a model of sustainable campus operations for …eprints.uthm.edu.my/10191/1/ruzaimah_razman.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
iii
A MODEL OF SUSTAINABLE CAMPUS OPERATIONS FOR MALAYSIAN
PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES
RUZAIMAH BINTI RAZMAN
A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the
Doctor of Philosophy
Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
August 2017
v
For my beloved mom and dad….
Siti Sara binti Hj. Lateh (1949 – 2012, al-fatihah)
&
Razman bin Dahalan
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
All praises and thanks are due to Allah S.W.T for giving me the health, knowledge
and patience to write this thesis. I acknowledge and appreciate the financial supports
given by Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia under MyBrain15 program.
My sincerest gratitude goes to my supervisor Associate Professor Dr. Hj. Abd
Halid bin Abdullah and beautiful lady, Dr. Irina Safitri Zen as my Co-Supervisor
who guided me with their dedicated attention, expertise, guidance and advice
throughout the process of this research work. I acknowledge the efforts they provide
me with the time in their busy schedules.
My heartfelt gratitude is given to my beloved family and friends who always
support me with their love, patience, encouragement and constant prayers. And last
but not least, I would also like to thank a man in my life, you know who you are, that
is always around when needed, as well as giving support in many aspects. His role in
ensuring my success today is undoubtful.
vii
ABSTRACT
Currently, various initiatives have been undertaken by several universities around the
world to ensure that their campus operates sustainably. Unfortunately, it seems that
the efforts are still divergent and not systematically applied within the universities.
Several models are available to be used as references for developing and
implementing sustainability within campus. However, for local universities in
particular, it is extremely important to understand the current situation whether there
is a dearth of adequate conditions for the establishment and compliance of all phases
of the models. As the issues of sustainability in Malaysia are still new, sustainability
in universities should be performed in rather small steps according to the needs and
situation of the university itself. Therefore, this study focuses on identifying the
relevant Sustainable Campus Operation (SCO) initiatives to be implemented at the
Malaysian public universities, and also determining the critical factors of governance
that influence the successful implementation of the SCO initiatives. The investigation
involves a quantitative approach using structured questionnaire survey, which was
designed based on the items obtained from websites of sustainable universities
around the world and also from literature review. The questionnaire survey forms
were distributed to sixty-eight selected respondents at the Development Office or
Sustainable Department of all local public universities. Based on the structural
relationship model, it was found that the factor’s group of “Accountability to
improve performance of SCO (AccF)” has the highest impact and more significant in
implementing the thirteen relevant SCO initiatives as compared to the factor’s group
of “Governance support to implement SCO (GovF)”. The established SCO model is
the first that integrates all operations at the university, and highlights the importance
for considering the governance support and accountability in analyzing and making
decision of any potential initiatives towards campus sustainability. Hence, it can
assist those involved in the planning of campus infrastructure and development to
determine the most critical factors in implementing the SCO initiatives towards
sustainability in Malaysian public universities.
viii
ABSTRAK
Kebelakangan ini beberapa universiti di dunia telah melaksanakan pelbagai inisiatif
bagi memastikan kampus mereka beroperasi secara mampan. Malangnya, inisiatif
tersebut masih berbeza-beza dan tidak dilaksanakan secara sistematik di universiti.
Beberapa model boleh dijadikan rujukan untuk membangun dan melaksanakan
kemampanan di kampus. Namun begitu, adalah penting bagi universiti tempatan
untuk memahami situasi semasa sama ada masih terdapat kelemahan untuk
memenuhi syarat dan keperluan semua fasa model tersebut. Oleh kerana isu
kemampanan di Malaysia masih baharu, perlaksanaannya di universiti harus
dilakukan secara berperingkat mengikut keperluan dan keadaan universiti itu sendiri.
Oleh itu, kajian ini memberi tumpuan kepada mengenalpasti inisiatif SCO yang
relevan untuk dilaksanakan di universiti awam Malaysia, dan juga menentukan faktor
kritikal tadbir urus yang mempengaruhi kejayaan perlaksanaan inisiatif SCO. Ia
melibatkan pendekatan kuantitatif dengan menggunakan tinjauan soal selidik
berstruktur, yang direka berdasarkan item yang diperolehi dari beberapa laman web
universiti-univesiti mampan di dunia dan juga daripada kajian literatur. Borang
tinjauan soal selidik diedarkan kepada enam puluh lapan responden terpilih di
Pejabat Pembangunan atau Jabatan Lestari di universiti awam tempatan. Berdasarkan
model perhubungan struktur, didapati bahawa kumpulan faktor “Akauntabiliti bagi
meningkatkan prestasi SCO (AccF)” mempunyai impak tertinggi dan lebih penting
dalam melaksanakan tiga belas inisiatif SCO berbanding dengan kumpulan faktor
“Sokongan tadbir urus untuk melaksanakan SCO (GovF)”. Model SCO yang
dibangunkan ini adalah yang pertama menggabungkan semua operasi di universiti,
dan menekankan kepentingan untuk mempertimbangkan sokongan tadbir urus dan
akauntabiliti dalam menganalisis dan membuat keputusan mengenai sebarang
inisiatif berpotensi kearah kemampanan kampus. Oleh itu, ia dapat membantu
mereka yang terlibat dalam perancangan infrastruktur dan pembangunan kampus
untuk menentukan faktor yang paling kritikal dalam melaksanakan inisiatif SCO ke
arah kemampanan di universiti awam di Malaysia.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT vi
ABSTRACT vii
ABSTRAK viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ix
LIST OF TABLES xii
LIST OF FIGURES xiv
LIST OF NOMENCLATURE xvi
LIST OF APPENDICES xix
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background of Study 1
1.1.1 Model of Sustainable Campus 4
1.2 Problem Statement 10
1.3 Research Questions 12
1.4 Research Objectives 12
1.5 Research Scope 13
1.6 Research Method 13
1.7 Structure of Thesis 14
CHAPTER 2 SUSTAINABLE CAMPUS OPERATIONS (SCOs) 16
2.1 Introduction 16
2.2 Declaration and Policy Related to Sustainability in Higher Education 20
2.3 Focus areas of Campus Operations 24
2.3.1 Energy 26
x
2.3.2 Waste 28
2.3.3 Water 30
2.3.4 Building 31
2.3.5 Transportation 32
2.3.6 Green space 34
2.3.7 Purchasing and Procurement 35
2.3.8 Food production 35
2.4 Effort of Universities in Malaysia towards Campus Sustainability 36
2.5 Sustainability Effort by Top 5 Universities from UI Green Metric 2016 41
2.6 Web-Based Analysis on SCO Initiatives 45
2.7 Governance Support 52
2.8 Previous Study on Success Factors of Governance towards SCO 54
2.9 Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) 62
2.10 Summary 65
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 67
3.1 Introduction 67
3.2 Research Plan 67
3.3 Questionnaire Design 70
3.3.1 Measurement Scale 71
3.3.2 Expert’s Review 71
3.4 Pilot Study 72
3.4.1 Demography of Respondents 73
3.4.2 Reliability Test 75
3.5 Survey Respondents 76
3.6 Method of Analysis 77
3.6.1 Mean Score (Mr) 78
3.6.2 Factor Analysis 78
3.7 Summary 84
CHAPTER 4 SUSTAINABLE CAMPUS OPERATION INITIATIVES
AT MALAYSIAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES 86
4.1 Introduction 86
4.2 Demography of Respondents 87
4.3 Initiatives of Sustainable Campus Operations 88
xi
4.4 Critical Success Factors (CSFs) of SCO Initiatives 95
4.5 Classification of CSFs into Respective Groups 98
4.6 Conclusion 102
CHAPTER 5 STRUCTURAL MODELLING OF CRITICAL SUCCESS
FACTORS (CSFs) 103
5.1 Introduction 103
5.2 Hypothetical Model of SCO Success Factors 103
5.2.1 Sample Size Determination 104
5.3 Construction of PLS Model 106
5.4 Running the PLS Algorithm 108
