1

First year students’ experience with respect to

sustainability at McGill University

Juliana Fanous 260509924ENVR 495 – Honours ThesisSupervisor: Dr. Julia Freeman

Due: April 22nd, 2016

Abstract

Higher education institutions have increasingly introduced sustainability concepts into their academic

dialogue, allowing students to comment on society and its challenges, and to engage students in

sustainable living. This paper explores first year students’ experience with respect to sustainability at

McGill University. The project’s data was collected using an online survey distributed to students

living in McGill downtown residences. The two main objectives of this research project were: 1) to

investigate the variations in sustainability conceptions, motivations, attitudes and behaviours held by

undergraduate first year students living in residence halls at McGill, and 2) to propose strategies to

effectively move forward with sustainability initiatives on campus from a student standpoint. A total of

167 first year students completed the questionnaire yielding a response rate of 5.8%. The study

revealed that the environmental pillar was most frequently articulated of all three dimensions of

sustainability (ecological, social and political). Interestingly, verbs and words pertaining to sustainable

‘actions’ were most commonly mentioned. Results also showed that sustainability was not a

motivational factor in attending the institution for most entering students. Respondent attitudes

demonstrated differences in viewpoints across the three dimensions of sustainability, and across three

scales: societal, institutional and personal. Findings substantiated the effectiveness of the residence

dining hall-composting program. Recommendations included utilizing students’ desire to partake in

research experience, and highlighting these opportunities across all disciplines. The study further

highlights the role of McGill University as a significant place to educate, motivate and support

community sustainable action.

2

Table of Contents

Abstract............................................................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction........................................................................................................................................................ 4

Background........................................................................................................................................................ 4The Concept of ‘Sustainability’.................................................................................................................................. 4The Role of Higher Education for Sustainability...................................................................................................4Research Context: McGill University....................................................................................................................... 5Target Population.......................................................................................................................................................... 5

Research Question............................................................................................................................................ 6

Methods............................................................................................................................................................... 6Participants..................................................................................................................................................................... 6Survey............................................................................................................................................................................... 6Variables.......................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Results and Discussion..................................................................................................................................... 7Demographic Characteristics of Respondents........................................................................................................ 7Understanding of “sustainability”............................................................................................................................. 9

Keywords........................................................................................................................................................................................... 9Definitions....................................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Motivational Factors for Attending McGill..........................................................................................................12Attitudes with respect to three pillars of sustainability......................................................................................14Behaviours and responses to sustainability initiatives on campus...................................................................16

Scaled Questions........................................................................................................................................................................... 16McGill Initiatives..........................................................................................................................................................................17

Comparative Analysis................................................................................................................................................ 18

Recommendations for McGill’s sustainability community....................................................................19

Limitations....................................................................................................................................................... 20

Future Research.............................................................................................................................................. 21

Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................ 21

References........................................................................................................................................................ 23

Appendix A: Survey....................................................................................................................................... 26

Appendix B: Keywords................................................................................................................................. 32

3

Introduction

A recent challenge of our time is to take the abstract concept of “sustainability” and apply it

into our daily experience. As McGill University and other higher education institutions begin to

prioritize sustainability, it has become critical to interpret student understandings, attitudes and

behaviours in order to turn this broad concept into a usable reality. Through this applied research

project, sustainability can be investigated through the lens of first year McGill students. The study will

help understand their personal manifestations of a broad concept while fostering self-reflection of their

own conception of the term. These students will be directly influenced for the next few years by newly

developed sustainability policies at McGill.

BackgroundThe Concept of ‘Sustainability’

Sustainability is notoriously complex and ambiguous. The most commonly cited definition of

“sustainable development” appeared in the 1987 United Nations Report Our Common Future, which

brought together the economic, social and environmental components of sustainability (WCED, 1987).

It is possibly the most recognized definition today as it states sustainable development to “meet the

needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”

(WCED, 1987, p.2). Embedded in this concept is the notion of intra-generational and cross-

generational equity (WCED, 1987). The vagueness of sustainability can sometimes make it difficult to

find a balance between trade-offs to help protect interests of all community members (Aber, Kelly &

Mallory, 2009). Sustainability should remain a work in progress that needs to be informed and

interpreted by the community and situation in which it is being utilized. It allows users to develop a

specific meaning within the diverse cultural, social and ecological systems of the local context. The

description is necessarily broad so that various organizations with diverse goals can apply the concept

to their own workings. For the purpose of this project specifically, a provisional definition is one that

emphasizes a balance between three interacting pillars: environmental responsibility, social equity and

economic well-being (Edwards, 2012; Newport et al., 2003).

The Role of Higher Education for Sustainability

Higher education institutions are critically important places of knowledge production,

perpetuation and dissemination (Astin, 1993; Bartlett, 2004; Cortese, 2003). Universities have

4

increasingly introduced sustainability concepts into their academic dialogue (Kelly, 2009). Higher

education has unique academic freedom and diversity of skills to develop new ideas, to comment on

society and its challenges, and engage students in sustainable living. This is essential for students to be

aware of the impact of their daily life in affecting the relationships between environmental, economic

and social issues, and to influence their actions as both local and global citizens. The importance of

sustainability in higher education has been widely acknowledged from 1990 onward with the writing

and signing of the Talloires Declaration by hundreds of universities worldwide (Khan, 2013). The

document, of which McGill University is a signatory, recognizes the responsibility of universities in

“creating an equitable and sustainable future for all humankind in harmony with nature” (ULSF, 1990,

p.1). Given the research, resources, intellectual freedom and unique social conditions created by

universities, such higher learning may well offer important contributions to moving toward a

sustainable future.

Research Context: McGill University

McGill University is an established higher education institution with an international reputation

for scholarly achievement and scientific discovery. The university is located in Montreal, Quebec and

has a student body of 27,075 undergraduate students, and entering class of 5,906 students that have

varying demographic backgrounds (McGill University, 2016). Student interest in sustainability has

increased in recent years, reflected by the incorporation of sustainability into the curriculum,

considerable growth in sustainability-related student groups, student involvement in large-scale

sustainability projects (including the creation of McGill Office of Sustainability (MOOS) and the

Sustainability Project Fund (SPF)), and the emergence of student-university partnerships in the areas of

food, waste, energy systems, among others. With McGill’s multicultural and diverse community, it is

important to understand student views and interpretations in relation to sustainable living to better

apply this concept to campus life (Thaman, 2002).

