SHE’s All That: Applying Sustainability in Higher Education Criteria to The University of British Columbia

Prepared by: Naomi Horst For Fulfillment of ERS 412

Undergraduate Thesis April 12, 2013

ii

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to explore the sustainability initiatives of the University of British Columbia (UBC) within curricula, their campus as a living lab programs, and other major demonstration projects such as the new Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS). This study will analyze UBC’s ambition of acting as a societal test bed for sustainable higher education and will discuss whether there exist unique factors at UBC that make their approach possible, or whether their sustainability initiatives can be implemented at any higher education institution. Design/methodology- A literature review of relevant scholarship was completed to inform interview questions which would be asked during interviews with key members of the UBC community. Following this research collection, Gibson’s (2006) sustainability criteria was used to create a framework to assess the sustainability initiatives implemented at UBC. Findings- UBC has evident areas of strength in administrative leadership, building design, and their Campus as a Living Laboratory program; however, they must address their areas of weaknesses in order to be considered an exemplar of sustainability in higher education. Originality/value- There is a plethora of research available on individual aspects of sustainability in higher education, yet nothing that looks as extensively at a single University’s sustainability pathways. The frameworks developed in this study can be easily applied to other institutions and will provide insight into their sustainability performance. When widely applied, these frameworks would provide a better understanding of the state of university sustainability.

iii

Table of Contents

Abstract .................................................................................................... ii

List of Tables and Figures ........................................................................ v

1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose and Rationale ........................................................................... 2 1.2 Boundaries and Limitations .................................................................... 3 1.3 Methodology ........................................................................................... 3

2.0 Approaches to Sustainability in Higher Education ............................ 5 2.1 Defining Sustainability ........................................................................... 5

2.1.1 Regenerative Sustainability ....................................................................... 6 2.1.2 Sustainability in Higher Education .............................................................. 6 2.1.3 Gibson’s Sustainability Criteria ................................................................... 8 2.2 Implications ................................................................................................ 9

3.0 Organization and Implementation of Sustainability Initiatives ..... 10 3.1 Structuring of Sustainability Initiatives and Tools ............................... 11

3.1.1 Top Down or Bottom Up Change ............................................................. 11 3.2 Major Demonstration Projects .................................................................... 12

3.3 Active Stakeholders .............................................................................. 12 3.4 Summary and Frameworks ................................................................... 13

4.0 Exploring UBC’s Sustainability Initiatives ....................................... 15 4.1 UBC Stakeholder Roles and Organization ............................................. 16

4.1.2 Faculty and Staff .................................................................................... 17 4.1.3 Students ................................................................................................ 18 4.1.4 Individual Champions ............................................................................. 18

4.2 Applying the Framework for Sustainability Initiatives to UBC’s Initiatives ................................................................................................... 19

4.2.1 Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability ...................................... 19 4.2.2 Campus as a Living Lab .......................................................................... 22 4.2.3 Sustainability Curriculum ......................................................................... 25

4.3 Additional Sustainability Initiatives ..................................................... 29 4.4 Summary .............................................................................................. 30

5.0 Applying the Sustainability in Higher Education Framework to UBC ............................................................................................................... 31

5.2 Applying The Sustainability in Higher Education Framework ............... 31 5.3 Summary and Implications................................................................... 35

5.3.1 Sustainability Curriculum ......................................................................... 35 5.3.2 Operational Initiatives............................................................................. 36 5.3.3 Sustainability Research ........................................................................... 36 5.3.4 Community Outreach .............................................................................. 37 5.3.5 Administrative Support ........................................................................... 37

6.0 Next Steps for UBC Sustainability ................................................... 38

iv

6.1 Recommendations ................................................................................ 38 6.1.1 Recommendations Concerning Curriculum ................................................ 38 6.1.2 Recommendations Concerning the Campus as a Living Laboratory program 39 6.1.3 Recommendations Concerning Communicating Successes .......................... 40 6.1.4 Recommendations Concerning Improving Awareness ................................ 40

7.0 Relevance to Other Higher Education Institutions ......................... 41 8.0 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................... 42

References ............................................................................................. 44

Appendices ............................................................................................. 49 A. Interview Questions for Interviewee 1 ............................................... 49 B. Interview Questions for Interviewee 2 ............................................... 51 C. Interview Questions for Interviewee 3 ............................................... 52 D. Interview Questions for Interviewee 4 ............................................... 53 E. Sample of Available Courses with Sustainability Content .................... 55

v

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1: Gibson's Generic Sustainability Criteria ................................................ 8 Table 2: Applying Gibson's Criteria to SHE ........................................................ 9 Table 3: Framework for Sustainability in Higher Education Error! Bookmark not

defined. Figure 1: Sustainability Content of Courses………………………………………………….23

1

1.0 Introduction

In a world of changing climates and continued environmental degradation such

as loss of ecosystem integrity and impairment of ecosystem services,

incorporating the principles of sustainability into social and economic

organization and behaviour has become crucial. Education has been identified as

a key area for inspiring environmental change. In fact, the need to transform

education systems to teach sustainability has received so much attention that the

United Nations named 2005-2014 as the Decade of Education for Sustainable

Development (United Nations, 2002).

Universities are well placed to address this problem as centres of critical thinking

and higher learning. Following this declaration of the importance of education

for sustainable development, a new transdisciplinary research field emerged:

Sustainability in Higher Education. Sustainability in Higher Education scholars

come from many disciplines including environmental sciences, philosophy,

education, engineering and economics (Beringer and Adombent, 2008).

Now, eleven years after the Decade of Education for Sustainability began, major

research and implementation gaps remain in the field of Sustainability in Higher

Education. Current research and practice addressing sustainability in higher

education is lacking a broader understanding of the barriers and solutions posed

to universities. Rather, studies focus on specific areas of sustainability such as

operations, or curriculum (Djordjevic and Cotton, 2011; Dyer et al., 2006; Teksoz

et al., 2012), or on particular cohorts such as faculty, students or administration,

and their perceptions of sustainability (Cotton et al., 2009; Emmanuel and

Adams, 2011; Reid and Petocz, 2006; Wright, 2010; Wright and Wilton, 2012;

Wright and Horst, in press). The problem with such compartmentalization is that

it leads to a perpetuation of “silo” thinking and prevents the promotion of a

2

comprehensive university-wide approach. This study aims to address this

research gap and promote meaningful action.