5.5 Assessing Measurement Model Performance 108
5.5.1 Individual Item Reliability and Convergent Validity 108
5.5.2 Discriminant Validity 114
5.6 Assessing Structural Model Performance 116
5.6.1 Impact Path Coefficients (-value & t-value) 117
5.6.2 Coefficient of Determination (R2) 118
5.6.3 Groups’ relative impact (f2) 119
5.6.4 Predictive Relevance (Q2) 119
5.7 Conclusion 121
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 123
6.1 Introduction 123
6.2 Discussion on the Findings 123
6.3 Contribution of Study 128
6.4 Limitations 130
6.5 Recommendations 130
REFERENCES 132
APPENDIX A 140
APPENDIX B 141
PUBLISHED PAPER 147
VITA 148
xii
LIST OF TABLES
2.1 Chronology of Declarations Related to Sustainability in Higher Education. 21
2.2 Various Universities Take on Specific Sustainability Policies. 22
2.3 Local Universities Participated in UI GreenMetric by Ranking. 39
2.4 List of Sustainable Universities Gathered from Websites. 46
2.5 Mapping of Sustainable Universities and their Associated
SCO-initiatives. 47
2.6 Findings from Web-Based Analysis. 51
2.7 Governance Success Factors as Suggested by Past Researchers. 56
2.8 CB-SEM versus PLS-SEM. 64
3.1 Interpretation Score for Alpha-Cronbach. 76
3.2 Reliability Results for SCO Initiatives and Critical Success Factors. 76
3.3 Rules of Thumb for Evaluating Reflective Measurement Models. 80
3.4 Rules of Thumb for Evaluating Formative Measurement Models. 81
3.5 Systematic Evaluation of PLS-SEM Results. 81
3.6 Summary of Methodology. 84
4.1 Statistic of Respondents Participated in the Survey. 88
4.2 Ranking of SCO initiatives Arranged in Descending Order. 89
4.3 List of Success Factors Arranged in Descending Order of Significance. 96
4.4 Results of KMO and Bartlett’s Test. 99
4.5 Summary of Results for Total Variance Explained. 99
4.6 Rotated Component Matrix. 100
4.7 Classification of the Success Factors of Governance. 101
5.1 Different Numbers of Sample Size in various PLS-SEM Researches. 105
5.2 Sample Size Recommendation in PLS-SEM for a
Statistical Power of 80%. 106
5.3 Convergent Validity of PLS-SEM Model for Iteration 1. 110
5.4 PLS Assessment Results of Iterations 1 to 6. 111
xiii
5.5 Convergent Validity of PLS-SEM Model for Iteration 2. 113
5.6 Convergent Validity of PLS-SEM Model for Iteration 3. 113
5.7 Convergent Validity of PLS-SEM Model for Iteration 4. 113
5.8 Convergent Validity of PLS-SEM Model for Iteration 5. 113
5.9 Convergent Validity of PLS-SEM Model for Iteration 6. 113
5.10 Generated Cross Loading Values. 115
5.11 Analysis of Average Variance Extracted (AVE). 116
5.12 Path Results of the Model. 118
5.13 Result of Overall Structural Modeling Assessment. 122
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 Triple Bottom Line for Sustainability. 2
1.2 Sustainable University Classification Model. 5
1.3 Higher Education Modeling of Sustainability as a Fully Integrated System. 6
1.4 Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework Model or Sustainable Egg. 7
1.5 PDCA Model of Sustainable University. 8
1.6 Framework of Approach to Achieving Campus Sustainability. 9
1.7 Sustainable University Model. 10
2.1 A Whole-of-University Approach towards Institutional Sustainability. 16
2.2 Elements of Campus Sustainability. 17
2.3 Areas of Concerned by UI GreenMetric. 25
2.4 Typical Municipal Solid Waste Composition in Malaysia. 28
2.5 Area of Focus in UI GreenMetric. 40
2.6 Success Factors of University’s Governance. 57
2.7 Approach to Conduct SEM. 65
3.1 Flow of Research Methodology. 68
3.2 Number of Respondents based on Work Positions. 74
3.3 Percentage of Respondents based on Academic Qualifications. 74
3.4 Percentage of Respondents based on Years of Working Experience. 75
3.5 Structural Model Assessment Procedure. 82
4.1 The relevant SCO initiatives for Malaysian public universities. 92
5.1 Hypothetical Model of Successful Implementation of SCO Initiatives. 104
5.2 The Constructed PLS Model. 107
5.3 Flowchart Showing the Systematic Evaluation of Measurement Model. 109
5.4 PLS-SEM Model Result for Iteration 1. 110
5.5 The Developed Hypothetical PLS-SEM Model of SCO Initiatives. 114
5.6 Path Coefficient in the Structural Model. 117
5.7 Values of Cross Validated Redundancy (CVRed). 120
xv
5.8 Final PLS-SEM Model of SCO. 121
6.1 Model of Sustainable Campus Operations for the Malaysian Public
Universities. 129
xvi
LIST OF NOMENCLATURE
AccF Accountability to improve performance of SCO initiatives
and Climate Initiative
AVE Average Variance Extracted
BEMS Building Energy Management System
C&D Construction and Demolition
CAFM Computer Aided Facilities Management
CB-SEM Covariance-based SEM
CCM Common Carbon Metric
CGSS Centre for Global Sustainability Studies
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CR Composite Reliability
CSAF Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework
CSFs Critical Success Factors
CSR Corporate Social Responsibility
EMS Environmental Management System
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESD Education for Sustainable Development
f2 Effect size
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GovF Governance set up to implement SCO initiatives
GWU George Washington University
HEIs Higher Education Institutions
IARU International Alliance of Research Universities
IBM International Business Machines
KeTTHA Ministry of Energy, Green Technology, and Water
KMO Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
Mr Mean Score
xvii
N Total number of respondents
PDCA Plan-Do-Check-Act
PLS-SEM Partial Least Squares-Structural Equation Modeling
Q2 - value Predictive relevance
R2 - value Coefficient of determination
SCO Sustainable Campus Operations
SD Standard Deviation
SEM Structural Equation Modeling
SOV Single Occupancy Vehicle
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Science
t - value significant relationships between independent variables
TBL Triple Bottom Line
UConn University of Connecticut
UHI Urban Heat Island
UI University Indonesia
UKM Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
ULSF University Leaders for a Sustainable Future
UM Universiti Malaya
UMP Universiti Malaysia Pahang
UMS Universiti Malaysia Sabah
UNEP-SBCI United Nations Environment Programme’s Sustainable Buildings
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UniMAP University Malaysia Perlis
UPM Universiti Putra Malaysia
USIM Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia
USM Universiti Sains Malaysia
UTAR Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman
UTeM Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka
UTHM Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
UTM Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
UUM Universiti Utara Malaysia
VOCS Volatile Organic Compounds
WCED World Commission on Environment and Development
WUR Wageningen University and Research
xviii
α - value Cronbach’s Alpha
- value Path coefficient
xix
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A DECLARATION OF VALIDITY OF QUESTIONNAIRE
CONTENTS 140
APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY FORM 141
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of Study
Sustainable development is defined as “development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs” (WCED, 1987). The World Commission on Environment and Development
(1987) used this definition of sustainable development in the report entitled Our
Common Future. This report is also popularly known as Brundtland Report
following the name of a Norwegian, Gro Harlem Brundtland, who chaired the
commission. The purpose of this Brundtland report is to strengthen the global agenda
for change, as well as to establish a framework to address the strategies necessary to
achieve sustainable development. Sustainability is the practice of striving toward a
better future, which includes; (i) improving human health and wellbeing, (ii)
protecting and restoring the natural environment, and (iii) fostering a stronger
economy and financial well-being for businesses, organizations, families, and
individuals. These three parts are often called the triple bottom line (TBL), which
means all measures taken must be beneficial to the environment, economy, and
social as illustrated in Figure 1.1.