Target Population

For the purpose of this study, first year students were chosen as a specific group of individuals

who may have widely different levels of exposure to sustainability (as both a concept and set of

practices) prior to attending university. This group of individuals will be directly influenced for the

next few years by newly developed sustainability policies at McGill. This is the year the foundation

upon students’ entire educational experience is built and is a key time to introduce students to issues of

sustainability (Astin, 1993). Residence halls in particular are facilities critical for fostering knowledge

5

creation and many of which are organized around themes emphasizing the focus of campus culture

(Aber, Kelly & Mallory, 2009). The critical impact of residence halls due to the amount of time

students spend in these environments allow for engaging activities to encourage student involvement in

sustainable initiatives (Astin, 1993). Results from this study might help guide the sustainability

community at McGill in furthering efforts to engage students in sustainable practices and ways of

thinking in the long term. These students’ experiences will provide an excellent opportunity to shape

the campus culture.

Research Question

This project aims to explore the following question: what are undergraduate first year students’

experiences with respect to sustainability at McGill University? This is important to gain a

comprehensive understanding of how those students – not yet exposed to the university’s sustainability

practices – can help strengthen effective initiatives for communicating and implementing those habits

on campus. My two main objectives are to:

1) Investigate the variations in sustainability conceptions, attitudes and behaviours held by

undergraduate first year students living in residence halls at McGill, and

2) Propose strategies to effectively move forward with sustainability initiatives on campus from

a student standpoint.

Methods

This section offers information on the cross sectional study, specifically the research

participants, the survey instrument developed, and the data collection process.

Participants

I recruited participants from the incoming Fall 2015 first year class living in residence halls

belonging to the downtown campus of McGill University. The residences participating include:

Carrefour Sherbrooke, Douglas Hall, La Citadelle, McConnell Hall, Molson Hall, Gardner Hall,

MORE Houses, New Residence Hall, Royal Victoria College, Solin Hall, University Hall, and First

Peoples’ House Residence. Survey respondents were at least 18 years of age in order to be eligible, and

were chosen as a group of individuals who may have widely different levels of exposure to

sustainability prior to attending university (N=167).

6

Survey

An online survey questionnaire, created in consultation with MOOS, was developed to collect both

structured and open-ended data. A copy of the survey has been included in Appendix A. It contains five

major sections of questions:

a) Demographic characteristics and general information about student participants

b) Students’ understanding of the term ‘sustainability’

c) Motivating factors for attending McGill

d) Students’ attitudes with respect to the three pillars of sustainability

e) Student behaviours and responses to sustainability programs implemented on campus

The Internet survey link was distributed directly by Student Housing and Hospitality Services

(SHHS) via e-mail, and participation in this survey was entirely voluntary.

Variables

The dependent variable analyzed was undergraduate first year students’ experiences with

regards to sustainability and related issues. This includes their understanding of the concept, whether or

not sustainability was a motivational factor in their decision to come to McGill, students’ attitudes and

behaviors relating to sustainable initiatives on campus, and their response to implement projects. The

independent variables tested relate to their demographic characteristics, including their program of

study, gender, and geographic place of childhood. The report seeks to understand the complex

relationships of these variables.

Results and DiscussionThis section moves through the parts of the survey itself. An analysis of each component will

lead to a set of recommendations for McGill’s sustainability community.

Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

One hundred and sixty seven first year students living in downtown residences completed the

online survey, yielding a response rate of 5.8%. It should be noted that there is underrepresentation of

students native to Montreal considering the survey was restricted to students living in McGill

downtown residences. This section encompassed a wide range of questions including the student-

respondent’s year in school, faculty, department, gender, place of residence, type of living environment

(setting), and ethnicity. For the purpose of this report, the analysis focused on specific key

characteristics outlined in Table 1.

7

Table 1: Comparison of Sample (N=167), and Population 2015 Entering Class Demographic Data

Sample Population (Entering class)

Faculty (N = 166) Frequency % %Arts 70 42.2 32.8Arts and Science 16 9.6 3.2Education 2 2.3 7.1Engineering 15 9 12.4Management (Desautels) 13 7.8 10.5Music 2 1.2 2.7Religious Studies 0 0.0 0.2Science 43 25.9 19.2Type of area (N = 163)Suburban 71 43.6 UnavailableUrban (metropolitan area) 70 42.9Rural/small town (countryside)Other

19

3

11.7

1.8Gender (N = 165)Female 117 70.9 UnavailableMale 45 27.3Other 3 1.8

Of the total sample size, 70.9% identified as female, 27.3% identified as male 1.8% identified

as gender fluid or bi-gender. Evidently, a larger proportion of respondents were female, this either

might be related to the gender distributions of the target sample (although this was unavailable), or

because of gender response bias. Response biases favoring women are typically common in online

surveys of the general public (Cull et al, 2005). This distribution may impact this study’s findings given

that the literature indicates that female students tend to exhibit greater concern toward the risk-related

sustainability issues and greater support of the intrinsic value of nature than male students (Sahin,

Ertepinar, & Teksoz, 2012; Torbjornsson, Molin, & Karlberg, 2011). Another key demographic factor

are students’ faculties. The Faculties of Arts, Science, and Arts and Science had the greatest

proportions of students with 42.2%, 25.9% and 9.6% of the sample respectively. Students in these

faculties were moderately overrepresented, whereas those in Education, Engineering, Management and

Music were slightly underrepresented. As for the type of environment students predominantly grew up

in, there is an interesting pattern. Respondents were rather evenly split between growing up in suburban

environments (43.6%) and urban, metropolitan centers (42.9%). Only 11.7% of students grew up in

rural areas or small towns. Indeed, in a study of rural youth in Iowa, Schonert et al. (1991) found that

the majority of rural secondary students tended to not gravitate towards higher education institutions in

8

larger cities. Nonetheless, these findings demonstrate that respondents have experienced living

different density sized areas. The distribution of the samples in the university as shown in Table 1

conforms, to a certain extent, to the population distribution of McGill’s Fall 2015 entering class.

These statistics were utilized to ensure that the sample of respondents captured the diversity of

the campus. Overall, the sample reflected the population in most respects and inspires confidence in the

data despite a low response rate. Evidently, we do see a greater representation of survey respondents

identifying as female (70.9%) and enrolled in the Faculty of Arts (42.2%), which will be factored into

the analysis of the survey.

Understanding of “sustainability”

This section of the survey began with a scaled question about the level of familiarity with

sustainability. Most students seem to be familiar with the concept sustainability. Out of 167 responses,

over 66% of them rated this 4 or 5 on the 5-point Likert scale. These findings are moderately similar to

Kagawa’s research (2007), which found that over 77% of students self identified as having an above

average level of familiarity with the term sustainability. It should be noted that nuances exist with the

word “familiarity”. Familiarity is a generic feeling that might provoke a subjective feeling of

recognition. Therefore there is a distinction to be made about “familiarity” and words like “awareness”

or “knowledge”.

