Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine higher education institutions’ participation in association for the advancement of sustainability in higher education’s (AASHE’s) Green Athletics category in the sustainability tracking, assessment and rating system (STARS) sustainability report while assessing how well collegiate athletic departments engage with their respective aspects.

This general review used quantitative content analysis to determine the number of NCAA Divisions I–III institutions that actively report Green Athletics categories in their AASHE STARS reports. The data collection process compiled current reports from the STARS website and the National Collegiate Athletic Association database. Green Athletics categorical and accumulated point attempts and outcomes were analyzed.

Of the 335 institutions that actively use the STARS reporting tool, the NCAA accounted for 247 rated institutions of which only 50 attempted points in Green Athletics while only 21 institutions succeeded. This paper discusses the lack of participation from institutions in Green Athletics and propose an alternate to better engage collegiate athletics in STARS reporting.

This study is one of the first known examinations of the tangible results of collaborations on college campuses to integrate the athletic department’s sustainability efforts into the overall sustainability reporting of the institution. This study can better inform STARS on how to more fully engage college athletic departments and boost the sustainability efforts in all corners of campus.

The purpose of this paper is to test the hypothesis that there are correlations between campus sustainability initiatives and environmental performance, as measured by resource consumption and waste generation performance metrics. Institutions of higher education would like to imply that their campus sustainability initiatives are good proxies for their environmental performance.

Using data reported through the Association for the Advancement in Higher Education’s Sustainability Tracking and Rating System (AASHE STARS) framework, a series of univariate multiple linear regression models were constructed to test for correlations between energy, greenhouse gas (GHG), water and waste performance metrics, and credit points awarded to institutions for various campus sustainability initiatives.

There are very limited correlations between institutional environmental performance and adoption of campus sustainability initiatives, be they targeted operational or coordination and planning best practices, or curricular, co-curricular or research activities. Conversely, there are strong correlations between environmental performance and campus characteristics, namely, institution type and climate zone.

Institutional decision makers should not assume that implementing best practices given credit by AASHE STARS will lead to improved environmental performance. Those assessing institutional sustainability should be wary of institutions who cite initiatives to imply a certain level of environmental performance or performance improvement.

This is the first paper to use data reported through the AASHE STARS framework to assess correlations between campus initiatives and environmental performance. It extends beyond previous research by considering energy, water and waste performance metrics in addition to GHG emissions, and it considers campus sustainability initiatives in addition to campus characteristics.

The purpose of this paper is to develop an integrated model assessing the frequency and timing between reports on the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System (STARS) reporting the framework by higher education institutions (HEIs) and the relationship between the STARS score and reputation (enrollment), finances (endowment) and performance (emissions).

The development of the theoretical model is based on learning, signaling and legitimacy theories. This study collects data from the AASHE STARS to indicate the rating level of 202 HEIs, control variables, enrollment, endowments and emissions. The hypotheses were tested using generalized linear models.

Findings suggest that as HEIs report on their sustainability activity, they learn to report better but that there is also an “un-learning” aspect if the HEI skips reporting in a period. The results support the main hypothesis that there is a relationship between reporting and engagement with the HEIs in the form of enrollment and endowments. Finally, the findings provide evidence that the HEIs’ reporting is associated with a reduction in emissions.

The findings suggest that HEIs should develop a reporting strategy on a standardized framework such as AASHE STARs and they ought to codify the approach to learn from prior reporting. Students and alumni are increasingly seeking to engage the HEI in the sustainability process and the report is a mechanism for signaling activities.

The findings suggest that AASHE STARS scores may be used by HEIs as a signaling mechanism to stakeholders of their commitment to sustainability. The signal is a mechanism to reduce information asymmetry between the HEI and stakeholders who may want more information on the institution’s attempts toward sustainability but lack access to information. Further, HEI partners have a mechanism to assess the overall level of commitment of the HEI toward sustainability and can, therefore, engage accordingly.

There has been significant work on signaling theory and sustainability. However, the relationship between STARs reporting as a signal that legitimates the HEI, learning how to report well and HEI performance has received less attention. The current study demonstrates that the STARS framework as a reporting mechanism signals the HEIs’ level of commitment to sustainability thereby legitimating it resulting in improved performance.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on the way to achieve the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Through the introduction and learning of a specific case, this paper summarizes the specific process of green campus’s development and construction and directly discusses how to achieve the goal of sustainable development. By analyzing the achievements and measures of its construction, on the one hand, the experience and shortcomings of its green campus construction are summarized; on the other hand, the impact of Stanford’s own green campus construction on the local community is discussed.