2
Figure 1.1: Triple Bottom Line for Sustainability
(Elkington, 2010)
Sustainability awareness on Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) started to
arise among the public through an Earth Day celebration in 1970 when students
buried an automobile to symbolize the deleterious impact of humans on the campus
environment. It was then followed by energy crisis in 1970s that has led to greater
awareness on environmental challenges. The environmental pollution and
degradation caused by energy and material consumption is a side effect from various
operations and activities on campus. Such activities cover teaching and learning,
research and development, and provision of support services. Nowadays, it has
become an issue at the global level and the concerns of policy makers and planner
(Alshuwaikhat & Abubakar, 2008). Thus, the idea of sustainability is triggered as a
result of consciousness of direct and indirect adverse effects to the environment due
to such activities and operations at HEIs. Velazquez et al. (2006) define sustainable
development for higher education as “a higher educational institution, as a whole or
as a part, that addresses, involves and promotes, on a regional or a global level, the
minimization of negative environmental, economic, societal, and health effects
generated in the use of their resources in order to fulfill its functions of teaching,
research, outreach and partnership, and stewardship in ways to help society make the
transition to sustainable lifestyles”.
3
In educating sustainability to the campus society, the United Nations Decade
of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) (2005-2014) has highlighted the
potential to promote sustainable operations at higher institution level. Sustainable
operations at HEIs can be in the form of energy efficiency, waste management, water
conservation, green building design, transportation, foods production, and green
procurement. According to Koichiro Matsuura, who was the Director General of
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for the
years 1999 to 2009, education in all its forms and at all levels not only to create
awareness within the community but also one of the most powerful tools to bring the
changes needed to achieve sustainable development (UNESCO, 2005).
Universities have the potential to give an impact on the environment, as they
have a wide campus area with large population, and also carry out complex
operations not only conducting various teaching and learning activities but also
involving in research and development, publication, consultation, innovation, and
commercialization. In their research study, Yarime & Tanaka (2012) found that the
dimensions of governance and physical operations have been given more focus in
assessing the sustainability of a university as compared to other areas of education,
research, and outreach. Moreover, in year 1990, Talloires Declaration urged on
universities to carry out more sustainable physical operations, as well as to become
an example of environmental responsibility by establishing long-term sustainability
policies, and embed the importance of environmental sustainability amongst their
citizens. It is not surprising that most of the university’s sustainability policies focus
more on physical operations, and it is frequently mentioned in policy and being one
of the main thrusts of campus sustainability initiatives (Wright, 2002). For example,
Kyoto Declaration encourages universities to review their physical operations to
reflect sustainable development practices. In addition, the Talloires Declaration also
urges HEIs on providing an example of environmental responsibility by establishing
institutional ecology policies and practices of resource conservation, recycling, waste
reduction, and environmentally sound operations (ULSF, 2001). Both declarations
are often referred by HEIs in developing and implementing SCO initiatives through
centralized programs to promote green practices in achieving campus sustainability
objectives.
4
Since university can be particularly well suited for the realization of
sustainable development, it should provide a safe environment, ecological balance,
and intergenerational equity that is compatible to the development, as it is a place to
create professions and professionals. Perhaps, and most obvious, universities around
the world can make a difference in education system, and these future citizens and
leaders will play a critical role in helping us to move towards a more sustainable
future. There are universities that incorporate all academics activities in their
sustainable education, add students’ learning skills for sustainability within their
coursework, and also incorporate sustainable practices through their professional
staff as they play their roles as managers and operational contexts.
1.1.1 Model of Sustainable Campus
Given that sustainability issues are complex, it is imperative that Education for
Sustainable Development (ESD) pursues an integrated approach in modeling
sustainability in the core functions and systems of the university. Sustainable campus
model is often used to provide an idea of how the campus sustainability can be
achieved in a holistic and integrated way. In this section, six well known sustainable
university models will be discussed.
One of the earliest models, which was proposed by Weenen (2000), is
sustainable university classification model, as illustrated in Figure 1.2. The model
has looked into the issue of sustainability in higher education through three angles in
order to answer the questions of, (i) Why should we be involved? (ii) What can we
do?, and (iii) How would we be organized? (Weenen, 2000). The proposed questions
are answered separately in different axes and at different levels. For example, the
question of “what can we do” is answered in ‘Engagement’ axis (i.e. y-axis). It
expresses the primary approach for any organization is the operation of sustainable
campus. The second level emphasizes research activities and education programs
focusing on the campus operation. At the third level, this educational organization
reformulates and influences the university management to establish a relevant policy.
At the end, the policy will be adopted and incorporated in the university mission. The
other two axes would have similar explanations with regard to their respective
questions.
5
Figure 1.2: Sustainable University Classification Model
(Weenen, 2000)
Meanwhile, Cortese (2003) has proposed another model as exhibited in
Figure 1.3, which is higher education modeling of sustainability as a fully integrated
system. This model illustrates that all parts of the university system and activities
such as teaching, research, operations, and relations with local communities should
be interlinked with one another. It seems that the activities are critical to achieving a
transformational change, thus it can only occur by connecting them to each other.
Briefly, these four elements have a specific role and have a significant relationship to
each other in achieving a sustainable campus.
6
Figure 1.3: Higher Education Modeling of Sustainability as a Fully Integrated
System
(Cortese, 2003)
Campus sustainability assessment framework model (CSAF) or popularly
known as sustainable egg, which contains several different indicators, has been
proposed by Cole (2003). He is an academician and researcher at the Royal Roads
University, Canada. The model constitutes two major parameters, namely people and
ecosystem, together with their respective indicators as shown in Figure 1.4.
Ecosystem indicators include air, water, land (i.e. space and planning), waste, and
energy. Whereas, people indicators comprise knowledge, community, governance,
economy, and wealth. The structure of CSAF is based on the ten (10) main indicators
and broken down further into one-hundred and sixty-nine (169) sub indicators, to
assess an educational institute. CSAF is also used as a standardized audit tool for
Canadian campuses. Since this model has been designed for Canadian universities,
the applicability of this tool for universities in other countries is doubtful (Beringer,
2006). Even some universities in Canada are unable to find information regarding
indicators contained in CSAF.
7
Figure 1.4: Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework Model or Sustainable Egg
(Cole, 2003)
Figure 1.5 shows the structure of the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) model of
sustainable university as proposed by Velazquez et al. (2006). It consists of four (4)
phases, which systematically exhibits concept of sustainability into vison and
mission of university, as well as strengthening the policy and strategies for fostering
sustainability into the four core businesses of university comprising education,
research, outreach and partnership, and sustainability on campus. This model
emphasizes that sustainability initiatives must be based on a continuous
improvement. The PDCA cycle is a useful tool to coordinate continuous
improvement efforts. This is a management philosophy that seeks improvements as a
never-ending process of achieving small improvements.
8
Figure 1.5: PDCA Model of Sustainable University
(Velazquez et al., 2006)
Not much difference from the previous model proposed by Velazquez et al.
(2006), Alshuwaikhat & Abubakar (2008) stressed that in order to promote campus
sustainability, a university should have a clear vision and serious commitment from
top management towards implementing sustainability initiatives. The implementation
of sustainability approach becomes easier with the establishment of an organizational
structure through either a department or a committee, and also the provision of
necessary resources to achieve the sustainability vision. Alshuwaikhat & Abubakar
(2008) have proposed the framework of approach to achieving campus sustainability,
as presented in Figure 1.6, which adopts three main strategies, namely
Environmental Management System (EMS) implementation, public participation and
social responsibility, and sustainability teaching and research, in an integrated way.
Each strategy has specific initiatives that could lead to achieving the sustainability
mission of a university.
