an evaluation of effective structures for campus sustainability programs at institutions of higher...
Post on 23-Dec-2015
214 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
AN EVALUATION OF EFFECTIVE STRUCTURES FOR CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAMS AT INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Lauren Edmonds
Dr. John Swaddle
Sustainability in Higher Education Increasing number of campus
sustainability “programs” of every shape & size
Number of Sustainability Officer Positions Created, data from AASHE
Goal
To identify the institutional structures most strongly associated with positive campus sustainability outcomes in order to recommend feasible, sustainable solutions to The College of William and Mary
Research Approach
Comparative case study Case selection
Brandeis University
Clemson University
Rutgers University
University of California – Irvine
University of California – Santa Barbara
University of Georgia
University of New Hampshire
Wake Forest University
Virginia Military Institute
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University
Research Approach
Data collection Interviews Further research
Data Analysis
Variable Identification Institutional make-up Programmatic characteristics Involvement and initiation Funding Participation in sector-wide
organizations/commitments Variable Measurement
Data Analysis
Measuring Outcomes Recalculated SEI Green Score
For the College of William and Mary
Year
Climate Change & Energy
Food & Recycling
Green Building
Student Involvement Transportation
Modified Score
New Grade
2007 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
2008 0.0 2.0 2.0 n/a 0.0 1.0 D
2009 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.6 C+
2010 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 B
2011 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.4 B+
Results
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Comparison of Recalculated SEI Green Scores,
2007 through 2011
Brandeis ClemsonRutgers U. of New
HampshireVirginia Tech VMIWake Forest William and Mary
Recalc
ula
ted
Gre
en
Score
Principal Component AnalysisComponent Matrix
Component1 2 3 4 5 6
2010 Endowment .394 -.620 -.266 .450 .424 .071Public/Private .484 -.532 .272 .505 .211 -.327Enrollment -.101 .402 -.810 -.140 .189 -.028Involvement, Staff .564 -.528 -.156 -.572 -.165 -.112Involvement, Faculty .294 .826 .085 -.154 -.126 .403
Involvement, Students .830 -.182 .459 .213 -.049 .080
Funding, Relative Amount .939 .122 .278 .019 .108 -.113
Funding, Reliability .971 .090 -.076 -.083 -.082 .147Student Fee .270 -.326 -.001 .438 -.754 .058Top-down Initiation -.565 .219 .713 -.075 .338 .044Bottom-up Initiation .755 .086 -.570 .099 -.261 .100
Physical Space .765 -.257 .229 -.438 .272 .151Scope .018 .069 .286 .475 .244 .785Program Size .806 .305 -.233 -.296 .296 .007Age .500 .550 .362 -.516 -.141 .104AASHE .555 .284 -.452 .555 .070 .250STARS .843 .121 .108 .049 .298 -.385PCC .192 .594 .452 .424 -.262 -.218Climate Action Plan .268 .793 .072 .298 -.083 -.439Sustainability Action Plan -.335 .654 -.303 .306 .322 -.178
Quantitative Analysis
Principal Component 3 + enrollment - top-down initiation + bottom-up initiation
Principal Component 2 + faculty involvement + existence of planning
documents
Principal Component 1 + student involvement
+ relative funding + reliability of funding + bottom-up initiation + physical space + program size + participation in STARS
Principal Component
Percent of Original Variation Explained
1 35.0%
2 19.9%
3 14.0%
4 12.7%
5 7.94%
6 7.38%
Qualitative Analysis
Brandeis University Clemson University University of New Hampshire Rutgers University Virginia Military Institute Virginia Tech Wake Forest University The College of William and Mary
The College of William & Mary
President
Committee on Sustainability
Sustainability Fellow
The College of William & Mary
Green Fee instituted
Committee on Sustainability created
Sustainability Fellowship created
Qualitative Support of Principal Component 1
School Funding Amount
Funding Reliability
Size Space Bottom-up Initiation
Brandeis + 0 0 0 +Clemson + + + 0 -New Hampshire
+ + + + +
Rutgers + + + + 0VMI + + + + +Virginia Tech + + + + +
Wake Forest + + + + 0
William and Mary
- - - - +
Qualitative Support of Principal Component 2
School Faculty Involvement Planning DocumentsBrandeis 0 0Clemson + +New Hampshire + 0Rutgers 0 0VMI + +Virginia Tech 0 +Wake Forest 0 0William and Mary + +
Qualitative Support of Principal Component 3
School Enrollment Bottom-up Initiation
Top-down Initiation
Brandeis 0 + 0Clemson 0 + +New Hampshire
0 + 0
Rutgers 0 0 0VMI 0 + +Virginia Tech + + 0Wake Forest 0 0 0William and Mary
0 + 0
Qualitative Support of Variables Not in Principal Components
School Scope Age Participation in PCC
Brandeis - 0 -Clemson 0 0 -New Hampshire - 0 0Rutgers 0 0 0VMI 0 0 0Virginia Tech 0 0 0Wake Forest 0 0 0William and Mary
0 0 0
Discussion
Characteristics of Most Effective Institutional Structures High levels of funding Reliable funding Large program size Dedicated physical space Bottom-up initiation
Discussion
Unrelated characteristics: Scope Age
Broader Implications
Application to develop recommendations for institutions of higher education
Potential for future research
Acknowledgments
My interview participants My advisor, Dr. John Swaddle My thesis committee, Dr. David Feldman
and Dr. Randy Chambers The Committee on Sustainability and the
Student Environmental Action Coalition at William & Mary
My friends and family
FOR QUESTIONS ON MY RESEARCH:LAUREN EDMONDS, LCEDMONDS11@GMAIL.COM
FOR QUESTIONS ON THE WM SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM:WWW.WM.EDU/SUSTAINABILITY SARAH HANKE, SMHANKE@EMAIL.WM.EDU
QUESTIONS?
top related