Keywords

Participants were first asked to brainstorm keywords, ideas, or thoughts generated when

considering sustainability. No definition of sustainability was provided in order to analyze the various

understandings of the term. Within the dataset, a coding scheme was manually developed to detect the

subtleties of human expression, and to identify the ideas and phrases that appeared most often. Codes

were used multiple times for the same response if key words or phrases within the same category

appeared in that response more than once. This dataset was used to gain a general understanding of the

ideas and actions respondents were linking to sustainability. The frequencies for the coding scheme are

reported in Appendix B.

A Word Cloud on Wordle was generated using the basic list of words and the number of times

they have been found in student responses. A Word Cloud is an image composed of words in which the

size of each word indicates its frequency. Figure 1 illustrates the Word Cloud for the sustainability

survey. Most respondents focused on the environmental aspects of sustainability as exemplified by the

highest frequency of the word “environment” which 67 students identified (Table 3 in Appendix B).

Students also strongly associated the action of “recycling” with the notion of sustainability (Table 7 in

9

Appendix B). This is most likely due to student engagement with the action, as well as the recognition

of the role and potential of to preserve the environment and its resources. The state of Colorado even

considers recycling to be the “cornerstone of sustainability” (CAFR, 2010).

Figure 1. Word Cloud generated based on respondents’ keywords for sustainability (N=161)

Figure 1 reveals that most students recognized environmental and technological issues of

sustainability, but few students associated the three-legged stool with sustainability, which

simultaneously acknowledges the economic and social dimensions as well as the environmental aspect

of sustainability. These findings reflect heavily those of Azapagic et al. (2005) and Summers et al.

(2004) that discovered students’ understanding was strong in terms of the environmental element of

sustainability, but there was a significant lack of insight and recognition of the social and economic

aspects. This discovery is indeed reflected in the results as illustrated by Table 1 of Appendix B. The

table shows a wide margin between total word frequency of the ‘ecological category’ (147), and both

‘social aspects’ (73) and ‘economics’ (34) categories. Interestingly, this table also illustrates how

students tend to refer to “action” words when considering sustainability. The ‘action category’ (Table 7

of Appendix B) is the most frequently coded category, and shows how students most commonly

address the need to take concrete ‘sustainable’ action.

Definitions

Directly following the keyword section, participants were directed to attempt a definition of

sustainability (N=156). Central themes and ideas were identified to determine common as well as

unique definitions of sustainability. Qualitative data analysis allowed for patterns to emerge from

students’ definitions.

Definitions that focused on the environmental pillar including the earth, energy and resources,

were most common. I further divided the environmental category into definitions that appeared to

address resources or the environment as a means to support humans (anthropocentric) and those that

10

included a reference to the environment beyond human-centered reasoning (biocentric). Examples that

alluded to the environment as a means to support humans (N=76) included mention of human needs,

generational needs, and keeping resources available to people. As one participant explained,

sustainability is often understood as,

“The ability to sustain oneself by their own means, for example by using natural resources for

source of energy as they do not run out, so that the future is secure.” (Male student, Faculty of

Engineering)

Another student drew out similar themes regarding the long-term management of resources for

the benefit of future generations.

“The state at which a group of people or person manages resources properly ie, the best for the

environment and themselves allowing for future life. (Male student, Faculty of Science)

Other examples refer to the environment beyond human-centered reasoning (N= 24) used

language that revealed a level of support or caring for the environment and its resources. Here,

sustainability was defined as,

“Trying to reduce impact on the environment by following practices that are stable, clean, safe,

and long-term.” (Female student, Faculty of Engineering)

Another pertinent theme that was brought up included any mention of people, humans, or

elements related to people such as generations, or lifestyles (n=102).

“Using resources in such a way that future generations will inherit a world that is either

similar or better than the one we have now. Making sure our footprint is minimal in terms of changing

the earth. Having a lifestyle that leaves a small carbon footprint.” (Female student, Faculty of Science)

Some respondents highlighted the need to consider a balanced human-environment relationship

while underlining the importance of advancing society.

“The ability and possibility of a society to keep developing, maintaining high living standard

of it people and good man-land relationship.” (Female student, Faculty of Arts)

Definitions that emerged from the data included only a temporal aspect to sustainability, with

neither a particular mention of the environment nor a mention of humans. In these definitions, it

seemed beyond my capacity to deduce an anthropogenic or environmental slant from the respondent. I

categorized these examples as temporal (N=13). One student simply characterized sustainability as,

“The ability to endure.” (Female student, Faculty of Arts)

Indeed, a number of students emphasized longevity and the capability to persist over time.

“The capacity to maintain a current condition.” (Male student, Faculty of Engineering)

11

Environmental and societal elements were mentioned that would coincide with those of

definitions within the literature. Respondents identified the temporal aspect of sustainability as well.

The focus was most strongly placed on humanistic factors, whether that was to provide for people in

the present or future generations. However, most did not consider the social justice elements that have

been associated with sustainability. The mention of economic factors, politics and culture was also

minimal within the dataset. Instruction is needed to move definitions and understandings beyond a

limited view of the lifestyles and “needs” of those in developed countries. These findings suggest the

potential avenues where students could be educated beyond the societal and environmental factors to

broaden their understanding of sustainability.

Motivational Factors for Attending McGill

This section reports students’ reasons for deciding to attend McGill University. In the literature,

respondents demonstrate that an amalgamation of reasons, including academic interests, future career,

social life, etc., is needed to attract students to university (Somers, Haines & Keene, 2006), and that

inclusion of sustainability alone is not enough to entice students to attending an institution.

Table 2: Ranking of motivational factors for choosing to attend McGill University (N =165)

In the survey, students were asked their opinions on various motivating factors (economic,

practical, academic, personal, cultural and commitment to sustainability) for choosing McGill

University. Most reasons varied in importance. Both cultural reasons (e.g. dynamic arts scene of

Montreal, McGill’s diverse and multicultural population, etc.) and economic reasons (e.g. tuition,

financial aid, cost of living, etc.) were relatively significant having 69.7% and 64.8% respectively, of

the total sample rank them as ‘somewhat important’ to ‘very important’. The results demonstrated that

academic reasons emerged as a significantly important reason for choosing to enroll at McGill for the

vast majority of students (93.9%). Respondents cite university teaching and education methods,

12

Reasons Very unimportant

Somewhat unimportant

Neutral Somewhat important

Very important

Economic 6.7% 13.3% 15.2% 35.2% 29.7%Practical 18.8% 27.9% 17.6% 27.3% 7.9%Academic 4.2% 0.0% 1.8% 18.8% 75.2%Personal 12.7% 14.5% 17.6% 38.2% 17.0%Cultural 7.3% 6.1% 17.6% 33.9% 35.8%McGill's commitment to sustainability

24.8% 23.0% 41.2% 7.3% 3.6%

position in international ranking, as well as internship, abroad and research opportunities, as the more

powerful attracting features of McGill rather than its commitment to sustainability. Although McGill’s

commitment to sustainability does not appear to be an influential factor in determining university

choice for the majority of students, some felt that considering McGill is a highly regarded institution, it

was natural for the school to focus on sustainability. One student explained,

“Honestly, I just had a general sense that this was one of the things McGill is working on. I think

part of this was an assumption – most high-ranked universities are working on projects related to

sustainability in some way.” (Female student, Faculty of Arts)

Despite being a minority, certain students felt very strongly about matters relating to sustainability

such as food waste, climate change and the natural environment.