9
Figure 1.6: Framework of Approach to Achieving Campus Sustainability
(Alshuwaikhat & Abubakar, 2008)
Last but not least, Mat et al. (2009) has also proposed a model entitled Model
of Sustainable University, which consists of a structured phases starting with the
directional phase that establishes the vision and mission to conceptualize the
sustainability, as shown in Figure 1.7. These clear vision and missions will set the
platform and fundamental principles in achieving the sustainability efforts. The
bottom phase comprises various connected but departmentalized strategies being
managed through a high level committee with established targets, policies,
coordinating function and getting funder to sponsor the investment. The Management
committee will always seek to improve, enhance and proactively take steps to
acquire additional funds to support underlining targets and goals to be achieved
within the stipulated time frame. The integrated model combines the EMS,
community and public participations, social responsibilities, and at the same time
research and teaching sustainability should be carried out.
Public participation - Campus
community
- Alumni
- Partnership
10
Figure 1.7: Sustainable University Model
(Mat et al., 2009)
All the sustainable university models mentioned and discussed earlier have
presented a systematic procedure of how people response to sustainable initiatives
within academic institutions. The models are designed to be used by the academic
community members as a framework for developing and implementing sustainability
missions, policies, strategies, procedures and indicators that can be used in their
organisations.
1.2 Problem Statement
Basically, existing sustainable models cover the wide range of sustainability
implementation at any university. None of the models, however, have directly and
specifically proposed on how and what to be prioritized accordingly based on
location, culture and etc. of the university itself. It is important to understand the
11
current situation in most universities, whether there is a sufficient condition for the
establishment and compliance of all phases of the models. Implementing the
sustainable university model is a process of continual improvement in environmental,
social, and economic performance that should be made through incremental steps.
This is also supported by Lozano (2006) who states that sustainability in universities
should be performed in small steps according to the needs and situation at the
university.
Even though there have been many campus sustainability initiatives currently
underway, unfortunately, the progress on the part of campus society and society
practices in making changes towards sustainability has not been as fast as the
initiatives being in place (Tom et al., 2012; Velazquez, Munguia & Sanchez, 2005).
It seems that the efforts are still divergent and not systematically applied within the
universities. Other than issues of selecting the relevant initiatives, governance factors
and university’s support from upper level administrators are also some of the crucial
issues that needs attention as they play an important role in the university in making
decision and making changes (Lidgren, Rodhe & Huisingh, 2006; Lozano, 2006).
Practically, since the concept of sustainable campus is still relatively new in
Malaysia, the planning and implementation should be properly phased according to
priority so that it can affect optimally on sustainability in campus operations. To
consider this matter, many studies are needed from the very early stages in order to
share information, understand the issues and concepts, and develop a plan for future
actions appropriate to the local situation.
Going into the specific theme of sustainability through operations on campus
is exactly what this study aims to do. It is driven by a desire to explore in more detail
the areas of operations that should be given priority based on the SCO initiatives, as
well as to investigate the critical success factors of governance in the local
universities that would ensure the successful implementation of SCO initiatives.
Since past researchers mostly covered areas of energy management (Abdullah,
Hakim & Naim, 2015), product service system (Vezzoli et al., 2015), wastewater
management (Keremane & Mckay, 2009), green building (Jabbour, Kasai & Jose,
2014; Richardson & Lynes, 2007; Zulkarnain et al., 2011), this study gives an
opportunity for the researcher to develop a model of SCO that are suitable to be
implemented at local public universities to ensure that the campus operates
sustainably.
12
It is expected that the findings from this study can assist top management,
decision makers, and parties involved in the planning of campus infrastructure and
development of universities in ensuring the measures taken in adopting sustainability
into campus operations are not in vain. Instead, it can give a good impact in
deploying the SCO initiatives particularly in Malaysian public universities. A
successful implementation of such actions can therefore give HEIs a positive
impression of greening, and thereby catalyze the implementations of further campus
greening initiatives.
1.3 Research Questions
In order to enlighten the campus sustainability issues stated above, this study
embarks on investigating the following research questions:
i) What are the current practices of some major universities in adopting
sustainability in campus operations?
ii) Which SCO initiatives are relevant for local public universities?
iii) What are the critical governance factors that influence the success of SCO
initiatives implementation?
iv) What would be the standard model of SCO that can be applied in Malaysian
public universities?
1.4 Research Objectives
The primary aim of this research is to propose a model of SCO for Malaysian public
universities. At the same time, this study also aims at investigating the relevancy of
initiatives and influence of university’s top management on the sustainable
development of campus operations. In order to achieve the set aims, the following
specific objectives have been outlined:
i) To identify and analyze the current practices of sustainable operations
implemented by some major universities in the world;
ii) To determine relevant sustainable campus operation (SCO) initiatives that
can be implemented at local public universities;
13
iii) To examine the critical success factors (CSFs) of governance that influence
the implementation of SCO initiatives at local public universities, as well as
to classify the CSFs into related groups; and
iv) To establish a Model of SCO for the Malaysian public universities.
1.5 Research Scope
This research study only focuses on two dimensions of sustainable campus, which
are governance and physical operations since this dimensions have been given more
attention in assessing the sustainability of a university as compared to other
dimensions to look into the relationships between factors of governance against
successful implementation of SCO initiatives. This study considers only Malaysian
public universities due to the fact that public universities are largely funded by the
Federal Government and are governed as self-managed institutions.
1.6 Research Method
This research study adopts a quantitative approach in identifying the SCO initiatives
and CSFs of governance for local public universities. The data samples are collected
through manual distribution of questionnaire survey forms amongst individuals who
hold various universities’ administrative posts comprising Assistant Vice Chancellor,
Director of Office, Head of Department/Unit, as well as other related posts at the
Development and Property Management Office, and the Sustainable
Department/Unit. List of respondents are obtained and shortlisted through deliberate
search on the websites of each of the local public universities. Later, descriptive and
factor analysis techniques using SPSS software v.22 are utilized prior to developing
the structural equation model using SmartPLS software v.3.
14
1.7 Structure of Thesis
The structure of this thesis is divided into 7 chapters as follows:
Chapter 1 presents an overview of the thesis. It contains of the background of
research, problem statement, and the importance of studies that led to the formulation
of the research question and the establishment of objectives and scope of the study.
Chapter 2 reviews critically the research work related to this study, which
have been published by previous researchers. The purpose of this review is to obtain
an overview of the study, and to list and document the items that are important for
developing the questionnaire survey.
Chapter 3 outlines the methodology adopted for this study. This chapter
focuses on research plan, as well as questionnaire design and data collection strategy.
Also included in this chapter is the description of experts who review the draft of
questionnaire survey along with results of pilot study. Apart from that, it provides
details of various approaches to be used for data analysis including the description on
the SmartPLS software applications as a tool in the development of the SCOs model
for Malaysian public universities.
Chapter 4 presents the descriptive analysis results of data collected from the
questionnaire survey by using SPSS software. It also discusses the results by
highlighting the relevancy of each SCO initiative to be implemented at Malaysian
public universities, as well as the ranking analysis results in determining the critical
factors of governance that influence the successful implementation of SCO initiatives.
Then, it further describes the factor analysis results in classifying the CSFs into their
associated groups. This chapter also demonstrates the process of carrying out the
analysis together with the reasons or assumptions involved.
Chapter 5 describes the development and establishment of a structural model
of CSFs of SCO initiatives for Malaysian public universities. Basically, it discusses
the model development using SmartPLS software version 3.0, based on the results
obtained from factors analysis as discussed earlier in Chapter 4. Besides discussing
the development processes, it also describes the assessment on the model in
accordance to the standard procedure as proposed by the software developers to
show graphical representation of relationship of the governance CSFs.
15
Chapter 6 summarizes the overall findings of this study, as well as presented
the model of Sustainable Campus Operations for Malaysian Public Universities. It
also outlines the limitation of the study, as well as suggestions for future research.
