders, as they directly benefit from a positive ecosystem on campus and are actively involved in biodiversity-related teaching and research to bring further attention to this field. This active engagement from stakeholders is also placed at the top of the agenda for future development to raise awareness and achieve knowledge transfer in wider communities. In addition, managing existing green space on campus with changed mowing behavior and setting up wildflower meadows is another often applied measure. This aligns well with the most coded future development plans to further transform other areas on campus into green spaces by executing renaturation projects of wetlands, campus gardens with native plant species and insect hotels. Challenges, however, appear that hinder the implementation of these measures and expectations. With a growing number of actors becoming involved in developing and implementing biodiversity measures, conflicts often emerge, representing the most coded challenge German HEIs currently face. Moreover, due to financial restrictions, biodiversity topics are often deprioritized compared to, for example, climate topics, which generally receive greater awareness.

4.1 Practical implications

On a practical level, the results can help other universities improve their biodiversity conservation efforts by providing successful approaches, for instance, through self-initiated biodiversity projects to set up green roofs or gardens as well as integrating biodiversity into teaching and research. In addition, stakeholders and policymakers could use these findings to support and promote targeted measures and relevant goals to advance biodiversity initiatives at and beyond universities. HEIs from other countries and continents could provide information on the diversity of existing measures and concepts, so approaches to biodiversity preservation can be compared and exchanged. Neighbors of the universities can be further integrated into the biodiversity initiatives to expand the practices beyond campus and bring biological diversity to the urban areas (Colding and Barthel, 2017; Huang et al., 2023). Policymakers can also learn from the challenges universities face or the research results to adjust the national or international biodiversity targets and make them more achievable, as universities often carry responsibilities to support sustainable development in society (Findler et al., 2019).

4.2 Research implications

To the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first study that investigates HEIs’ efforts in biodiversity preservation from diverse perspectives and the first paper focusing on German institutions, which opens further future research opportunities. Future research could not only expand the sample sizes but also investigate different aspects of biodiversity preservation at HEIs. One option would be to dive deeper into exploring how diverse approaches, e.g. biodiversity reporting, standards and certifications and stakeholder engagement, can help universities better measure their impacts on biodiversity. Furthermore, looking at a more holistic approach to biodiversity beyond natural capital and ecosystem services could help to explore how these dimensions influence attitudes and behaviors toward biodiversity conservation in HEIs. Additionally, future research could focus on investigating the reliability and validity of the data, as well as calculating intercoder reliability in qualitative analyses, as recommended by Cheung and Tai (2023), to further strengthen the robustness and credibility of the findings. A deeper investigation into the challenges identified and whether they are transferable to other regions for more constructive solutions can also be of interest in future studies. Furthermore, case studies on good practices that already implement biodiversity measures proposed by German HEIs would be interesting to provide lessons learned and further practical and research implications.

However, a few limitations of this study should be noted. First, this study is based on data from selected German Universities, which could limit the transferability of the results to other geographical regions and university structures. Future research could expand their geographical focus and extend the samples by taking several countries or regions into account to provide broader insights and allow further comparisons. Second, the expert interview method only provides insights into the topic at the respective university level and could contain subjective views from the interview partners. This can be solved by conducting focus groups that gather various positions within a university, or through conducting surveys so that diverse perspectives from several universities can be considered. Third, this study only considers the biodiversity areas that the interviewees respond to and which they consider relevant. Spiritual and well-being dimensions therefore received comparatively little consideration in relation to ecosystem services and natural capital.

Overall, this study offers insights into the diverse approaches and challenges of promoting and conserving biodiversity at German universities and lays the foundation for future research and measures to promote biodiversity at educational institutions.

Table 1.

Overview of the interview questions

Topic	Interview questions
Existing approaches	(1) How relevant do you consider the conservation of biodiversity and in your institution? (2) Which approaches for the protection and conservation of biodiversity are known to you in your institution of higher education? 2.1 How are these approaches implemented and which areas/actors are involved? (3) In which areas or strategies (e.g. research, teaching, environmental or social impacts) in your higher education institution does biodiversity play a particularly important role? 3.1 How is interdisciplinary collaboration promoted in relation to biodiversity conservation?
Challenges	(4) Which positive and/or negative impacts of biodiversity loss exist for your higher education institution? 4.1 Do you see possible risks from the loss of biodiversity for your institution? (5) If yes, what are the risks?What do you think are the biggest challenges in implementing biodiversity and ecosystem conservation measures?
Future development	(6) What other actions would you/your institution like to see implemented in the future that can help improve the conservation of biodiversity at the university? (7) How can academic and administrative staff and students be even more active in the conservation of biodiversity? (8) How can research results in the field of biodiversity be better integrated into university practice?

Source: Own presentation

Table 2.

Code book and content analysis results

Main code	Definition	Sub code	Indicator no.	Cod. seg	% cod. seg	Amount of HEI
University campus design	Actions and initiatives related to the design of the university campus that help enhance environmental sustainability and the promotion of biodiversity	Natural living areas	A1	24	3.77	10
		Building measures	A2	12	1.88	8
		Species and habitat protection	A3	30	4.71	11
		Green space management	A4	58	9.11	14
Personnel and structure	Organizational and personnel aspects of the university related to biodiversity and wider environmental sustainability aspects	Environmental certifications and labels	B1	6	0.94	4
		Sustainability strategies and concepts	B2	15	2.35	8
		Institutionalization	B3	7	1.10	6
Education, research and engagement	Educational, research and student and staff engagement activities that are related to biodiversity	Collaborations, interdisciplinarity and partnerships	C1	27	4.24	10
		Teaching	C2	50	7.85	14
		Research	C3	46	7.22	12
		Student and staff initiatives	C4	59	9.26	14
Knowledge transfer and awareness building	Activities to disseminate research findings and practical practices, engage stakeholders, as well as raise awareness about biodiversity preservation	External communication	D1	13	2.04	10
		Collaboration and engagement with stakeholders	D2	18	2.83	11
		Awareness raising measures and education	D3	24	3.77	11
Perception and resources	Barriers arise from the internal structure of the university, which hinder the process of executing biodiversity approaches	Lack of responsibility and awareness	E1	18	2.83	10
		Insufficient prioritization	E2	21	3.30	10
		Temporal/personnel constraints	E3	14	2.20	11
		Financial constraints	E4	21	3.30	10
Challenges in planning and implementation	Obstacles and difficulties associated with planning and implementing biodiversity-related measures	Land and building development	F1	12	1.88	7
		Communication and conflicting interests	F2	36	5.65	13
		Aesthetic perceptions	F3	6	0.94	5
Framework conditions and research challenges	External conditions and research-related challenges that impact biodiversity initiatives	Legal and bureaucratic framework conditions	G1	11	1.73	7
		Student fluctuation	G2	10	1.57	8
Green campus and expansion	Demands on more biodiversity-friendly design while further developing the (existing) university campus sites	Constructional adjustments	H1	13	2.04	8
		Green space development	H2	23	3.61	10
Sustainable development and collaboration	Efforts focused on integrating biodiversity and including it in various aspects of university operations	Research, teaching and knowledge transfer	I1	20	3.14	9
		Awareness building and integration	I2	20	3.14	9
		Collaboration with stakeholders	I3	14	2.20	10
		Establishing sustainability structures	I4	9	1.41	8

Source: Own presentation