“I couldn’t even consider going someplace that I couldn’t compost, or that I couldn’t be involved

in sustainability in some significant way.” (Female student, Faculty of Arts)

Those who felt that sustainability was a key factor in their decision to come to McGill tended to

also associate this concept with McGill’s reputation for research and innovation, stating for example,

“I know that because McGill is an internationally recognized institution, it would likely have

positive sustainability measures in place.” (Female student, Faculty of Arts)

Some of these students were driven to attend McGill to connect with peers and mentors with similar

academic interests.

“I am interested in energy engineering and there is a large presence of engineers here who work in

that field for sustainable engineering.” (Male student, Faculty of Engineering)

McGill’s sustainability community could potentially engage students’ strong interest in research

and academics to encourage them to partake in the multi-faceted aspects of sustainability. This will be

discussed in greater detail in the “recommendations” section of the report below.

Attitudes with respect to three pillars of sustainability

For this section, question design was important in order to understand how student attitudes

compare across multiple scales. The goal was to gain a general sense of the viewpoints respondents

held towards different aspects of sustainability. Three statements were generated within each of the

three ‘dimensions’ of sustainability – environment, economic and social. Within each of the

dimensions, there are statements that reflect three different scales – global, institutional (in this case,

McGill) and individual. Figure 2 illustrates student responses to these nine statements. The top row

(green bar graphs) represents students’ attitudes with respect to the environmental pillar of

13

sustainability. The middle row (red bar graphs) designates affirmations relating to social justice; and

the bottom row (blue bar graphs) denotes views relating to economic responsibility. As for the scales,

the left column illustrates outlooks directed to the global scale; the middle column reflects institutional

statements with a particular focus on McGill University; and the right column displays more personal

and individual viewpoints.

Figure 2. Nine bar graphs representing respondent’s attitudes with respect to the three pillars of sustainability at multiple scales (global, institutional and individual) (N=165).

The environmental statements reflected various ecological issues such as climate change, fossil

fuels, and greenhouse gas emissions. At a global scale, 93.3% of students ‘strongly agreed’ and

‘agreed’ for the need to take action against environmental threats. However, as we move towards the

institutional level we observe a slight shift in pattern. When certain environmental decisions more

directly affects student-life or their institution, students appear to have a variable range of perspectives.

14

While the majority (66.1%) still leaned towards the soundest ecological choice (“reducing greenhouse

gases”), there was a significant drop of respondents who felt McGill needed to take as committed

action as the rest of society. At the individual level participants were asked a broad question: whether

they were “willing to make sacrifices in terms of [their] consumer goods in order to resolve

environmental problems”. A great proportion (78.2%) of students generally agreed with this idea

suggesting that most participants are morally prepared to make lifestyle adjustments if they are certain

it will lead to a positive outcome. Regardless, there are obvious differences in respondents’ attitudes at

various scale levels. Students seem to have a stronger environmental perspective with respect to larger,

global scales than they do in their own personal lives. This idea coincides with the work of Fertel and

Waaub (2013) who examined the ethics of decision-making in the face of uncertainty. They found that

in the context of high uncertainty concerning the consequences of our actions, consequentialism does

not really allow us to establish a moral judgment of actions that we nevertheless need to take. Thus, it

might be difficult for students’ cognitive process to link their individual actions to probable global

catastrophe.

As for the social dimension, we observe a similar pattern in student thought as the

environmental element. This component encompasses topics relating to justice, diversity, equity and

labour conditions. With respect to the global perspective, the majority of students (76.4%) ‘agreed’ and

‘strongly agreed’ that the impacts of climate change will be unjustly distributed among the most

vulnerable. Similarly, at the institutional level, the greater part of the sample (77%) believed that

“McGill needs to be committed to diversity and equity in its employment practices”. As we move

towards the individual standpoint, the bar graph in Figure 2 shows a more scattered pattern in student

attitudes. When prompted about avoiding certain companies because of poor labor conditions, students

had varied responses. The proportion of students who felt ‘neutral’ about this issue was comparable to

the amount that ‘agreed’ with the statement (approx. 28.5%, respectively), while 15.8% of students

completely opposed the idea. The difference in people’s personal responses attests to the rich array of

perspectives that emerge when probing complex issues at multi-scales. These results also demonstrate

how one’s position and view of themselves in society can affect their perspective on social matters.

Finally, the reactions to the statements relating to the economic aspect of sustainability show a

slightly different pattern. The viewpoint that the “world’s wealthiest (though not necessarily highest

polluters) need to pay for the cost of climate change adaptation” is in itself an ambiguous statement. By

not clarifying whether the statement was referring to the wealthiest individuals in society, the

wealthiest communities, or the wealthiest countries, respondents could have interpreted the question

very differently. The graph (Figure 2) provides a snapshot view of students’ perspective regarding the

15

responsibility for the cost of mitigating the effects of climate change. Evidently, there is no consensus

among the student sample, which might be attributed to the ambiguous scope of the question. These

results conflict with the global perspectives of both the environmental and social statements, which

generally saw agreements or consensus among the population. Within the institutional part of the

economic pillar, 89.9% of students agreed or strongly agreed that McGill should consider sustainability

when purchasing its goods and services. Students believe that their higher education institution needs to

take action towards creating a more sustainable environment on campus, even if it comes at a cost. At

McGill, we have seen this through the development of the Sustainability Projects Fund (SPF). This

initiative was created through the approval of a ‘non-opt-outable’ student fee to be collected from

undergraduate and graduate students at the university (McGill University, 2016). Students hold a sense

of accountability to the university and have confidence in the institution to generate positive change

despite the financial burden. Unsurprisingly, when addressing more personal purchases, student

responses varied. Generally, most people were “willing to pay more to support a locally made product”,

although there is a significant amount (26.7%) who remained neutral on the subject matter. Student

ability to afford certain products may hinder or encourage them to purchase local goods. It is also

important to note the underlying response bias when self-reporting. Whether students’ attitudes

translate into relevant behavior is still up for debate.

Interestingly, the individual attitudinal statements (right-most column) vis-à-vis sustainability

(for all three pillars) show that students have differing opinions on whether they are willing to make

personal sacrifices for the greater good. It was expected that respondents would believe individual

action to be important. However, the perception of individual importance was significantly downplayed

once personal action was called into question (Figure 2). A significant proportion of the community

believes that societal action (especially for environmental and social pillars) to be important, whereas

personal action is not. Some may agree that individual contributions are needed, but some refuse to

take personal measures under the premise that their own actions are irrelevant.