16
CHAPTER 2
SUSTAINABLE CAMPUS OPERATIONS (SCOs)
2.1 Introduction
Talloires Declaration is the first official statement made in the year 1990 by
universities’ presidents, chancellors, and rectors. It consists of a ten-point action plan
for incorporating sustainability and environmental literacy by explicitly linking
research, educational and operational activities in a whole-of-university approach
towards institutional sustainability as exhibited in Figure 2.1. As a commitment to
environmental sustainability in higher education, over four-hundred (400) university
leaders from more than fifty (50) countries have signed Talloires Declaration (ULSF,
2008).
Figure 2.1: A Whole-of-University Approach towards Institutional Sustainability
(McMillin & Dyball, 2009)
17
However, Yarime & Tanaka (2012) mentioned that campus sustainability
should take into account five categories, namely governance, operation, education,
research, and outreach (as shown in Figure 2.2). These categories are considered as
crucial elements of sustainability in HEIs and are often used as assessment tools in
the studies of campus sustainability (Cortese, 2003; Ngadiman, 2014; Tom et al.,
2012; Velazquez et al., 2006).
Figure 2.2: Elements of Campus Sustainability
(University of Saskatchewan)
The descriptions for each of the campus sustainability elements are as
follows:
Education
Sustainability in education is defined as education that focuses on the concept of
sustainability in any form appropriate to the campus sustainability plan (Moore,
2006). It is related to the curriculum, teaching, and capacity development offered
for students at the institution. Other learning opportunities for faculty members
and staff are categorized in the governance section, and learning opportunities for
communities are categorized in the outreach section (Yarime & Tanaka, 2012).
Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) is more than just knowledge of
the environment, economy, and society. It also covers aspects of skills,
18
perspectives and values that guide and motivate students to seek sustainability.
The existing education system needs to develop a long-term strategy to change
mindset of the students in order to understand and appreciate the issues of
sustainability, and to take positive action to implement sustainable development
agenda (Komo, 2009).
Research
Research at universities is related to the institution’s efforts and commitments to
promote research activities in relation to sustainability and to establish the
surrounding conditions that would enable them (Yarime & Tanaka, 2012).
Through research activities, university would be able to continue to grow and
contribute useful knowledge to face the challenging future. With regard to the
fact that research as a trigger for new knowledge, it is therefore undoubtful that
the research activity is essential to ensure sustainability growth. University’s
research sector has a vital role against short-term and long-term effects, and thus
able to carry out research related to sustainability such as environmental issues,
technological and environmental innovation, and to seek alternatives to reduce
negative impacts on the ecosystem (Stephens et al., 2008). In addition, as an
urgent need for sustainability, universities should take into account research of
sustainable development because it is not just an academic exercise, but also as
an important response to the environmental crisis that was growing rapidly and
has become the most important research agenda (Ngadiman, 2014). There are
several roles of university in driving the research; such as (i) promoting faculty to
integrate sustainability research into the classroom or research activities, (ii)
supporting the development of research networks that promote collaboration and
dialogue across universities and funding agencies, and (iii) encouraging multi and
cross-disciplinary research in relation to the sustainable principles or further
efforts to improve sustainability (Brinkhurst, Rose, & Maurice, 2011). Apart
from that, Cortese (2003) suggested that faculty and students should carry out
research, which is not only as part of the learning experience that will enhance
their education, but also to instill a sense to keep the balanced ecosystem in order
to secure the occupation of inhabitants for present and future generations.
19
Outreach
Universities and community are interconnected because the university acts as a
professional and knowledge producer, while the community acts as an investor in
education (Ngadiman, 2014). Outreach representing the extent of transformation
that the institution has undergone towards reaching sustainability goals, such as
networking with stakeholders outside the institution as well regional, national,
and international engagement (Yarime & Tanaka, 2012). One of the ways that
can be taken by the universities to help outside community is to share their
knowledge on sustainable campus initiatives. The outside communities that are
usually involved in this outreach and partnership include the civilians,
government agencies, educational institutions, private sector, and government
bodies (Stephens et al., 2008). As a result of this collaboration, it can support and
enhance sustainability partnerships locally and globally. As an instance,
collaborating with other institutions of higher education and looking for
international cooperation in solving global challenges of the environment and
sustainability through conferences and student exchange (Brinkhurst et al., 2011;
Clugston & Calder, 1999), as cited by Ngadiman (2014). Many declarations and
sustainability policies discussed the need for universities to put themselves in the
larger community in which they live. University serves not only as a place for
students to gain knowledge, but also to use the acquired knowledge for the
purpose of solving complex problems of society (Ngadiman, 2014).
Operation
An operation is responsible for the provision of all buildings and facilities within
universities for maintaining a safe, comfortable and attractive campus
environment that supports excellence in teaching, learning and research. In
adopting sustainability in campus operations, various focus areas and goals are
being set by universities around the world. Alshuwaikhat & Abubakar (2008)
mentioned that environmental management system covers two areas, namely (i)
environmental management and improvement, which relates to waste
minimization, energy efficiency, and environmental conservation, and (ii) green
campus which aims to promote construction of green buildings and transportation
facilities. Sustainable operations emphasize features such as saving,
20
environmental quality and efficiency and effectiveness of resources. The
operations must be able to lower carbon emission, as well as able to reduce the
consumption of non-renewable sources, and the resources are selected based on
life cycle assessment.
Governance
University governance refers to the structures and processes to make responsible
decisions covering issues that are prominent to both internal and external
stakeholders of the university, as well as concerning the administrative structure
and policy directions of HEIs. The administrative structure must consist of an
active governing body with sufficient autonomy to fulfill its obligations and
ensure the integrity of the university in accordance with the mission and vision of
the university (Ngadiman, 2014). Element of governance also indicates a basic
framework to promote sustainability in the institution, thus it includes visions and
policies imposed on the whole institution with regard to working conditions, such
as employment and payment (Yarime & Tanaka, 2012). In this regard, factors
such as widespread support, the commitment of leadership, strategic planning,
creating a culture of sustainable, effective communication, and implement
feedback mechanisms can influence the success of governance as well as
integrating sustainability in campus planning extensively (Laroche, 2009).
Velazquez et al. (2006) have proposed three phases of restructuring an
organizational, which include (i) developing a sustainability mission and vision
for the university, (ii) setting up a committee functioning to establish
sustainability policies and objectives, and (iii) implementing the strategic plan
into education, research, outreach and partnerships, and also into the campus
physical operations. In addition, sustainable policies also need to be developed
with the incorporation of principles and specific objectives of sustainability into
the implementation structure and support, and also into scope of work for all staff.
2.2 Declaration and Policy Related to Sustainability in Higher Education
According to the Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (ULSF),
there was an increasing number of universities that have signed declarations pledging
21
themselves to implement more sustainable practices at least by applying their
knowledge and expertise within their own campuses (ULSF, 2001). Since 1972,
there have been so many national and international sustainability declarations and
policies related to higher education being established as references to sustainability
in higher education. With Stockholm Declaration as the starter, the declaration
recognized the interdependency between humanity and the environment.
Strengthened by its statement, “improve the human environment for present and
future generations…a goal to be pursued together with, and in harmony with, the
established and fundamental goals of peace and worldwide economic and social
development” (UNESCO, 1972), the declaration clearly focused on human-centered.
Stockholm Declaration offered twenty-four (24) principles to achieve environmental
sustainability through bilateral and multilateral manners and the majority of the
principles focused more on legislation. Principle no. 19 of this declaration stressed
that the need for environmental education should start from school years until
adulthood. “Education would broaden the basis for enlightened opinions and
responsible conduct by individuals, enterprises and communities in protecting and
improving the environment in its full human dimension” (UNESCO, 1972). Table
2.1 outlines the evolution of declarations related to sustainability in education from
the year 1972 until the year 1997. Many universities attempt towards sustainability
have signed these declarations.