Many universities hold efforts to incorporate sustainability more effectively into

their teaching and other activities. The University of British Columbia (UBC) has

been particularly successful at making sustainability a top priority of their

institution. UBC has a long track record of sustainability initiatives. Recently, they

have declared their intent to act as a societal test bed for sustainability by taking

a campus as a living laboratory approach to promote what they have defined as

regenerative sustainability (Robinson et al., forthcoming). Regenerative

sustainability is the concept of going beyond the minimization of negative

impacts, and providing a positive outcome with human actions. This study will

explore the university’s approach to integrating sustainability across the campus,

and will assess their efforts and intentions towards sustainability with Gibson’s

sustainability criteria (2006). UBC was chosen as the institution for the developed

framework for this study to be applied due to it’s long record of sustainability

initiatives, its faculty members with relevant expertise in sustainability, and to

assess their claim of being a test bed for sustainable higher education

institutions. In order for UBC to truly be a societal test bed for sustainability,

their sustainability must first be analyzed as to reveal their strengths and

weaknesses, before another institution can replicate or build upon their

strategies. This study will help in UBC’s goal of becoming an example for other

institutions by providing insight into their implantation practices, and improving

transparency.

1.1 Purpose and Rationale

The purpose of this study is to explore the sustainability initiatives of UBC,

particularly how they incorporate of sustainability within curricula, their campus

as a living lab programs, and other major demonstration projects such as the

3

new Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS). This study will

analyze UBC’s ambition of acting as a societal test bed for sustainable higher

education institutions by exploring the various initiatives and approaches taken

by the UBC community. The analysis of sustainability will apply Gibson’s (2006)

sustainability criteria. Finally, this paper will discuss whether there exist unique

factors at UBC that make their approach possible, or whether their sustainability

initiatives can be implemented at any higher education institution.

1.2 Boundaries and Limitations

This literature review for this study was limited to higher education institutions in

developed countries for several reasons. First, there is a lack of available

research regarding higher education institutions in developing countries, and a

lack of access to potential interviewees for interviews. Second, I believe that

higher education institutions in developed countries have the greatest potential

impact for influencing sustainability. There are other institutions of higher

education; however, this study will primarily focus on universities and colleges.

1.3 Methodology

This study began by looking at existing literature regarding sustainability in

higher education. There is a plethora of research regarding potential barriers to

sustainability in higher education with regards to university stakeholder roles, as

well as universities as a whole (Brinkhurst et al., 2011; Koester et al., 2006;

Finlay and Massey, 2012; Fien, 2002 Djordjevic and Cotton, 2011).

The research findings collected were used to develop two frameworks for

assessing how higher education institutions can implement sustainability. These

frameworks were grounded in Gibson’s sustainability criteria (2006), and built

upon research by Koester, et al (2006), Finlay and Massey (2012), and

Brinkhurst et al. (2011). One framework, the Framework for Sustainability

4

Initiatives, was developed for assessing sustainability at an individual initiative

level, and the second, The Framework for Sustainability in Higher Education, was

created for institution-wide application. Both frameworks are informed by

Gibson’s criteria (2005) and each focus area of higher education sustainability:

curriculum, research, operations, and community outreach.

After a review of existing literature, UBC was selected as a case study in which to

apply the developed frameworks to a higher education institution. UBC was

chosen because of its extensive track record of sustainability and its ambitious

goals for the future. Interviews were completed to complement what information

was gathered from literature and what was available on the UBC website. Based

on involvement in the sustainability initiatives currently underway at UBC,

participants were selected for interviews. Interview participants were chosen via

non-probabilistic sampling, using snowball sampling to allow the sampling frame

to grow organically (Bryman et al., 2009). The interview participants began with

those recommended by Faculty Supervisor, Prof. Bob Gibson, from within the

four outlined cohorts (administration, faculty, students, staff), from UBC. From

the first interview, three other participants were suggested and contacted to

request an interview. All three interviewees agreed. Interviewees were chosen

based on their various areas of experience within the UBC sustainability

community from administration, faculty, and staff, no students were interviewed.

Interviews were semi-structured with open-ended questions to allow for

spontaneous insights. During interviews, probing mechanisms such as echo,

silence, or asking for clarification was used to collect more comprehensive

answers (Whiting, 2008). Interviews were recorded with the permission of

interviewees and then transcribed for analysis. Each interviewee was assigned a

interviewee number, in order to ensure confidentiality. Transcriptions were

offered back to interviewees for review.

5

Following this data collection, the sustainability initiatives, individually and as a

package, were assessed based on the Framework for Sustainability Initiatives.

Finally, it is discussed whether UBC has successfully acted as a test bed for

societal sustainability, and whether their approach is applicable to other higher

education institutions.

2.0 Approaches to Sustainability in Higher Education

Before addressing how higher education institutions can act to promote

sustainability on their own campuses and in the broader world, it is imperative to

define sustainability.

2.1 Defining Sustainability

Since the Brundtland Commission first introduced the concept of sustainable

development in 1987, the definition of sustainability has been contested by

academics across disciplines, policymakers, and civil society (Filho, 1999).

Sustainability was first defined in the World Commission on Environment and

Development report Our Common Future, commonly known as the Brundtland

Report. From this report came a simpler version of a definition for sustainable

development as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987). This

definition is convenient but it does not represent the complexities of with

sustainability. The term can encompass much more complex and integrative

aspects. It is generally accepted by sustainability scholars that the term includes

three essential pillars: economic, social, and environmental and, crucially, their

interactions and interdependencies (Adomssent et al., 2007; Aznar Minguet et

al., 2011; Fien, 2002; Hansmann et al., 2012; UNESCO, 2011).

The term sustainability is sometimes seen as a ‘buzz word’ with ambiguous

meaning. Wright and Horst (2013) found that in their study of faculty leaders’

6

conceptualizations of sustainability some faculty leaders even believed the term

held negative connotations. The ambiguity of the term has been identified as a

barrier to its adoption in institutions (Wright and Horst, 2013). Sustainability is

often associated with ‘green washing’ or marketing schemes, and this association

will be explored further during the study.

2.1.1 Regenerative Sustainability

Various members of UBC have proposed the term ‘regenerative sustainability’ to

emphasize that sustainability requires not only minimizing negative human

activity, but rather human activity that improves environmental conditions and

human quality of life (Robinson et al., 2013. They state that the magnitude of

required change can be a daunting idea, and that approaches based on the

constraints, limitations, and mitigation is a non-motivating appeal. Instead, we

should frame the required change by focusing on regenerative sustainability, on

opportunities rather restraints, and the net positive results that will result

(Robinson et al., forthcoming). This conceptualization of sustainability could be

easily incorporated into Gibson’s sustainability criteria (2005).