Behaviours and responses to sustainability initiatives on campus

Scaled Questions

Students were asked to rate their behaviour level for different activities related to sustainability.

Responses were coded on a scale ranging from never (one) to always (five). Table 3 reports the mean

responses, standard deviation and skew statistic for the distributions of each scaled question. Indeed,

16

the skew values varied greatly across the different activities, demonstrating diverse behaviours. Results

showed that composting in residence dining halls is the most common form of behaviour for this

population of students. Located in the main dining halls (Carrefour Sherbrooke, New Residence,

Bishop Mountain Hall, and Royal Victoria College dining halls), Eco Stations allow visitors to reduce

unnecessary waste production by sorting their compost. Evidently this initiative is a key achievement

for McGill considering the significant amount of students who are involved in this strategy. Recycling

on campus also appeared to be popular, with most students falling between ‘always’ or ‘usually’

engaging in this behaviour. This was also the action most respondents associated with sustainability in

Figure 1, perhaps due to their dedication to the activity.

Table 3: Mean Ratings of Scaled Questions on Student Behaviour (N=165). The scale ranges from never (one) to always (five).

Mean Standard Deviation SkewRecycle in residence and campus 4.39 0.79 -1.25Compost in residence dining halls 4.45 1.06 -2.21Use reusable bottle or mug 3.82 0.98 -9.53Use reusable bags when shopping 3.58 1.19 -0.61Print double sided 4.33 1.02 -1.60Buy local 3.16 0.75 0.35Volunteer 2.44 1.19 0.39

The sustainable behaviours that students are least engaged in involved buying locally and

volunteering which both had skewness near zero, indicating a relatively normal distribution. Because

consumer-purchasing habits have a rapport with buying local products, it is unsurprising that most

typically identified with the middle spectrum (‘sometimes’). There are a wide variety of reasons why

respondents might not buy local products, which could vary from personal preference, financial

constraints, convenience and/or comfort. Volunteering was the most underutilized activity, as

demonstrated by Table 3, and the results demonstrate a need to engage people in collectivism.

McGill Initiatives

Within the behaviour section, students were asked about their involvement with McGill in

particular, as outlined by the two pie charts in Figure 3. Interestingly, although the majority of students

(60.4%) were unaware McGill has a sustainability strategy (Figure 3.a); approximately 69% of the total

sample population was ‘somewhat’ to ‘very interested’ in getting involved in sustainability initiatives

on campus (Figure 3.b). Despite not being informed about McGill’ specific vision for sustainability in

mind, students are keen to be partaking in the culture of sustainability on their campus.

17

Figure 3: Two pie charts, (a) showing respondents’ awareness of MOOS’ sustainability strategy, and (b) illustrating student interest in sustainability involvement on campus (N=164)

Students were also asked what category of McGill’s sustainability strategy (outlined in Vision

2020) they would be most like to get involved with at McGill. The most popular option students

selected was research. This encompassed applied student research (ASR), research centers and

institutes, as well as coursework. This finding is in line with results from the motivational factors for

attending McGill section, and its implications will be further explored in the recommendations section

for McGill’s sustainability community. Also, both connectivity, and operations (other aspects of the

sustainability strategy) were also significantly favored sustainable categories for involvement (having

43, and 42 respondents respectively). Although most students would rather embrace sustainability-

related research, there are good proportions of students among the other strategy categories.

Comparative Analysis

I compared one of the key demographic characteristics – student faculty – with student interest

in becoming involved with sustainable initiatives at McGill. This analysis was conducted to discern

whether certain faculties had differing levels of interest. Table 4 illustrates students’ faculty, the

number of respondents within each faculty and the proportion of students within each faculty’s level of

interest.

Table 4: Level of interest in getting involved with sustainability initiatives at McGill vs. student faculty of respondents (N=166)

Faculty Not interested (%)

Somewhat interested (%)

Interested (%)

Very interested (%)

I don’t know (%)

18

Arts (N = 68) 26.5 29.4 14.7 19.1 10.3Arts & Science (N = 16) 6.3 31.3 25.0 37.4 N/AEducation (N = 2) N/A 50.0 50.0 N/A N/AEngineering (N = 15) 20.0 40.0 20.0 6.7 13.3Management (N = 16) 15.4 46.1 23.1 15.4 N/AMusic (N = 2) N/A 50 N/A N/A 50Science (N = 47) 29.8 29.8 20.3 9.5 10.6

The table demonstrates that students across all faculties appear to be interested in involving

themselves in sustainable initiatives on campus. Other than the faculty of music (which only had 2

respondents), we have a range of approximately 30% to over 62% of students from the sample, within

each faculty, that are either ‘interested’ or ‘very interested’ in engaging with McGill’s culture of

sustainability. These results demonstrate how sustainability is important to students in a variety of

educational backgrounds.

Recommendations for McGill’s sustainability communityConsidering the findings of this project, several areas of interest emerge with regards to

potential strategies in further integrating sustainability at McGill. Creating a campus that is dedicated to

sustainability requires fostering collaboration between all areas and departments of an institution.

Students, faculty and staff need to work together in order to accomplish the goal of sustainability. The

emphasis on interdepartmental and interdisciplinary collaboration directly relates to the findings.

Indeed, very few first year students emphasized the three pillars of sustainability, typically favoring one

over the others. Students absolutely need to understand that holistic thinking and collaboration across

disciplinary and institutional boundaries is essential (Remington-Doucette et al, 2013), rather than

confining the topic of sustainability to subjects such as geography and environment. Valuable

knowledge can come from different fields of study (not always widely associated with sustainability)

such as sociology, economics, biology, engineering, etc., and needs to be incorporated in McGill’s

sustainability movement.

Another key finding that should be utilized is students’ keenness for research. Students need to

be engaged in critical reflection about their school, uniting with peers and others across the university

community in collective action to seek innovative strategies for sustainability. Because McGill ranks

among the finest research-intensive university in the world (Maclean’s, 2015), many students are

attracted to the institution’s academic resources. McGill’s sustainability community needs to tap further

into students’ interest in research and applied student research (ASR) from a wide variety of faculties

and departments. Providing students the opportunity to connect with faculty and staff to conduct

19

sustainability-related research is an efficient way to gain momentum. Because many entering students

are eager to forge relationships with professors and generally involve themselves in the McGill

community, this is an opportunity to draw on their motivation to partake in such projects. Making

research more accessible and available to students, who may not have an immense breadth of

knowledge or experience, is key to include first year students. There is increasing need to create,

emphasize and highlight these types of opportunities for students to become more engaged in

sustainability. Evidently, a viable way to increase the role of sustainability in higher education is to

create a campus that fosters collaborative and interdisciplinary research and teaching.