Table 2.1: Chronology of Declarations Related to Sustainability in Higher Education
Year Sustainability Declarations
1972 The Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment (UNESCO, 1972)
1977 Tbilisi Declaration (UNESCO-UNEP, 1977)
1990 The Talloires Declaration (ULSF, 1990)
1991 The Halifax Declaration (Lester Pearson Institute for International Development, 1992)
1992 Agenda 21 –Chapter 36 (UNESCO, 1992)
1993 The Kyoto Declaration (International Association of Universities, 1993)
1993 Swansea Declaration (UNESCO, 1993)
1994 CRE Copernicus Charter (CRE-Copernicus, 1994)
1997 Declaration of Thessaloniki (UNESCO, 1997)
Reference: Wright (2002)
22
Although many institutions have followed and signed such declarations as
listed in Table 2.1, some institutions have chosen to take another approach to sustain
their universities by creating their own environmental sustainability policies that
cater their own specific interests as presented in Table 2.2. It can be clearly seen
from the Table that most of the institutions have put more focus and much effort
specifically on sustainability education and greening the physical campus operations.
Table 2.2: Various Universities Take on Specific Sustainability Policies
Policy Focuses on Greening
Physical Operations
Policy Focuses on Sustainability Education and
Greening Physical Operations
Queens University, Canada
University of Buffalo, United States of
America
University of Colorado, United States of
America
University of Toronto, Canada
California State University, United States of America
Carnegie Mellon University, United States of
America
Dalhousie University, Canada
Durham University, United Kingdom
Oxford Brooks University, United Kingdom
George Washington University, United States of
America
Lincoln University, United States of America
Lund University, Sweden
Massey University, New Zealand
Open Polytechnic of New Zealand
Tufts University, United States of America
Universidad National Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico
Universite Laval, Canada
University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
University of Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
University of Manchester, United Kingdom
University of South Carolina, United States of
America
University of Sunderland, United States of America
University of Sussex, United Kingdom
University of Utrecht, Netherlands
University of Wales Swansea, United Kingdom
University of Waterloo, Canada
Reference: Wright (2002)
23
There are significant differences between the declarations and the
institutional sustainable environmental policies. Declarations focus more on the
moral responsibilities of universities to facilitate change and the need for
environmental literacy, while institutional environmental policies focus specifically
on sustainability education and development of sustainable physical operations
within the university (Wright, 2002). For example, Talloires Declaration insists
higher education to establish institutional ecology policies and practices of resource
conservation, recycling, waste reduction, and environmentally sound operation
(ULSF, 2001). However, no declaration offers practical actions to be taken in order
to ensure more sustainable operations. Meanwhile, most of the environmental
policies of the institution highlight specific actions to be taken to achieve
sustainability goals and objectives by focusing more on the basis of a combination of
environmental education and sustainable operations (Wright, 2002).
University of Waterloo, for instance, has not signed any sustainability
declaration, but has created its own environmental policy. The University’s
WATgreen Committee is in charge of implementing the university environmental
policy, and it is responsible to animate environmental activities on campus,
coordinate project activities of students, staff and faculty, raise awareness among
campus community, as well as develop guidelines for environmentally responsible
design practices on campus. Normally, policy is similar to those offered by the
declarations in terms of guiding the committee and the greening efforts on campus,
but for University of Waterloo’s WATgreen policy, the committee must work within
specified economic parameters (Wright, 2002). Another university that has
developed its own environmental policy is University of South Carolina (USC),
whereby the policy states that sustainability must be built into the university
curriculum, and recognizes the need for environmental literacy amongst faculty and
staff (Wright, 2002). In 1990, University of Buffalo (UB) created the university’s
Environmental Task Force (ETF) with the main task to develop campus
environmental policies. However, in June 1999 UB became one of the signatory
universities that embraced the Talloires Declaration. As much as fifteen (15)
environmental policies related to environmental activities on the campus were
revealed by UB and the policies have paid greater attention on energy efficiency and
consumption issues. This is in line with UB’s definition of a sustainable campus,
which is one that consumes minimal resource, uses one hundred percent post-
24
consumer recycled materials or materials from renewable resources, and utilizes
energy generated from totally renewable and non-polluting resources (Wright, 2002).
Just a few policies at UB mention about environmental literacy or implementing
sustainability through modification of curriculum. Besides that, The George
Washington University (GWU) is one of the American universities that took multiple
approaches to green their campuses. GWU has signed the Talloires Declaration,
working its own institutional environmental policy and has an agreement with the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The university highlights
seven (7) principles in the policy, which include ecosystem protection,
environmental justice, pollution prevention, strong science and data, partnerships,
reinventing the university’s environmental management and operations, and
accountability. Apart from UB and GWU, University of Toronto also highlights
sustainable policy on greening physical operation. Even though there is a need for
sustainability education to protect the environment through teaching, research and
administrative operations, however the main objectives of the policy focus on
physical operations and include the minimization of energy use, water use, waste
generation, and pollution (Wright, 2002).
2.3 Focus areas of Campus Operations
There are various areas of concern related to operations on campus. Ngadiman
(2014) claimed that there are ten areas of physical campus operations, which include
building, energy management, air quality, green space, waste management, water
management, transportation system, procurement and purchasing, dining/cafeteria
management, and social facilities. However, Ministry of Energy, Green Technology,
and Water (KeTTHA), in one of its publications entitled “Low Carbon Cities;
Framework and Assessment System” (KeTTHA, 2011), has stressed that in order to
become a green city, Malaysia needs to give more efforts into enhancing four (4)
areas of concern, namely environment, transportation, infrastructure, and building.
On the other hand, Universitas Indonesia (UI) adopts six (6) areas as the main
assessment categories for the UI GreenMetric World Ranking, namely infrastructure,
energy, waste, water, transportation, and education. Each of the green areas brings its
own weightage to sustainability impact as shown in Figure 2.3. Energy is the most
132
REFERENCES
(ULSF), U. L. for a S. F. (2001). Talloires Declaration. Retrieved January 7, 2016,
from http://www.ulsf.org/programs_talloires_td.html
A. Jalal, N. (2010). Factors Of Sustainability For UTM Sustainable Campus
Initiatives.
Abdul Ghafar, M. N. (1999). Penyelidikan Pendidikan. Skudai.
Abdul Rahman, I., & Nagapan, S. (2015). Identification of Causative Factors to
Construction Waste Generation. In Causative Factors of Construction Waste
Generation (p. 59). Johor: Penerbit UTHM.
Abdullah, A., Hakim, A., & Naim, M. (2015). Jurnal Teknologi Full paper Exploring
Critical Success Factors of Energy Management for Sustainable Building in
Malaysian University. Jurnal Teknologi, 5(73), 24–31.
Abdullah Saleh, A., Mohammed, A. H., & Abdullah, M. N. (2014). A Review on
Critical Success Factors for Energy Management Towards Sustainable.
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 8(16), 6–17.
Abdullah Saleh, A., Mohammed, A. H., & Abdullah, M. N. (2015). PLS-SEM
Assessment of Critical Success Factors For Energy Management Towards
Sustainable University. Journal Teknologi, 72(1), 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4303.4085
Adewuyi, T. O., & Otali, M. (2013). Evaluation of Causes of Construction Material
Waste: Case of Rivers State, Nigeria. Ethiopian Journal of Environmental
Studies and Management, 6, 746–753.
Aibinu, A., & Al-Lawati, A. (2010). Using PLS-SEM Technique to Model
Construction Organizations Willingness to Participate in E-bidding. Automation
in Construction, 19(6), 714–724.
Akter, Ambra, & Ray. (2011). Trustworthiness in mHealth Information Services: An
Assessment of a Hierarchical Model with Mediating and ModeratingEffects
Using Partial Least Squares (PLS). Journal of the American Society for
Informtion Science and Technology, 62(1), 100–116.