2.1.2 Sustainability in Higher Education

The field of Sustainability in Higher Education is an emerging research area that

has gained growing attention since the Ubuntu Declaration of 2002 (Ubuntu,

2002). This declaration named 2005-2014 the decade of education for

sustainable development. The field emerged out of a need to assess the

performance of higher education institutions’ sustainability efforts, both through

their own campus initiatives and their ability to educate students on the issues of

sustainability. This issue has been widely discussed both by scholars and

governing institutions. In 2000, the Earth Charter addressed the need for the

formation of a sustainable global society and called for increasing sustainability in

education (Earth Charter, 2000). Not only is it imperative that universities

improve sustainability and educate for sustainable development, but as sites of

7

critical thinking, discourse, and leaders in research, innovation and education,

these institutes of higher education are strategically placed to address

sustainability and promote action both in current and future generations of

leaders (Finlay and Massey, 2012). Eagen et al. (2008) quote sustainability

academic David W. Orr who argued “no institutions are better equipped to

catalyze the necessary transition to a sustainable world than colleges and

universities. They have access to the leaders of tomorrow and the leaders of

today. What they do matters to the wider public” (Eagen et al., 2008). Other

sustainability in higher education scholars agree that universities have a

profound responsibility to increase awareness and foster innovation for

sustainability (Wright, 2002; Clarke and Kouri, 2009; Finalay and Massey, 2012).

Sustainability in higher education scholars agree that improving sustainability

should be a top priority among all higher education institutions (Koester et al.,

2006).

2.1.2.1 Sustainability in Higher Education Focus Areas Sustainability in higher education aims to go further than simply recycling and

reducing paper consumption, and seeks to incorporate all aspects of

sustainability including economic viability, environmental responsibility, and social

equity and more importantly, their interrelations. The relevant literature has

identified four key areas as important to sustainability in higher education:

curriculum, research, operations, and community outreach (Ferrar-Balas et al.,

2010; Krizek et al., 2012). Curriculum addresses individual courses as well as

programs, and the opportunities to implement sustainability on multiple levels.

Research includes research completed by faculty and students, and should be

considered across faculties and research areas. Operations not only address the

physical plant and resource use of the university, but also stakeholder

engagement and official university plans. Finally, community outreach is

considered the relationship between the university and outside partners, as well

as the extent to which the university interacts with its surrounding community.

8

These focus areas will be used to help structure the research into identified

barriers and opportunities. Based on these focus areas, the developed

frameworks can be more effective by addressing each area in turn, and

recognizing the existing barriers and opportunities.

2.1.3 Gibson’s Sustainability Criteria

For the purpose of this study, a set of criteria developed by Gibson (2005) (see

Figure 1) will be used to assess the strength of various sustainability initiatives at

UBC. This set of criteria was developed for the field of environmental assessment

but can be easily applied to Sustainability in Higher Education and is consistent

with ‘regenerative sustainability’.

Table 1: Gibson's Generic Sustainability Criteria

Socio-ecological system integrity The requirement: Build human–ecological relations to establish and maintain the long-term integrity of socio-biophysical systems and protect the irreplaceable life support functions upon which human and ecological well being depends.

Livelihood sufficiency and opportunity The requirement: Ensure that everyone and every community has enough for a decent life and that everyone has opportunities to seek improvements in ways that do not compromise future generations’ possibilities for sufficiency and opportunity.

Intragenerational equity The requirement: Ensure that sufficiency and effective choices for all are pursued in ways that reduce dangerous gaps in sufficiency and opportunity (and health, security, social recognition, political influence, and so on) between the rich and the poor.

Intergenerational equity The requirement: Favour present options and actions that are most likely to preserve or enhance the opportunities and capabilities of future generations to live sustainably.

Resource maintenance and efficiency The requirement: Provide a larger base for ensuring sustainable livelihoods for all, while reducing threats to the long-term integrity of socio- ecological systems by reducing extractive damage, avoiding waste and cutting overall material and energy use per unit of benefit.

Socio-ecological civility and democratic governance The requirement: Build the capacity, motivation and habitual inclination of individuals, communities and other collective decision-making bodies to apply sustainability requirements through more open and better informed deliberations, greater attention to fostering reciprocal awareness and collective responsibility, and more integrated use of administrative, market, customary and personal decision-making practices.

Precaution and adaptation

9

The requirement: Respect uncertainty, avoid even poorly understood risks of serious or irreversible damage to the foundations for sustainability, plan to learn, design for surprise, and manage for adaptation.

Immediate and long term integration The requirement: Apply all principles of sustainability at once, seeking mutually supportive benefits and multiple gains.

Source: Gibson (2005)

These criteria will be used to develop a framework to assess sustainability of

higher education institutions, and in particular, UBC, by applying them to the

main concerns of sustainability in higher education institutions.

2.2 Implications

Based on Gibson’s sustainability criteria and issues from the sustainability in

higher education literature, a framework for assessing the sustainability

contributions of a campus has been created. First, Gibson’s Generic Criteria was

adapted to address sustainability in higher education issues (see Table 2). The

defined criteria for higher education institutions based on Gibson’s criteria was

organized and expanded upon via the four main areas important to campus

sustainability as identified in the literature: curriculum, research, operations and

community outreach (Ferrar-Balas et al., 2010; Krizek et al., 2012). Each of

Gibson’s criteria was analyzed individually and was interpreted to reflect

concerns evident in sustainability in higher education literature. Some of the key

education-specific considerations that were integrated included access to higher

education by all, representation of all university stakeholder groups (faculty,

staff, students, and administration), and envisioning the campus as a complex

system.

Table 2: Applying Gibson's Criteria to SHE

Gibson (2006) Criteria Applied to Sustainability in Higher Education

Socio-ecological system integrity

The campus functions as a system with social and ecological integrity (e.g water, energy, waste, GHG emissions)

10

Livelihood sufficiency and opportunity

The campus must also consider economic benefits from in sustainability initiatives, especially to the advantage of those most in need

Intragenerational equity

The university provides equal opportunity for all members of stakeholder groups.

Intergenerational equity

The university must not discount future generations, and ensure lasting sustainability. They must work for regeneration to reduce ecological debt to future generations.

Resource maintenance and efficiency

Demand for resources should be reduced, efficiency of use should be increased, and better approaches should be developed. Both physical and social resources should be included.

Socio-ecological civility and democratic governance

Universities must attempt to incorporate informed participation from all stakeholders in decision making processes

Precaution and adaptation

The precautionary principle is applied to university decision making and planning is designed to allow adaptation

Immediate and long term integration

Sustainability implementation is incremental, and goals should be both short term and long term; initiatives should address all of the criteria objectives together, seeking mutually reinforcing gains

3.0 Organization and Implementation of Sustainability Initiatives

As noted above, the relevant literature has identified four key areas as important

to sustainability in higher education: curriculum, research, operations, and

community outreach (Ferrar-Balas et al., 2010; Krizek et al., 2012). These focus

areas will be used to help structure the research in terms of identified barriers

and opportunities. The following section will outline unique attributes to each

implementation approach, the focus areas, and to each stakeholder cohort.

11

3.1 Structuring of Sustainability Initiatives and Tools

There are varying approaches taken by universities in an attempt to implement

sustainability. Some of the differences in approaches are determined by variables

such as administrative support, stakeholder involvement, or size of the

university. These variables result in approaches ranging from ad-hoc

implementation to entirely centralized sustainability implementation.