LimitationsThere were limitations in the study, which arose mostly from the generation of the survey. The

demographic data of the sample aligned relatively well with the demographics of the population.

However, one might speculate that participants within the 5.8% response rate generally had an affinity

for sustainability. As is the case with many voluntary online surveys (without incentives), response bias

may have further shifted towards those with a personal interest or stake in the topic (Dillman et al.,

2009; Duda & Nobile, 2010).

Furthermore, with such a small proportion of the actual population, it is very hard to draw firm

conclusions as to the first year students’ experiences with respect to sustainability. Increasing the

sample size by using more efficient measures to disseminate the survey could be favorable in collecting

more data. For example, sharing the survey on appropriate social media (e.g. Facebook groups) has

shown to be very effective in gathering research participants (Yuan, O Johnson & Saberi, 2014),

especially students.

Although demographic data between the sample and the population were consistent, the sample

was not completely random within the population of first years. Only first year students living in

residences at the downtown campus were selected for this study. Students living at MacDonald

Campus, who may have widely different views of sustainability, were not considered in the sample

population.

Questionnaires tend to be reactive measures and are limited in their ability to assess perceptions

within a real world setting, which may invoke different participant responses (Wysor, 1983; Attari et

al., 2010). In addition, it may have been difficult for respondents to capture and organize their true

thoughts on a concept as complex as sustainability. However, in the context of developing university

20

initiatives and programs for sustainability, knowing what students are able to think about is a useful

place to start.

For the sake of time and conciseness of the paper, it was difficult to take into account all of the

data collected throughout the survey. For the purpose of the study not all the survey results were

incorporated into the findings of this project. I had to select certain data to showcase for the intention of

the project, but this will be further discussed in the implications for future research.

Future ResearchAlthough this project was helpful in revealing first year students’ experiences with respect to

sustainability at McGill, the small sample relative to the greater population does not allow for

conclusive findings. Therefore further research should be conducted to investigate larger populations of

students including those living off campus, as well as students from MacDonald Campus. The target

population could also incorporate the whole student body (undergraduate and graduate students) rather

than simply first years. Conducting similar studies across time could show the changing conditions and

evolution of student experiences with respect to sustainability. Furthermore, since not all demographic

characteristics from the survey were analyzed it would be interesting to look more deeply into

attributes such as ethnic background and primary place of residence. Another area for future

consideration is the influence of mass media and communication networks on shaping student

perceptions of sustainability.

ConclusionUnderstanding students’ relationship with sustainability is important because they will become

the generation who is responsible for maintaining a sustainable society. In the context of McGill, it

behooves members of the university to be conscious of its students’ insight of sustainability. The

project has been successful in achieving its research aims, despite the low response rate of 5.8%. The

research has illuminated key components of first year students’ experience with respect to

sustainability at McGill. Despite the majority of respondents being female and/or in the Faculty of Arts,

the sample population was relatively representative of the demographics for the 2015 entering class. It

was revealed that the majority of students have a basic understanding and awareness of sustainability.

This work has revealed inconsistencies within student definitions and perceptions in relation to the

literature. In considering the three elements of sustainability, the environmental, social and economic

pillars, some students recognized environmental and humanistic components, but very few recognized

21

a combination of all three features. Sustainability was not a significant motivating factor for students to

attend McGill University, but results showed that the McGill community could utilize student interest

in research to involve students in the sustainability movement. As for student attitudes relating to

sustainability, viewpoints varied across the three dimensions and across scales. Generally, students

hold larger scales (society and McGill) more accountable to issues of sustainability than they do

themselves at an individual level. Although most were unaware the McGill had an implemented

sustainability strategy, the majority of respondents were interested in getting involved in sustainable

initiatives on campus, demonstrating the immense potential for students to become more engaged in

McGill’s sustainability culture. Based on the project’s findings, suggestions highlight the need to

emphasize collaborative and interdisciplinary learning and research. The sustainability community

could also target stimulated faculty, staff and students from all areas of study to create partnerships in

promoting sustainability on campus. Institutions of higher education stress the importance of creating

individuals that are global citizens and critical thinkers. Educating students on the importance of living

sustainably could create a positive change in our world by producing citizens with critical and global

perspectives.

22

References

Aber, T. Kelly, & B. Mallory. (2009). The sustainable learning community: One university’s journey to the future (Eds.). (pp.1-53). Lebanon, NH: University of New Hampshire Press.

Astin A. W. (1993). Implications for Educational Theory and Practice. In What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited (pp.396-437). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Attari, S.Z., DeKay, M.L., Davidson, C.I., & Bruine de Bruin, W. (2010). Public perceptions of energy consumption and savings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 16054- 16059

Azapagic, A. Perdan, S. & Shallcross, D. (2005). How much do engineering students know about sustainable development? The findings of an international survey and possible implications for the engineering curriculum. European Journal of Engineering Education, 30(1), 1-19.

Barlett, P.F. (2004). No Longer Waiting for Someone Else to Do It: A Tale of Reluctant Leadership. In Barlett, P.F. & Chase, G.W. (Eds.), Sustainability on campus: Stories and strategies for change (pp.67-90). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Colorado Association for Recycling [CAFR]. (2010). Recycling: A Cornerstone of Sustainability. (Retrieved March 16, 2016), from http://www.cafr.org/pdf/resources/RecyclingandSustainability.pdf

Cortese, A.D. (2003). The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future. Planning for Higher Education, 31(3), 15-22.

Cull, W.L., O’Connor, K.G., Sharp, S., & Tang, S-f. S. (2005). Response Rates and Response Bias for 50 Surveys of Pediatricians. Health Services Research, 40(1), 213-226.

Dillman, D., Smyth, J. & Christian, L.M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Duda, M.D., & Nobile, J.L. (2010). The fallacy of online surveys: No data are better than bad data. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 15, 55.64.

Edwards, K.E. (2012). Moving beyond green: Sustainable development toward healthy environments, social justice, and strong economies. New Directions for Student Services, 2012(137), 19-28.

Fertel, C. & Waaub, J-P. (2013). Climate change, uncertainty and ethical perspectives: the role of decision-making tools. International Social Science Journal, 64(211-212), 39-54.

Kagawa, F. (2007). Dissonance in students’ perception of sustainable development and sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 8(3), 317-338.

23

Kelly, T. (2009). Sustainability as an organizing principle for higher education. In J. Aber, T. Kelly, & B. Mallory (Eds.), The sustainable learning community: One university’s journey to the future (pp.1-53). Lebanon, NH: University of New Hampshire Press.

Khan, T. (2013). Sustainability Accounting Courses, Talloires Declaration and Academic Research. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 14(1), 42-55.