Alshuwaikhat, H. M., & Abubakar, I. (2008). An integrated approach to achieving
campus sustainability : assessment of the current campus environmental
management practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 1777–1785.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.12.002
Awang, Z. (2015). SEM Made Simple: A Gentle Approach to Learning Structural
Equation Modeling. Bangi: MPWS Rich Publication Sdn. Bhd.
Baker, T. L. (1994). Doing Social Research (2nd Edn.). Retrieved October 10, 2015,
from http://dissertationrecipes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Conducting-
Pilot-Studies.pdf
133
Beard, C., & Rees, S. (2000). Green Teams and the Management of Environmental
Change in a UK Country Council. Environmental Management and Health,
11(1), 27–38.
Beringer, A. (2006). Campus sustainability audit research in Atlantic Canada :
pioneering the campus sustainability assessment framework. International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 7(4), 437–455.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370610702235
Bradley, J., Merrihue, J., Baker, M., Diaz, E., Young, J., Alonso, D., … Moore, O.
(2006). Greening the Urban Campus: A Sustainability Assessment of New York
University’s Report, 2006. Retrieved April 4, 2014, from
http://www.nyu.edu/sustainability/pdf/gallatinassessment.pdf
Brink, & Wood. (1998). Research Design and Method (pp. 38–49).
Brinkhurst, M., Rose, P., & Maurice, G. (2011). Achieving campus sustainability :
top-down , bottom-up , or neither ? International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education, 12(4), 338–354.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371111168269
Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural Equation Modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows:
basic concepts, applications and programming. Thousand Oaks, California:
Sage Publications.
Cai, W. G., Wu, Y., Zhong, Y., & Ren, H. (2009). China building energy
consumption: situation, challenges and corresponding measures. Energy Policy,
37(6), 2054–2059.
Campus, S. (2011). Sustainable Campus, UTM.
Clugston, R. M., & Calder, W. (1999). Critical Dimensions of Sustainability in
Higher Education.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. (Hillsdale,
Ed.) (2nd Editio). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cole, L. (2003). Assessing Sustainability ON Canadian University Campus:
Development Of A Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework.
Cortese, A. D. (2003). The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable
future. Planning for Higher Education, 31(3), 15–22.
Coyle Shapiro, J. (1995). The Impact of a TQM Intervention on Teamwork: a
Longitudinal Assessment. Employee Relations, 17(3), 63–74.
Dahle, M., & Neumayer, E. (2006). Overcoming barriers to campus greening.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2(2), 139–160.
Daily, B. F., & Huang, S. (2001). Achieving sustainability through attention to
human resource factors in environmental management. International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, 21(12), 1539–1552.
DeCoster, J. (1998). Overview of Factor Analysis. Retrieved October 10, 2015, from
134
http://www.stat-help.com/notes.html
Eimers, K. (2008). Sustaining Campus Sustainability : Factors Leading to Success of
Environmental Sustainability Initiatives in Higher Education Master of Science
in Education Program.
Elkington, J. (2010). The triple bottom line of 21 st century business Cannibals with
forks, (April).
Feldbaum, M., & States, H. (n.d.). Going Green: The Vital Role of Community
Colleges in Building a Sustainable Future and Green Workforce.
Filho, W. L. (2011). About the Role of Universities and Their Contribution to
Sustainable Development. Higher Education Policy, 24(4), 427–438.
https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2011.16
Finlay, J. (2010). Creating Campus Culture: A Critical Analysis of Residence
Sustainability Initiatives at Queen’s University. Queen’s University Kingston,
Ontario, Canada.
Frank, B., & Hennig-Thurau, T. (2008). Identifying hidden structures in marketing’s
structural models through Universal Structure Modeling: An explorative
Bayesian Neural Network complement to LISREL and PLS. Journal of
Research and Management, 4(2), 47–66.
Guidelines of UI GreenMetric World University Ranking 2014. (2014).
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C. J., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006).
Multivariate Data Analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Printice
Hall.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014a). A Primer on
Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). United States
of America: SAGE Publications.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014a). An Introduction to
Structural Equation Modeling. In A Primer On Partial Least Squares Strutural
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (p. 18). United Kingdom: SAGE Publications.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014b). An Introduction to
Structural Equation Modeling. In A Primer On Partial Least Squares Strutural
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (1st ed., p. 21). United States of America: Sage
Publications.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014c). Assessing PLS-
SEM Results Part 1: Evaluation of Reflective Measurement Models. In A
Primer On Partial Least Squares Strutural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (p.
97). United Kingdom: SAGE Publications.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014b). Assessing PLS-
SEM Results Part 3: Evaluation of the Structural Model. In A Primer On Partial
Least Squares Strutural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (p. 169). United
Kingdom: SAGE Publications.
135
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–151.
Hill, T., & Lewicki, P. (2006). Statistic Methods and Application: StatSoft.
Hulland, J. (1999). Use of Partial Least Squares (PLS) in Strategic Management
Research: A Review of Four Recent Studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20,
195–204.
Humblet, E. M., Owens, R., & Roy, L. P. (2010). Roadmap to a Green Campus.
Hwang, H., Malhotra, N. K., Kim, Y., Tomiuk, M. A., & Hong, S. (2010). A
comparative study on parameter recovery of three approaches to structural
equation modeling. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 699–712.
Jabbour, C., Kasai, N., & Jose, C. (2014). Barriers to green buildings at two Brazilian
Engineering Schools. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 3,
87–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2014.05.004
Keremane, G. B., & Mckay, J. (2009). Critical Success Factors ( CSFs ) for private
sector involvement in wastewater management : the Willunga Pipeline case
study. Desalination, 244(1–3), 248–260.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2008.06.006
KeTTHA. (2011). Low Carbon Cities: Framework and Assessment System.
Putrajaya: Kementerian Tenaga, Teknologi Hijau dan Air.
Komo, I. (2009). Nukilan Alam Sekitar dan Pembangunan untuk Pendidikan Awam
(Throughts on Environment and Development for Public Education). Bangi:
LESTARI Occasional Publication.
Kya, L. T., Ngor, P. Y., & Awang, Z. (2012). Statistics (2nd Editio). Shah Alam:
Oxford Fajar Sdn Bhd.
Laroche, D. L. (2009). Development and Used of Sustainability Indicator in Campus
Planning and Management. Arizona State University.
Leitch, J., Nieves, D., Burke, G., Little, M., & Gorin, M. (1995). Strategies for
Involving Employees. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 18(5), 68–74.
LESTARI. (1994). Lestari, UKM. Retrieved January 2, 2015, from
http://www.ukm.my/lestari/ms/profil/
Lidgren, A., Rodhe, H., & Huisingh, D. (2006). A Systemic Approach to Incorperate
Sustainability into University Courses and Curricula. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 14, 797–809.
Litwin, M. S. (1995). How To Measure Survey Reliability and Validity. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lozano, R. (2006). Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities :
breaking through barriers to change. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14, 787–
796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.12.010
Marcoulides, G. A., & Saunders, C. (2006). PLS: A silver bullet? A commentary on
136
sample size issues in PLS modelling. MIS Quarterly, 30(2), 3–10.
Mat, S., Sopian, K., Mokhtar, M., Ali, B., Hashim, H. S., Abdul Rashid, A. K., …
Goh Abdullah, N. (2009). Managing Sustainable Campus in Malaysia:
Organisational Approach and Measures. European Journal of Social Science,
8(2), 201–214.
McCabe, S. (2001). Benchmarking in construction. United Kingdom: Blackwell
Science.
McMillin, J., & Dyball, R. (2009). Developing a Whole-of-University Approach to
Educating for Sustainability: Linking Curriculum, Research and Sustainable
Campus Operations. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 3(55),
55–64.
Memon, A. H. (2013). Structural Modelling of Cost Overrun Factors in Construction
Industry. Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia.
Meyer, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2006). Applied Multivariate Research:
Design and Interpretation. California: SAGE Publications.