This paper takes Stanford, one of the best green campuses assessed by sustainability tracking, assessment and rating system (STARS), as a case study in three steps. First, it introduces the academics, energy supply and demand, water and land, waste, management, food and living, buildings and transportation of its campus construction in detail; second, it uses the STARS to make a comprehensive sustainable evaluation of Stanford; finally, it discusses the development relationship between Stanford and local community.

The four characteristics of its green campus development model are summarized, namely, based on its own scientific research; from the aspect of environmental friendliness; to achieve joint participation; and forming complementary development with the community. The construction of green campus has changed from a single triangle framework composed of SDGs, STARS and universities to a compound triangle framework composed of SDGs, universities and communities on the existing basis, greatly expanding the way to realize SDGs.

This development mode will have direct guiding significance for the sustainable construction of other campuses.

This paper also discusses the development concept from green campus to sustainable community to provide positive reference to achieve the global SDGs from the perspective of colleges and universities.

According to the historical track of its development, this paper combines the two (SDGs and green campus) to discuss by using campus construction as an effective way to achieve the SDGs. On the basis of literature research and case study, STARS sustainable assessment is introduced. This will lead to quantitative analysis of sustainable construction in the discussion of the specific case, judging the specific sustainable degree of all aspects of campus construction, to provide a scientific basis for summarizing its characteristics of development mode.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the diverse definitions of sustainability in higher education, focusing on the rhetorical uses of the term among various institutions within the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE).

The paper begins with an overview of the term sustainability in political and public discourse, using that as a gateway to understanding the rhetorical uses of the term. Through this framework, the paper begins a vital discussion about university texts and what they reveal about sustainability in US higher education.

The author finds that university definitions of sustainability reveal a similar malleability and fluidity as definitions in political and public discourse, while at the same time revealing particular trends in the ways in which concepts of interconnection, technological problem-solving and temporality persist in definitions of the term in higher education.

This analysis is limited to definitions of sustainability used by several representative institutions within AASHE. Further studies should provide a more comprehensive analysis of a larger sampling of AASHE institutions as well as universities not affiliated with AASHE.

Administrators and educators at institutes of higher education must account for the ways in which definitions of sustainability are tied to an institution’s goals, agendas and material circumstances. Developing a better understanding of how such definitions emerge can provide greater clarity in enacting change.

This paper melds together rhetorical theories on sustainability with broader research on the use of the term in higher education. As such, it offers a unique interdisciplinary perspective on rhetoric, sustainability and higher education.

Organizational theorists and strategy scholars are both interested in how organizations deal with ambiguity, especially in relation to implementation. This chapter examines one source of ambiguity that organizations face, which is based on their efforts to implement moral mandates. These mandates, which are related to areas such as environmental sustainability and diversity, are inherently ambiguous, as they lack a shared understanding regarding their scope and associated practices. They are also often broad and systemic and may be unclearly aligned with an organization's strategy. Due to these challenges, in this chapter, we theorize that collective action at the field level is necessary for organizations to advance and concretize moral mandates. We examine this theorizing through the case of the implementation of sustainability in higher education. We hypothesize and find support for the idea that when an organization's members engage in collective action at the field level, those organizations have an increased likelihood of achieving sustainability implementation. To gain insight into this field-to-organization relationship, we qualitatively examine 18 years of conversations from an online forum to develop a process model of moral mandate implementation. We theorize that collective action functions as a field-configuring space, in which actors from a variety of organizations come together to (1) refine the scope of the mandate and (2) create an implementation repertoire that actors can draw on when seeking to bring sustainability to their own organizations. Overall, our study provides a model of how ambiguous moral mandates can be implemented by highlighting the important role of collective action across organizations in concretizing those mandates and providing actors with the tools for their implementation.

The use of campuses as living, learning labs for sustainability education, and the advancement of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) is a growing trend at post-secondary institutions across North America. Post-secondary institutions are embracing this approach to advance sustainability and the SDGs both on- and off-campus and to cultivate the next generation of sustainability leaders. Recognizing the diverse stages of living lab program maturation between campuses, and the fact that living lab practitioners are often working in isolation, the Campus as Lab Community of Practice (CaL CoP) was created to enable peer-to-peer learning and to catalyze the development and potential of living lab programs toward meeting the SDGs in a coordinated fashion. The CaL CoP members have identified the opportunity to use a collective approach to advance the SDGs on their home campuses. A collective approach enables CaL CoP members to account for their contributions to advancing the SDGs in a way that is relevant to their local context while highlighting the global impact of their actions. Challenges to utilizing this approach include collaborating remotely, resourcing, and maintaining momentum.