3.1.1 Top Down or Bottom Up Change

There is wide variety in the approaches universities have employed to integrate

sustainability into their campuses including differing governing structures,

stakeholder participation and the tools used to achieve their own brand of

sustainability (Brinkhurst et al., 2011). Some universities claim success with a top

down, centralized approach, while other universities promote bottom-up

strategies. The organization of sustainability initiatives can influence its

implementation in many ways. Different organization structures can lead to

differing barriers, opportunities and needs.

3.1.1.1 Centralized Organization One of the most influential change makers in a university are typically

administration (Brinkhurst et al., 2011; Helferty and Clarke, 2009). Top down

change tends to come in the form of official statements, mandates and policy

documents in an attempt from administrative leaders to guide their university in

a given direction, in this case of sustainability (Brinkhurst et al., 2011). This

centralized approach is particularly successful in planning, policy and reporting

initiatives because of the large supply of resources available to administration

(Brinkhurst et al., 2011). However, there are limits and barriers to centralized

organization such as bureaucratic distance from implementation, funding

guarantees, and gaining support from the campus community (Brinkhurst et al.,

2011; Helferty and Clarke, 2009; Howlett and Ramesh, 2003).

3.1.1.2 Ad-hoc or Init iatives Based

12

Various university community members typically champion initiatives based

sustainability implementation. These ad-hoc or initiatives based projects are

typically bottom-up and do not stem from university mandates such as the

above. In this type of approach individuals that will champion a project are

required. Champions will gather resources, provide incentives for participation,

leadership and will advocate for change (Brinkhurst et al., 2011;Clugston and

Calder, 1999; Krizek et al., 2012; James and Card, 2012). The type of initiative is

usually associated with the champion’s stakeholder area. For instance, faculty

members are associated with research, pedagogy, academic relations and

curriculum, and are therefore likely to implement change within one of those

area (Brinkhurst et al., 2011). The barriers associated with this approach include

resistance from administrative and other staff, lack of time, and lack authority for

real change (Brinkhurst et al., 2011).

3.2 Major Demonstration Projects

The implementation of major demonstration projects is another approach to

implementing sustainability. These projects could include a sustainable building,

revamping of curriculum, or any other major project in one of the four areas of

higher education institution sustainability. These projects play a large role in the

marketing of an institution’s sustainability efforts as they are considered a vital

aspect of campus sustainability in associations such as The Association for the

Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) (The Association for

the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2009).

One example of a major demonstration project is UBC’s Centre for Interactive

Research on Sustainability. This building has received much attention and praise,

and acts as an example of UBC’s concept of regenerative sustainability. This

project will be explored more in depth in the following sections of this study.

3.3 Active Stakeholders

13

Depending on the approach taken by an institution, the roles of stakeholders

may vary. University stakeholders can be organized into four (4) major cohorts:

administration, faculty, staff, and students (Brinkhurst et al., 2011; Wright,

2010). Each cohort faces its own opportunities for and barriers to integrating

sustainability into higher education, and performs its own role in the campus

system (Wright, 2010; Wright and Wilton, 2012; Wright and Horst, 2013).

Brinkhurst et al. (2011) present a metaphor for the university system as a

garden that describes the roles each cohort performs. Administration acts as the

gardeners, they plan, maintain and coordinate; students are the annuals, they

change rapidly, are transient members of the community, and are sources of

great action; faculty and staff are perennials, they are rooted in the system, and

can provide lasting campus sustainability (Brinkhurst et al., 2011). It is clear

through this metaphor that each cohort is important in creating sustainability,

and that more important than the efforts of single cohorts are their relationships

and the actions they can create together.

Faculty and staff require permission and funding from administration and the

energy, enthusiasm, power, and ideas from students. Administration requires the

political power of students and the will of faculty and staff to create policies and

provide funding. In addition, administration must celebrate the successes of their

university’s sustainability initiatives in order to overcome barriers (Brinkhurst et

al., 2011).

3.4 Summary and Frameworks

Both frameworks incorporate the four main areas of Sustainability in Higher

Education into appropriate criteria for sustainable universities. The Framework

for Sustainability in Higher Education also outlines the necessary roles of

administration due to the importance of a centralized approach and a supportive

administration and executive.

14

Table 3: Framework for Sustainability in Higher Education

Identified Focus Areas Requirements for Sustainability

Sustainability curriculum a. Integrates attention to the three pillars b. Mobilizes and builds a knowledgeable faculty c. Is designed for the context d. Raises awareness of sustainability; promotes communication across

campus as well as between the campus and the larger community e. Encourages collaborative as well s individual actions by students and other

stakeholders f. Incorporates means of fostering positive feedback and mutually

reinforcing initiatives g. Educates students to be effective citizens and incorporate sustainability

into their daily lives Operational initiatives

a. Engage multiple stakeholders b. Incorporate academics/learning c. Strive to deliver positive contributions to sustainability as well as to

minimize negative effects d. Promote multiple mutually reinforcing gains e. Reflect long term planning f. Incorporate comprehensive and integrated consideration of the three pillar

of concerns g. Apply the precautionary principle, addressing human and ecological

factors in open, dynamic, multi-scalar systems h. Raise awareness of sustainability; promote communication i. Reduces material and energy demands; enhances efficiency of material

and energy use; reduces stresses on ecosystems and ecosystem services Sustainability Research

a. Engages multiple stakeholders b. Encourages collaboration and shared understanding across disciplines,

mandates and areas of expertise c. Serves multiple objectives and seeks positive feedbacks d. Is open-ended, applicable to broader opportunities e. Fosters innovation, builds and mobilizes capacity for innovation f. Is grounded within a conception of what a better future looks like. Seeks

to help society reach that future Community Outreach

a. Bridges gaps within the university and between university and broader communities

b. Demonstrates widely applicable exemplary design and positive behaviour

15

Administrative Support a. Provides a consistent and reliable basis for longer term planning b. Encourages continual improvement c. Celebrates accomplishment

Table 4: Framework for Sustainability Initiatives

Criteria for Sustainability Initiatives a. Integrate attention to the three pillars of sustainability b. Be designed for the context; c. Be goal oriented d. Involve all stakeholders to the extent possible e. Build the resilience of desirable systems f. Raise awareness of sustainability; promote communication g. Work with the surrounding community h. Be fundamentally linked to learning

In summary, the academic literature surrounding Sustainability in Higher

Education has provided a basis for the important issues surrounding

sustainability implementation in universities. This literature review has resulted in

two frameworks to be used to analyze UBC’s overall sustainability, as well as

three distinct initiatives revealed as significant through interviews. Further, these

frameworks could be applied to any higher education institution. The following

section will outline the sustainability initiatives underway at UBC and will begin to

analyze their efforts using the developed frameworks.