Maclean’s. (2015). McGill. (Retrieved April 1, 2016), from http://www.macleans.ca/schools/mcgill-university/

McGill University. (2016). Enrolment reports. (Retrieved February 12, 2016), from https://www.mcgill.ca/es/registration-statistics

McGill University. (2016). About the Sustainability Projects Fund. (Retrieved May 1, 2016), from https://www.mcgill.ca/sustainability/spf/about-spf

Newport, D., Chesnes, T., & Lindner, A. (2003). The "environmental sustainability" problem: Ensuring that sustainability stands on three legs. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 4(4), 357-363.

Remington-Doucette, S. Hiller Connell, K. Armstrong, C. & Musgrove, S. (2013). Assessing sustainability education in a transdisciplinary undergraduate course focused on real-world problem solving: A case for disciplinary grounding. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 14 (4), 404-433.

Sahin, E., Ertepinar, H., & Teksoz, G. (2012). University students’ behaviors pertaining to sustainability: A structural equation model with sustainability-related attributes. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, (7)3, 459-478.

Schonert, K.A., Elliott, J.P., & Bills, D.B. (1991). Rural Iowa youth: A descriptive summary of postsecondary persistence five years after high school. Research in Higher Education: Journal of the Association of Institutional Research, 32(3), 269-288.

Somers, O., Haines, K. & Keene, B. (2006). Toward a theory of choice for community college students. College Journal of Research and Practice, 20, 53-67.

Summers, M. Corney, G., & Childs, A. (2004). Student Teachers' Conceptions of Sustainable Development: The Starting-Points of Geographers and Scientists. Educational Research, 46 (2), 163-182.

Thaman, K.H. (2002). Shifting Sights: the Cultural Challenge of Sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 3(3), 233-242.

Torbjornsson, T., Molin, L., & Karlberg, M. (2011). Measuring attitudes towards three values that underlie sustainable development. New Swedish Environmental and Sustainability Education Research, (20)1, 97-121.

University Leaders for a Sustainable Future [USLF]. (1990). Talloires Declaration. (Retrieved August 2, 2015), from http://www.ulsf.org/talloires_declaration.html

24

World Commission on Environment and Development [WCED]. (1987). Our Common Future (pp.2). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press

Wysor, M.S. (1983). Comparing college student’s environmental perceptions and attitudes: A methodological investigation. Environment and Behavior, 15(5), 615-645.

Yuan, P., Bare, M.G., O Johnson, M., & Saberi, P. (2014). Using Online Social Media for Recruitment of Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Positive Participants: A Cross-Sectional Survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(5), np.

25

Appendix A: Survey

Page 1

First year students’ experience with respect to sustainability at McGill UniversityREB#: 177-1015

You have been selected to participate in a research study on first year students’ experience with respect to sustainability. I am conducting a short and anonymous survey to find out about your understanding, attitudes and behaviours relating to sustainability on campus. The survey should take no more than 15 minutes to complete.

Your participation in the survey is entirely voluntary and you may withdraw from completing the survey at any time. Your responses will be completely anonymous.

If you agree to participate, please answer the following questions to the best of your ability even if you feel your investment in, or knowledge of, sustainability is low. Please answer as frankly and honestly as you can. There are no wrong answers in this survey! Other than the consent and age inquiries, you do not have to answer any questions that you feel uncomfortable with and can simply move on to the next question.

If you have questions or concerns about the project, please contact the research supervisor Dr. Julia Freeman at julia.freeman@mcgill.ca or at (514) 398-6997.

If you would like more information on the rights of research participants, please contact Ms. Lynda McNeil with Research Ethics Board (REB) Office at (514) 398-6831 or lynda.mcneil@mcgill.ca.

By completing this survey, you consent that you are 18 years of age or older, have read the above information, and voluntarily agree to participate in the research.

Thank you for your collaboration!

Please select your choice below. You may print a copy of this consent form for your records. Clicking on the “Agree” button indicates that:

You have read the above information You voluntarily agree to participate You are 18 years of age or older

Agree

Disagree

26

Page 2

SECTION A – DEMOGRAPHICS

1. What is your year in school? U0 U1 Other: ____________

2. What Faculty are you in? Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences Faculty of Arts Faculty of Arts and Science Faculty of Dentistry Faculty of Education Faculty of Engineering Faculty of Law (Desautels) Faculty of Management Faculty of Medicine Faculty of Music Faculty of Religious Studies Faculty of Science I don’t know Other (please specify): ____________________________________________________

3. What is your Department (i.e. major program of study)? Please write undecided if you have not yet declared a major. ______________________________________________________

4. What do you identify as: Male Female Other

5. Where is the primary place you grew up? Please state the city and the country.______________________________________________________________________

6. Would you say that area was… Suburban Urban (metropolis area) Rural/ small town (countryside) Other, please specify:_______________________________________________

7. What is your background? Please choose all that apply.

Aboriginal or Indigenous, please specify: ______________________________________

African, please specify the country: __________________________________________

Asian, please specify the country: ____________________________________________

27

Australia or Oceania, please specify the country: ________________________________

Central American or Caribbean, please specify the country: _______________________

European, please specify the country: ________________________________________

Middle Eastern, please specify the country: ____________________________________

North American, please specify the country: ____________________________________

South American, please specify the country: ____________________________________

Would rather not say

Other, please specify: _____________________________________________________

Page 3

SECTION B – UNDERSTANDING OF SUSTAINABILITY

8. Please rate your level of familiarity with the concept of sustainability:Not at all familiar Very Familiar

1 2 3 4 5

9. Consider the term sustainability. Please list any keywords, ideas or actions that come to mind when you think about Sustainability. Please spend one minute brainstorming ideas and list whatever comes to mind (minimum 5 items). Do not worry about spelling or grammar.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

10. How would you define to the best of your ability what is meant by ‘sustainability’:

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 4

SECTION C – MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS

11. How important were the following when choosing which to enrol at McGill? For each reason listed below, please select only one ranking of importance.

Very important

Somewhat important

Neutral Somewhat unimportant

Very unimportant

Don’t know

Rather not say

Economic reasons i.e. tuition

28

cost, scholarships, financial aid, etc. Practical reasons i.e. proximity of the university to home, availability of residences on campusAcademic reasons i.e. teaching/education methods, position of university in international ranking, study abroad, internship and research opportunities, etc. Personal reasons i.e. the reputation of the university, family ties, athletics, attractiveness of location, etc.Cultural reasons i.e. multiculturalist and diversity of student body, city of Montreal (arts, music, food), opportunity to learn French/English etc.McGill’ s commitment to sustainability i.e. purpose of working together toward a shared vision for a flourishing future in a manner that integrates social, economic and environmental dimensions

12. For respondents who put “McGill’s commitment to sustainability” as “somewhat important or “very important”, could you please elaborate/ explain what about sustainability at McGill interested you? I.e. what from McGill specifically attracted you, how did you find out about it, etc.? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 5

SECTION D – GENERAL ATTITUDES

13. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. Please be honest.