This paper aims to make a comparative study on the latest version of green campus evaluation standard between China and America: Green Campus Evaluation Standard (GB/T51356-2019) and the sustainability tracking, assessment and rating system (STARS 2.2). The differences of evaluation methods and contents are analyzed and their respective characteristics and advantages are sorted out, so as to promote the development of sustainable campus evaluation standards.

The research mainly adopts the method of comparative study, which is carried out from three dimensions, namely, the related policies development of campus construction and world university sustainable rankings; the content of evaluation standards (including evaluation methods and evaluation categories and scores); the characteristics and current application of standards.

There are great differences between the evaluation standards of China and America in organization and participation mode, evaluation method and content. Public engagement, energy and campus engagement are the hot spots. Buildings, energy, food and dining and investment and finance will become the focus of sustainable campus in the future. Specific optimization strategies of key points, evaluation method and content and organization and participation mode of Chinese standard are put forward.

This paper clarifies the advantages and disadvantages of the current global sustainable campus, and provides the basis for the next stage of construction policy. At the same time, it is helpful for all countries, especially China, to formulate construction guidelines that not only meet their own actual needs but also conform to the trend of global sustainable campus development.

The connotation of sustainable campus is enriched, and the evaluation standards of sustainable campus are improved. The development of sustainable campus is promoted, so as to realize the sustainable development goals.

This research expands the scope of the study to the whole campus, rather than just one aspect of campus buildings. It compares the evaluation standard of green campus in China with STARS in the USA, and no longer compares leadership in energy and environmental design for schools. It discusses the campus building’s energy conservation while paying attention to the campus green consciousness, green management and green planning. Based on the relevant data currently used by STARS in the global evaluation, this paper analyzes the hot spots and shortcomings of the current global sustainable campus construction and puts forward some optimization suggestions for China’s green campus evaluation system.

Administrators in higher-education settings routinely create planning documents that help steer the organization in mission-centric ways. In the area of sustainability planning, strategic plans, sustainability plans and climate action plans are the most common methods used. The purpose of this study is to evaluate if specific forms of planning predict sustainability outcomes.

This question was evaluated via an empirical archival study of the AASHE STARS database in relation to planning, administration and governance credits and criteria to determine if specific forms of planning were predictive of sustainability implementation outcomes in the categories of Education and Research, Operations, Diversity and Affordability, Human Resources, Investment, Public Engagement and Innovation.

Findings support the notion that climate action plans were most predictive of achieving sustainability outcomes, and strategic plans were best able to predict educational outcomes.

These findings have important implications for the design and execution of sustainability planning processes in higher-education institutions.

The academic literature contains relatively few empirical studies that demonstrate the capacity of planning on the realization of sustainability outcomes.

This paper aims to describe a two-stage sustainability curriculum assessment, providing tools and strategies for other faculty to use in implementing their own sustainability assessments.

In the first stage of the five-year curriculum assessment, the authors used an anonymous survey of sustainability faculty and requested data that would verify the survey’s self-reporting: updated sustainability syllabi, and answers to the question, “where have you integrated the three aspects of sustainability – biological systems, social systems, economic systems – into this course?” Finding that the self-reporting results did not match the evidence on the syllabi, the authors interrogated their methods from the faculty workshop trainings for sustainability curriculum transformation.

The authors’ workshops had not provided clear definitions for “sustainability” and the learning outcomes expected in sustainability courses. They had also not addressed the role of transformative pedagogy in teaching a holistic approach to sustainability. The research identified and transcended five key barriers to implementing sustainability curriculum: an over-reliance on faculty volunteers, unclear and unenforced expectations about sustainability implementations, a failure to recognize and circumvent institutional and philosophical barriers to teaching sustainability’s interdisciplinary approach through disciplinary-based curriculum, conceiving of sustainability pedagogy as transmission rather than transformation, and overlooking the ecology of educational systems as nested within the larger sociopolitical environment.

This study confirms the limitations of faculty self-reporting unless augmented with verifiable data.

Sustainability educators can use this research to devise curriculum or program assessment on their campuses: the mixed-methods approach to data collection, the inquiry into sustainability workshop trainings, the elements required on sustainability syllabi for building a coherent sustainability studies program, the resources for practicing a transformative sustainability pedagogy, and the barriers to sustainability implementation along with strategies for surmounting these barriers will all be of use.

This paper explores and combats root causes for an all-too-common disconnection between positive faculty self-assessment and syllabi that do not fully integrate sustainability across the disciplines.