4.0 Exploring UBC’s Sustainability Initiatives

According to the UBC strategic plan, Place and Promise, UBC is committed to

exemplifying social, economic, and environmental sustainability in all aspects of

the university (University of British Columbia, 2013e). This includes the

development of strategic plans, including sustainability in the design of new

buildings and retrofitting existing buildings, incorporating sustainability into

curriculum, transforming the campus into a living laboratory, and acting as a

societal test bed. For the purpose of this study, attention will be focused on

16

three aspects of UBC sustainability: the new Centre for Interactive Research on

Sustainability, the Campus as a Living Lab projects, and sustainability curriculum.

Information on these projects was gained via the university’s website, various

publications, and interviews with involved UBC faculty and staff. The literature

identifies four main areas of sustainability: research, curriculum, operations, and

community outreach. These three projects address all four areas of

sustainability. These three projects were also were the most talked about

projects during interviews, and are prominent in the university’s website and

publications, thus information on these projects was easily attainable.

4.1 UBC Stakeholder Roles and Organization

UBC boasts strong leadership from executive administration. One area where

their strong leadership is evident in their Campus Sustainability Office, created in

1998, responsible for creating official plans and strategies in regards to

sustainability (University of British Columbia, 2013d). In addition, UBC has

various steering committees and boards containing university executives,

administration, senior faculty members, and staff, responsible for specific

initiatives of campus sustainability (interviews). According to one interviewee,

the President came to UBC with a very strong sustainability interest (Interviewee

1), and because of that there has been significant success in implementing

sustainability initiatives due to the support from the university executive. In fact,

the President has created a Presidential Advisory Council on Sustainability to

develop the sustainability academic strategy, which one interviewee believed is

“crucial…that this [is] an academic strategy…[because] sustainability has to be

framed in terms of the core mission of the university, which is academic”

(Interviewee 1). This advisory council was the beginning of the UBC

Sustainability Initiative (USI), marking the beginning of a change in sustainability

implementation. Now that the USI had gained the full support of the executive

and administration, there were fewer barriers to be faced in implementing

17

sustainability. The USI consists of four groups: a central office, the Teaching and

Learning Office, a Research and Partnerships Office, and an Operational

Management Group, which meet every two months to discuss sustainability

initiatives, strategic guidance and oversight (University of British Columbia,

2013i).

A strong element of administrative support, and an example of a centralized

approach at UBC is evident in the Campus Sustainability Office. The function of

this office is to develop official plans such as energy management plans, climate

plans, waste plans, and water management plans and to run engagement

programs to encourage behaviour change (Interviewee 4). The office is also

responsible for reporting to internal and external stakeholders. This office creates

the plans and mandates that the university as a whole will adapt and implement.

The office is responsible for securing funding, which is crucial since inadequate

funding support from within the university has been identified as a major barrier

for many universities (Wright and Horst, 2013). One interviewee explained that

the challenge is not to make the business case, but to augment the capital

budget with operational savings associated with life cycle costs (Interviewee 4).

The Campus Sustainability Office is a strong example of a centralized

administrative organization.

In an attempt to overcome some of the barriers identified in the literature

relating to each stakeholder group, UBC has entrenched sustainability into

university planning and operations.

4.1.2 Faculty and Staff

Faculty at UBC are encouraged to incorporate sustainability into their courses

through grants awarded by the Teaching and Learning Office, as well as having

the opportunity to take a semester as a research fellow for the Teaching and

Learning Office (University of British Columbia, 2013c). There is an identified gap

18

between faculty and staff, or academics and operations, at UBC, citing one

interviewee “the gap between the operational and the academic, between staff

and faculty…those are two different worlds, everything is different” (Interviewee

1). In an attempt to bridge this gap, UBC has implemented Campus as a Living

Lab project, which will be discussed later on in this study. In addition, both

faculty and staff are represented on decision-making committees and working

groups.

4.1.3 Students

Students provide energy and ideas as well as the numbers to implement

sustainability initiatives, but need the long lasting commitment of faculty and

staff. At UBC, students provide much of the inspiration for sustainability

initiatives on campus. One interviewee observed, that students engage other

stakeholders. The interviewee cited that there is a tremendous amount of

interest in sustainability from students and that students from all faculties are

very eager to get involved (Interviewee 2). Another interviewee stated there are

very strong working relationships with student groups on campus (Interviewee

1). Students are represented by a student sustainability council, from which one

member sits on the USI steering committee, “the ultimate decision-making

authority” (Interviewee 1).

4.1.4 Individual Champions

In some cases, champions from various stakeholder groups are required to spark

change. Seeking champions and providing them with resources is potentially an

important step in seeking sustainability. When asked about the necessity of

champions, Interviewee 1 said that champions are required at both the senior

level, but also “out there in the trenches” in order to overcome the institutional

barriers that prevent individuals from stepping outside their job descriptions.

It is also this interviewee’s opinion that the goal should be to eliminate the need

(Interviewee 1) for champions. Yet as it currently stands, champions are an

19

important part of implementing sustainability initiatives. Based on this discussion,

it is clear that champions play an essential role in the early stages of

sustainability implementation at higher education institutions; however, ideally

the need for champions would decrease over time.

4.2 Applying the Framework for Sustainability Initiatives to UBC’s Initiatives

The two frameworks developed for this study will be applied to UBC initiatives

and total campus sustainability. The application of these frameworks will provide

insight into the strengths and weaknesses of UBC’s sustainability and will reflect

on their merit of being a societal test bed for sustainability. The initiatives based

framework will be applied to CIRS, The Campus as a Living Laboratory program,

and sustainability curriculum available at UBC. The campus-wide framework will

be applied to the total function of the university. The following section will

explore UBC’s various sustainability initiatives and analyze their performance

using the Framework for Sustainability Initiatives. The criteria will be ranked with

a check to indicate that the criterion was met, an x to indicate it was not, or a

tilde to indicate that some aspects of the criterion were met, while others were

not.

4.2.1 Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability

The Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS) is an innovative new

building on the UBC main campus that attempts to exemplify regenerative

sustainability. Interviewee 1 described seven ways in which CIRS was designed

to be net positive, four of which are environmental energy, operational carbon,

structural carbon and water quality and three ways that are human; health,

productivity and happiness.

4.2.1.1 Energy Systems Specific features of the building’s net positive design include the building’s waste

energy heat system and its capacity to use the waste energy from a

20

neighbouring building to heat CIRS. This changes the scale of how to approach

energy systems, or as one interviewee explains CIRS is now a two building

system. Their argument is “don’t sub-optimize at the building itself, that’s the

wrong scale for sustainability. Think of systems of buildings, and what the most

effective network is” (Interviewee 1). By harvesting renewable and waste energy

from the neighbouring building, CIRS is able to reduce UBC’s overall energy

consumption by more than 1 million kilowatt hours per year (University of British

Columbia, 2013j).