Strongly agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Don’t know

Rather not say

Environmental aspects of SustainabilityWe, as a society, need to reduce fossil fuel use in

29

order to respond to the danger of climate change McGill needs to do more to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of its activitiesI am willing to make sacrifices in terms of my consumer goods in order to help resolve environmental problemsSocial aspects of SustainabilityThe impacts of climate change will be unjustly distributed among the most vulnerable populationsMcGill needs to be committed to diversity and equity in its employment practices. I avoid certain companies because I do not agree with their labour conditionsEconomic aspects of SustainabilityThe world’s wealthiest (though not necessarily the highest polluters) need to pay for the cost climate adaptation McGill should purchase its goods and services with sustainability in mind. I am willing to pay more to support a locally made product

14. How would you best describe your attitude towards sustainability? Please select only one response.

I think it is a waste of time and effort

I am not really interested in it

It is OK if others want to do it

I think it is a good thing

I am interested but I’m no eco-freak

I am a passionate advocate

Page 6

SECTION E – BEHAVIOURS AND RESPONSE TO SUSTAINABLE INITATIVES

15. Since arriving at McGill, of the following activities, please indicate the extent to which you engage in the following activities by assigning the appropriate number from the scale below. Please be honest. 1 2 3 4 5

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

___Recycle paper, glass or plastic bottles in residence or on campus___Compost in residence dining halls___Consumer beverages in a reusable bottle or cup___Use reusable bags when shopping

30

___Printing notes or readings double sided ___Buy local products___Volunteer

16. Were you aware McGill has a sustainability strategy? Yes No

17. Are you interested in getting involved with sustainability initiatives at McGill (e.g. projects to make the campus more sustainable, applied research on sustainability, etc.) Very interested

Interested

Somewhat interested

Not interested

I don’t know

18. Which of the following sustainability strategies (as outlined by the McGill Sustainability Office) would you most like to get involved with at McGill?

Research i.e. applied student research, research centers, institutes and courses

Education i.e. faculties & schools, courses, etc.

Connectivity i.e. community engagement, health & belonging, sustainability partnerships, etc.

Operations i.e. waste & recycling, buildings & utilities, transportation, food & dining, etc.

Governance & Administration i.e. policies, commitments, reports, etc.

Are there any other comments you would like to make regarding sustainability on campus?

Thank you for your participation!

31

Appendix B: Keywords

Table 1: Table shows the description for each keyword category, as well as the total number of words (frequency) per category.

Category Description for each keyword category Total word frequencyTemporal This group contains words that indicate the passage of time as relevant

to the concept of sustainability 100

Ecological This group contains words that refer to aspects of the physical environment, most often as elements of the natural environment

147

Economics This group contains any mention of factors that pertain specifically to capital generating (or not generating) capability in relation to sustainability

34

Social aspect This groups contains words and ideas that represent a focus on humans, their needs and their role within sustainability

73

Technology This group contains words and ideas that apply scientific knowledge for the practical purpose of generating sustainable practices, especially in the industry

128

Actions This group contains words relating the process of doing something, typically to achieve an aim in relation to the concept of sustainability

223

Descriptive words

This group contains words and adjectives that seek to describe or name attributes relating to sustainability

152

Other This groups contains words that were too difficult to classify or that did not fit well within the designated categories

79

Table 2: Table shows the words and their frequency associated with the “temporal” category

Word Frequency Word Frequency Word FrequencyEndurance 13 Renewable 21 Generations 12Future 28 Present 3 Persistence/long term 23

Table 3: Table shows the words and their frequency associated with the “ecological” category

Word Frequency Word Frequency Word FrequencyEnvironment 67 Water 13 Acid rain 1Ecosystem 11 Air 1 Animals 3Ecological 10 Biological 1 Biodiversity 3Nature 16 Planet/Earth 16 Life 5

Table 4: Table shows the words and their frequency associated with the “economics” category

Word Frequency Word FrequencyEconomics 8 Trade offs 2Development 10 Business 2Growth 3 Econometric 1Money 2 Economical 3Autarky 1 Market 2

32

Table 5: Table shows the words and their frequency associated with the “social aspects” category

Word Frequency Word Frequency Word FrequencyPolitics 1 Society/ Humanity/

People8 Responsible 11

Liberal 2 Hunger 1 Greed 1Conflicts 1 Diversity 1 Vegan/ Vegetarian 3Refugee 1 Standard of Living 3 Lifestyle 2Fair trade 1 Community 5 Morals/ ethics/

Integrity4

Consumption 8 Food 7 Volunteer 1Education 4 Pollution 4 Public transportation

2Culture 1 Medical field 1

Table 6: Table shows the words and their frequency associated with the “technology” category

Word Frequency Word Frequency Word FrequencyEnergy 24 Solar energy 4 Electricity 10Renewable/ Alternative energy

17 Wind energy 3 Lights 2

Energy saving 7 Ecological/ Carbon footprint

9 Research 1

Biofuels 1 Fossil fuels/ Greenhouse gases

9 Production 6

Water power 1 Resources 27 Technology 4Innovation 3

Table 7: Table shows the words and their frequency associated with the “action” category

33

Word Frequency Word Frequency Word FrequencyAction 4 Deplete 3 Mitigate 1Recycle 62 Protect 9 Minimize 6Reduce 35 Conserve 14 Adapt 4Reuse 21 Maintain 4 Use 8Helping 2 Repurpose/ Change 4 Optimize 3Compost 13 Preserve 13 Nurture 1Plan 4 Manage 8 Support 4

Table 8: Table shows the words and their frequency associated with the “descriptive words” category

Word Frequency Word Frequency Word FrequencyTrendy 2 Feasible/ Viable 5 Biodegradable 1Smart 1 Self-sustaining 5 Independent 2Eco-friendly 18 Natural 4 Misunderstood 1Healthy/Well being

7 Safe 2 Scarcity 1

Living 7 Practical 1 Important 1Fortified/Strong 2 Equilibrium/

Balance/ Stable19 Aware 5

Conscious 9 Local 6 Green 19Foundation 1 Efficient 21Clean 11 Happiness 1

Table 9: Table shows the words and their frequency associated with the “other” category

Word Frequency Word Frequency Word FrequencySex 1 Carrying capacity 3 Paper 2Cycle 3 Waste 23 Solutions 3Supply and Demand 1 Hope 1 Muir/ Pinchot 1Climate change/ Global warming

16 Farming/ Crops/ Agriculture

9 System 8

Impact 3 Organic 4 Security 1Urgent 1 Care 1 Ecosystem

service1

34