Mobey, A., & Parker, D. (2002). Risk evaluation and its importance to project
implementation. International Journal Productivity and Performance Manage,
51(4), 202–208.
Mohamad, Z. F., & Keng, J. (2013). Opportunities and Challenges in Sustainable
Waste Management Transition in Malaysia: A multi-level socio-technical
Perspective. Globelics Seminar on Low Carbon Development 2013.
Moore, O. (2006). Greening the Urban Campus: A Sustainability Assessment of New
York University’s Report, 2006. Retrieved April 4, 2014, from
http://www.nyu.edu/sustainability/pdf/gallatinassessment.pdf
Nejati, M., Md Shahbudin, A. S., & Amran, A. (2011). Barriers To Achieving A
Sustainable University In The Perspective Of Academicians. The 9h Asian
Academy of Management International Conference, 402–407.
Ng, T. S., Wong, Y. M. W., & Wong, J. M. W. (2010). A Structural Equation Model
of Feasibility Evaluation and Project Success for Public Private Partnerships in
Hong Kong. IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, 57(2), 310–322.
Ngadiman, N. (2014). Kajian Terhadap Model Kampus Lestari Universiti Awam di
Malaysia: Suatu Pendekatan Terintegratif. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Norzalwi, N., & Ismail, A. (2011). Public Approach Towards Sustainable
Transportation in UKM’s Campus. Austalian Journal of Basic and Applied
Sciences, 5(5), 1332–1337.
Nunnally, J. C. (1976). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Othman, N. (2002). Penilaian Program Keusahawanan Remaja di Sekolah
Menengah. Universiti Putra Malaysia.
Photiadis, D. (2009). Toward Sustainable Procurement Practices at the University of
137
Toronto. In Environment Independent Research Spring 2009.
Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Hungler, B. P. (2015). Essentials of nursing research:
Methods, appraisal, and utilization.
Richardson, G. R. A., & Lynes, J. K. (2007). Institutional motivations and barriers to
the construction of green buildings on campus. International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, 8(3), 339–354.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370710817183
Sapri, M., & Muhammad, S. (2010). Monitoring Energy Performance in Higher
Education Buildings for Sustainable Campus. Malaysian Journal of Real Estate,
5(1), 19–25.
Savely, S. M., Carson, A. I., & Delclos, G. L. (2007). An environmental management
system implementation model for U . S . colleges and universities. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 15, 660–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.01.013
SCU. (2010). Sustainable Campus Unit, UTHM. Retrieved January 5, 2015, from
http://oshe.uthm.edu.my/v2/index.php/units/sustainable-campus/scuintro
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2010). Research methods for business: A skill building
approach (5th ed.). London: Wiley.
Sharpe, M. E. (2011). No Title. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2),
139–151.
Simon, M. K. (2011). Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for success.
Stephens, J. C., Hernandez, M. E., Román, M., Graham, A. C., Scholz, R. W.,
Stephens, J. C., … Graham, A. C. (2008). Higher education as a change agent
for sustainability in different cultures and contexts. International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(3), 317–338.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370810885916
Tom, W., Jean, H., Kim, C., Wim, L., Joke, V., Rodrigo, L., & Tarah, W. (2012).
Sustainable Higher Education - Understanding and Moving Forward. Retrieved
from https://lirias.kuleuven.be/handle/123456789/374087
UIGreenMetric. (2017a). Criteria & Indicators. Retrieved May 14, 2017, from
http://greenmetric.ui.ac.id/criterian-indicator/
UIGreenMetric. (2017b). Overall Ranking 2016. Retrieved May 14, 2017, from
http://greenmetric.ui.ac.id/overall-ranking-2016/
ULSF. (2001). University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (ULSF).
ULSF. (2008). University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (ULSF).
UNESCO. (1972). Stockholm Declaration.
UniMAP. (2012). Universiti Malaysia Perlis. Retrieved January 6, 2015, from
https://www.unimap.edu.my/index.php/en/unimap-campus-life/unimap-
sustainable-campus/621-the-implementation-of-green-campus-in-unimap
138
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); UN
decade of education for sustainable development (2005-2014). (2005).
Retrieved June 20, 2014, from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001416/141629e.pdf
University of California, Berkeley. (2015). Retrieved September 10, 2015, from
http://sustainability.berkeley.edu
University of California, Davis. (2015). Retrieved October 18, 2015, from
http://sustainability.ucdavis.edu/action/index.html
University of Connecticut. (2015). Retrieved October 20, 2015, from
http://ecohusky.uconn.edu/development/tour.html
University of Nottingham. (2015). Retrieved September 12, 2015, from
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/sustainability/index.aspx
University of Oxford. (2015). Retrieved August 8, 2015, from
http://www.sustainia.me/solutions/
Velazquez, L., Munguia, N., Platt, A., & Taddei, J. (2006). Sustainable university :
what can be the matter ? Journal of Cleaner Production, 14, 810–819.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.12.008
Velazquez, L., Munguia, N., & Sanchez, M. (2005). Deterring sustainability in
higher education institutions An appraisal of the factors which influence higher
education institutions. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, 6(4), 383–391. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370510623865
Vezzoli, C., Ceschin, F., Carel, J., & Kohtala, C. (2015). New design challenges to
widely implement “ Sustainable Product e Service Systems ” *. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 97, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.061
Vinzi, V. E., Trinchera, L., & Amato, S. (2010). PLS Path Modeling: From
Foundations to Recent Development and Open Issues for Model Assessment
and Improvement. In Handbook of Partial Least Squares (pp. 47–82). Springer
Handbooks of Computational Statistics.
Vision for a Sustainable World. (2010). Washington. Retrieved from
http://www.worldwatch.org
Wageningen University and Research. (2016).
Weenen, H. (2000). Towards a Vision of a Sustainable University. International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 1(1), 20–34.
Wilson, R. C. (2000). ISO 14000 Insight. Pollution Engineering, 32(3), 29–30.
Wong, P. S. P., & Cheung, S. O. (2005). Structural Equation Model of Trust and
Partnering Success. Journal of Management in Engineering, 21(2), 70–80.
World-Bank. (2008). Cities of hope? Governance, economic and human challenges
of Kenya’s five largest cities. Washington, DC.
Wright, S. (1921). Correlation and Caudation. Journal of Agricultural Research, 20,
139
557–585.
Wright, T. S. A. (2002). Definitions and frameworks for environmental sustainability
in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,
3(3), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370210434679
Xueliang, Y., Jian, Z., & Huisingh, D. (2013). Green Universities in China – what
matters? Journal of Cleaner Production, 61, 36–45.
Yang, J. B., & Ou, S. F. (2008). Using Structural Equation Modeling to Analyze
Relationships Among Key Cause of Delay in Construction. Canadian Journal
of Civil Engineering, 35, 321–332.
Yarime, M., & Tanaka, Y. (2012). The Issues and Methodologies in Sustainability
Assessment Tools for Higher Education Institutions: A Review of Recent
Trends and Future Challenges. Journal of Education for Sustainable
Development, 6(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/097340821100600113
Yen, N. S., Abdul Shakur, E. S., & Wai, C. W. (2010). Energy Conservation
Opportunities in Malaysian Universities. Malaysian Journal of Real Estate, 5(1),
26–35.
Zakaria, Z., & Md Som, H. (2001). Analisis Data Menggunakan SPSS Windows.
Skudai.
Zikmund, W. (2003). Business Research Method (7th Edition). Ohio: Thompson
Learning.
Zobel, T., & Burman J O. (2004). Factors of importance in identification and
assessment of environmental aspects in an EMS context: experiences in
Swedishorganizations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12, 13–27.
Zulkarnain, S. H., Zawawi, E. M. A., Rahman, M. Y. A., & Mustafa, N. K. F. (2011).
A Review of Critical Success Factor in Building Maintenance Management
Practice for University Sector. International Journal of Civil, Environmental,
Structural, Construction and Architectural Engineering, 5(5), 215–219.