4.2.1.2 Carbon Systems The design of CIRS was meant to fulfill the Province of British Columbia’s Bill 9-

2209, the “Wood First Act”, promoting the use of wood as the primary building

material in all provincially funded buildings (University of British Columbia,

2013k). By using wood as a primary building material CIRS is able to improve the

operational and structural carbon capacity of the building. In regards to the

carbon sequestration of the building, one interviewee explained that because it is

a wood building, 600 tonnes of carbon are locked up in the wood structure of the

building (Interviewee 1).

4.2.1.3 Water Systems CIRS has a Solar Aquatic System for water reclamation, stormwater and

wastewater treatment. Water is collected from fixtures throughout the building

and is treated, and reused for irrigation and toilet flushing. The end target of this

system is to have zero wastewater and stormwater output from site (University

of British Columbia, 2013l).

4.2.1.4 Human Systems In terms of social sustainability, CIRS is attempting to create a net positive

environment for the users of the building. During the interviews it was revealed

that this endeavor has entered the research phase, but it was identified that this

is probably one area that is the most challenging (Interviewee 2).

21

4.2.1.5 The CIRS Standard On a total campus scale, CIRS contributes to the reduction of total energy use,

carbon emissions, and the improvement of water quality (Robinson et al.,

forthcoming). CIRS has been set as the ultimate example of direction UBC strives

to take towards sustainable building design. One interviewee suggested that

each new project will attempt to meet the standards set by CIRS and reach the

goal of regenerative development (Interviewee 2).

These increasing standards referred to as the ‘sustainability gradient’, an

approach aimed at gradually ensuring higher levels of sustainability for each new

project on campus (Robinson et al., forthcoming). At the current moment, this

means that all new buildings must comply with LEED Gold standards; and

eventually, will meet or surpass the CIRS for regenerative sustainability. It

promotes the idea that promotes positive action, rather than simply ‘less bad’

(Robinson et al., forthcoming). Primarily, the barriers of regenerative

sustainability are due to its novelty, one interviewee asks “can we have

regenerative buildings, can we have industrial processes, regenerative

transportation systems, regenerative cities” (Interviewee 1)?

4.2.1.6 Framework Application to CIRS

Table 5: Framework for Sustainability Initiatives - CIRS

Criterion: Integrate attention to the three pillars of sustainability

✓

Comments: Aims to integrate environmental sustainability, human health (an aspect of social sustainability) and economic feasibility. The social benefits are yet to be seen and are still undergoing research. Criterion: Be designed for the context ✓ Comments: Both context and scale were considered in the design of this building. Criterion: Be goal oriented ✓ Comments: The building itself was designed to reach the goal of net positive in all resource usage, carbon storage, and human health and productivity. It is not clear whether this will be completely accurate, but is certainly working towards

22

the goal. Criterion: Involve all stakeholders to the extent possible ✓ Comments: Research facility is shared with private, public and NGO partners. There were also various partnerships involved in the design and construction. Criterion: Build the resilience of desirable systems ✓ Comments: By increasing the energy scale of the building to a two building system, providing some of its own water management, and striving to provide positive feedbacks, resilience has increased. Criterion: Raise awareness of sustainability; promote communication

~

Comments: Tours are available on request. More communication is required. Criterion: Work with the surrounding community ~ Comments: Facilities are shared with third party partners. There was a great amount of contribution during the design and construction of the building, but there is insignificant evidence of continued community outreach. Criterion: Be fundamentally linked to learning ~ Comments: The primary function of this building is to serve as a research facility. In this sense, it is linked to learning. However, there could be more incorporation of education, in using the building to teach regenerative sustainability and as a living lab.

As is evident in the table, CIRS meets the majority of criteria, with only three

areas where they require some improvement before being considered completely

met. CIRS could improve the educational and communicative aspects of its

building design and strive to work more with the community by linking all of their

operations to learning. It is worth questioning whether a Life Cycle Assessment

was completed to consider how much energy was required to build CIRS, and

whether this data is included in the calculations promoting the net-positive

energy consumption of CIRS. Still, the social aspects being considered in the

building design, and the regenerative sustainability goals of CIRS are truly

innovative.

4.2.2 Campus as a Living Lab

As a societal test bed, UBC sees their campus as a sort of ‘sandbox’ in which to

explore and experiment (University of British Columba, 2013f). One interviewee

23

defined the objectives of the Campus as a Living Lab as “trying to integrate

sustainability into projects on campus that involve campus infrastructure, our

operational teams, researchers, students, and working on innovative solutions for

pressing issues such as climate change” (Interviewee 2). One of the major

barriers identified during interviews was the gap between the mainly academic

mission of the university and the operational activities. The Campus as a Living

Lab works to bridge this gap by enabling researchers, students, and faculty to

address operational issues.

The criteria for a Campus as a Living Lab project is that it must provide a

solution to a pressing operational need on campus, whether it be improving

energy efficiency in existing building, reducing GHG emissions, reducing water

usage, or anything similar (Interviewee 2). The final aspect of the Living Lab

Program is that it must include the participation of an external partner to

demonstrate or test a new technology that’s not been previously introduced into

the market place, “something that’s brand new” (Interviewee 2). This criterion is

not fully recognized in the reality of Campus as a Living Lab projects, as many of

the technologies are not ‘brand new’ such as battery storage, yet they are in

many ways still innovative. Interviewee 2 stated that a barrier in the beginning

was amazingly, an overwhelming amount of interest from external parties

(Interviewee 2). The same interviewee also explained that the reason for third

party interest is that these companies have developed innovative new technology

and are in need of somewhere to test it and to demonstrate that it works at a

larger scale than just a small pilot project, to see it in a community (Interviewee

2).

Examples of Campus as a Living Lab projects include a new bioenergy facility,

CIRS, and an electric vehicle initiative to set up electrical vehicle charging

stations on campus (Interviewee 2). These projects have all included the

24

collaboration of operational staff, researchers, students or faculty, and an

external company.

4.2.2.1 Application of Framework to the Campus as a Living Lab Init iative Table 6: Framework for Sustainability Initiatives - Campus as a Living

Lab

Criterion: Integrate attention to the three pillars of sustainability

✕

Comments: Campus as a Living Lab projects seem to be predominantly associated with the technical aspects of campus operations. There is some research activity surrounding the human aspects of buildings such as building design for effective study spaces, but no sign yet of this being incorporated into a living lab project. Criterion: Be designed for the context ✓ Comments: Every project included in the Living Lab program is designed specifically for possible broader application on the campus. Criterion: Be goal oriented ~ Comments: Projects are meant to aid in meeting university wide goals, but the Campus as a Living Laboratory initiative does not have any overarching and specific goals. Criterion: Involve all stakeholders to the extent possible ✕ Comments: There is much opportunity for a wider sample of university stakeholders to be involved in these projects. Currently, Living Lab projects tend to focus on technology-driven projects, and therefore limit the range of stakeholder involvement. Criterion: Build the resilience of desirable systems ✓ Comments: Projects centred on soft path approaches to energy, water, and other material resources (such as CIRS and the bioenergy plant) favour resilience. Criterion: Raise awareness of sustainability; promote communication

✕

Comments: An interviewee identified this as one of the program’s weaknesses. There is not enough communication of successes to raise awareness of the involvement of Living Lab projects with sustainability improvements. Criterion: Work with the surrounding community ✓ Comments: All living lab projects require the involvement of university stakeholders and outside partners. These partners come from the private, public, and NGO sectors. Criterion: Be fundamentally linked to learning ~

25

Comments: Every Living Lab project has a research or education component associated with it. However, there could be more effort made to include undergraduate students. The Campus as a Living Laboratory program excels at working with the

surrounding community but fails to meet three of the designated criteria. The

programs have yet to incorporate social aspects of sustainability into their active

projects, this addition would help expand their stakeholder participation, by

including students and researchers in broader range of faculties. Finally,

communication of the projects and the promotion of sustainability could be

integrated more clearly into the program design. In addition, there are two

criteria that could be met once improvements were made. These conditions

would easily be met once the above criteria were achieved. The Campus as a

Living Lab programs excel at working with the broader community, and this is

quite possibly their largest attribute. Further, these projects enhance the

resilience of the campus as a whole and contribute to improving overall

sustainability.

4.2.3 Sustainability Curriculum

Sustainability content can be found in over 480 undergraduate and graduate

courses (University of British Columbia, 2013b). A course is considered to have

sustainability content if it can fit within at least one area of the three pillars.

Courses can either fall under the category of environment, society, economy and

technology, or they can be considered “sustainability focused” (University of

British Columbia, 2013b). In order for a course to be considered sustainability-

focused, it must incorporate a combination of the three pillars, or address an

issue using a sustainability lens. UBC provides this diagram (See Figure 3) on

their sustainability website in order to better illustrate this concept, where the

yellow area is sustainability focused courses.

26

Figure 1: Sustainability Content of Courses

UBC’s modification of the typical three pillars to include technology was intended

to engage more of the technical-focused courses. One interviewee explained

that it was included because of the emphasis on sustainable technology evident

in particularly in the applied sciences, the fuel centre, and the clean energy

group. By explicitly including technology in the economy pillar these strong

student groups can be engaged (Interviewee 3). In addition, it was a way of

incorporating more courses under the sustainability umbrella, or as one

interviewee said, “there are a lot of courses…that have a role to play in

sustainability, but aren’t specifically addressing sustainability themselves, but are

very important…this was a way of capturing [those courses]” (Interviewee 3).

UBC is working on offering students the opportunity to follow ‘pathways’ of

sustainability courses. These pathways would consist of a combination of

courses to equip students with a significant knowledge of sustainability.

They could function as a major, minor, or concentration, resulting in a

transcript designation, or could be informal pathways. One interviewee

reveals the issues surrounding transcript designations. The interviewee

states that the belief is that most students would “do less than a minor”

27

which is why UBC has developed this language of pathways, thinking it’s a

little less prescriptive (Interviewee 3). However, the interviewee also

revealed that there would be major barriers to creating a sustainability

minor since at UBC, minors are faculty maintained, and therefore a minor

for sustainability would have to be created in every faculty, and it would be

a long and difficult process. The interviewee concluded it might result in a

situation where there are 30 minors in sustainability, causing loss of

appetite towards that idea of this very formal designation. (Interviewee 3).

A major limitation to the current sustainability pathways, or courses

available to students is the lack of a ‘capstone’ course to synthesize the

knowledge students have learned throughout their pathways. One

interviewee discussed how a capstone course would be a critical aspect of

an effective sustainability pathway. However the interviewee cited barriers

regarding the development of new courses, and again introduced the idea

that capstone courses might have to be created for every department, but

maintained that this issue was on their radar (Interviewee 3).

Other barriers to integrating sustainability into curriculum identified during

interviews were mostly institutional barriers. These institutional barriers, in terms

of curriculum, are seen as very significant because universities are inclined to

teach discipline -focused courses and sustainability requires an interdisciplinary

or transdisciplinary lens (Interviewee 3). The same interviewee also noted that

there are structures in place in universities that make interdisciplinary curriculum

difficult such as silos, institutional structures, and flexibility within programs are

all issues (Interviewee 3). In addition to silo thinking and inflexibility of

programs, there are professional courses that may provide an even greater

opposition to sustainability integration. On this topic, Interviewee 3 states that

curriculum governed by professional boards have additional barriers as these

boards may not want or see the need for sustainability in the curriculum

(Interviewee 3). It is then difficult then for the university to change the course

28

content if the professional organization that governs the overall learning

objectives isn’t supportive of it (Interviewee 3).

Faculty members are encouraged to incorporate sustainability into their courses.

A ‘Spotlight’ program, through the Teaching and Learning Office, provides funds

for faculty members so they may develop sustainability curriculum (University of

British Columbia, 2013c). In addition, each year five faculty members are elected

as fellows, to work with the Teaching and Learning Office and to undertake

research to improve upon sustainability curriculum. Although the uptake is small

(Interviewee 3), these programs are working towards building the capacity

(Interviewee 1) of the university as a whole to incorporate sustainability into

curriculum, and circulate sustainability knowledge.

4.2.3.1 Applying the Framework to Sustainability Curriculum

Table 7: Framework for Sustainability Initiatives - Curriculum

Criterion: Integrate attention to the three pillars of sustainability

~

Comments: Every course with sustainability content is linked to at least one of three pillars. However, courses should strive to combine all three pillars in order to better promote sustainability. Criterion: Be designed for the context ? Comments: It is difficult to ascertain whether courses are designed for particular context because course contents are mostly left up to individual lecturers. Criterion: Be goal oriented ~ Comments: There were inclinations during interviews that sustainability curriculum development was working towards a more absolute goal of offering students a sustainability major or distinction. However, incorporating sustainability broadly into curriculum is promoting the end goal of increasing the sustainability capacity and understanding of university stakeholders Criterion: Involve all stakeholders to the extent possible ~ Comments: This is dependent on individual lecturers and is not guaranteed by the sustainability content of a course. Criterion: Build the resilience of desirable systems ~ Comments: As more courses incorporate sustainability, knowledge about sustainability will increase and should result in positive feedback loops of sustainability promotion and curriculum resilience. This is not yet evident in

29

sustainability curriculum learning outcomes. Criterion: Raise awareness of sustainability; promote communication

✓

Comments: Incorporating sustainability into curriculum components will increase the awareness of sustainability and issues relevant to UBC students. Programs to encourage sustainability curriculum content have also improved awareness and communication. Content should be monitored to ensure that misconceptions are not being taught. Criterion: Work with the surrounding community ? Comments: This is dependent on specific courses and lecturers. Criterion: Be fundamentally linked to learning ✓ Comments: Incorporating sustainability into curriculum ensures that the content is linked to learning and is relevant to the students’ fields.

Due to the lack of monitoring of sustainability content, and the further research

required, many of these criteria are only somewhat achieved. Further research

into individual course content is needed before any definitive statements on the

quality of sustainability curriculum could be made. It is unknown whether the

sustainability curriculum works with the surrounding community, or is designed

for context due to the ambiguity surrounding the sustainability content of

courses. It could be assumed that, if each lecturer had implemented the

suggestions from the toolbook provided by the Teaching and Learning Office that

these criteria might be met as it promotes the development of active citizens.

4.3 Additional Sustainability Initiatives

Throughout the interviews various other initiatives and plans for sustainability

were introduced by the interviewees. One of these was the Climate Action Plan,

created by the Campus Sustainability Office. This plan outlines the commitments

UBC has made towards greenhouse gas emissions reductions and the actions

that will be taken to reach these ambitious goals (University of British Columbia,

2013g). One interviewee outlined these goals. They included a 33% reduction in

emissions by 2015 and a 67% reduction by 2020. The steps to achieve the first

goal have already been planned and include the bioenergy facility, continuous

building optimization, converting the steam system to hot water, and the district

30

energy system (Interviewee 1). But, to achieve the later goal, this interviewee

believes there will be a need for to treat the whole campus as a single integrated

system by adding waste and water to the mix, and potentially food as well

(Interviewee 1).

The key action areas outlined in the Climate Action Plan include campus

development and infrastructure, energy supply and management, fleets and fuel

use, travel and procurement, food, and transportation. In addition to these

action areas that were outlined in the official plan, interviewees also showed an

emphasis on residences. There seemed to be a significant interest in creating

and improving the sense of community on campus through the development of

on-campus residences. One interviewee explained, there is a large residential

community on campus, with about 8,000 private residents, which is expected to

double over the next thirty years (Interviewee 4).

Another project that is deserving of attention is the UBC Farm, a 20-acre farm on

the UBC campus that produces a variety of different fruits, vegetables, and

poultry (Interviewee 2). What is produced from the UBC farm is sold to campus

food service outlets (Interviewee 2) and ensures local produce and quality food.

The farm is currently experimenting with a fish-aquaculture operation as a

research project (Interviewee 2) and will certainly contribute to campus

emissions reductions.

4.4 Summary

Through various plans such as Place and Promise and the Climate Action Plan,

creation of offices such as the Campus Sustainability Office, and the Teaching

and Learning Office, UBC has communicated its intentions of promoting

sustainability across the three pillars. These official plans and designations have

ensured funding and commitment from the university to implement programs

31

such as Campus as a Living Laboratory, to invest in green design, and

incorporate sustainability into curriculum. In terms of the initiative based

framework, CIRS meets almost all of the criteria, and of the two that are only

somewhat met, there are definite strides towards their integration. The Campus

as a Living Lab initiative only meets three of eight criteria, and the main reason

for its shortcoming appears to be its lack of incorporation of social sustainability.

Finally, on an initiative scale, sustainability curriculum only meets two of eight

criteria clearly, and the main reason for the uncertainties is lack of detailed

information about course content and lack of evident effort so far to encourage

some harmonization of course content.

5.0 Applying the Sustainability in Higher Education Framework to UBC

The following section will present the performance of UBC’s overall sustainability.

The same legend used above will be applied to these criteria.

5.2 Applying The Sustainability in Higher Education Framework

Table 8: The Sustainability in Higher Education Framework - UBC

Identified Focus Areas and Requirements for Sustainability Sustainability curriculum Integrates attention to the three pillars

~ Comments: Courses are organized based on their three pillar content, but are not required to include all three pillars in the curriculum to be considered a course with sustainability content. Mobilizes and builds a knowledgeable faculty

✓ Comments: Through the integration of sustainability content in courses in various departments, the overall capacity for sustainability knowledge increases. Is designed for the context

~ Comments: This is dependent on individual courses and lecturers. However, allowing lecturers determine the sustainability content ensures that it will be applicable to the course content. Raises awareness of sustainability; promotes communication across campus as well as between the campus and the larger ✓

32

community

Comments: Increasing both the student body’s and faculty’s understanding of sustainability will increase awareness. Projects such as the Spotlight Program improve communication of sustainability education. Educates students to be effective citizens and incorporate sustainability into their daily lives

~

Comments: This criterion could be fulfilled, based on the materials available for lecturers, if these materials were truly incorporated into their courses. However, from the preliminary analysis of curriculum carried out for this study, it does not appear that students are being taught sustainability beyond its application to field, nor into their daily lives. It is impossible to tell if this criterion is, in reality, being met without an analysis of course syllabi and content. Encourages collaborative as well as individual actions by students and other stakeholders

✓

Comments: This is dependent on individual course requirements and structure. There is evidence of emerging student initiated projects, campaigns, and clubs that may have been inspired by the University’s sustainability efforts, such as the AMS Sustainability Program, which provides students with grants to implement projects to promote sustainability on or off campus. This evidence of student involvement demonstrates the success of curriculum in fostering collaboration and individual actions by students. Incorporates means of fostering positive feedback and mutually reinforcing initiatives

~ Comments: Building the university’s capacity for sustainability knowledge is one aspect of response to this criterion; however it is also necessary to continue to develop and improve pathways that build upon knowledge students learn and integrate their understanding of sustainability. Operational initiatives Engage multiple stakeholders

✓ Comments: Operations staff regularly partners with faculty, research, and third party partners. Incorporate academics/learning

~ Comments: This criterion is specifically fulfilled through Campus as Living Lab operational initiatives. These are typically incorporated only in technical fields, and could work to incorporate a broader selection of academic fields. Strive to deliver positive contributions to sustainability as well as to minimize negative effects ✓ Comments: The university’s concept of regenerative sustainability

33

directly addresses this criterion. It is assumed that if CIRS is to be the benchmark for all further operational developments, then this will continue to be incorporated Promote multiple mutually reinforcing gains

~

Comments: Some operations initiatives seek to be net positive and strive for mutually reinforcing gains such as the CIRS carbon storage, or the bioenergy plant, but this is fairly new and innovative. The majority of operations on campus do not promote multiple mutually reinforcing gains. Reflect long term planning

✓ Comments: UBC has a multitude of long term plans for the operation and facility management of their campus. These plans include Place and Promise and The Climate Action Plan. Incorporate comprehensive and integrated consideration of the three pillar of concerns

~ Comments: Some research is being done to incorporate social sustainability into building design and planning. However, design and management of existing buildings and other campus infrastructure do not integrate all three pillars of sustainability. Apply the precautionary principle, addressing human and ecological factors in open, dynamic, multi-scalar systems

~ Comments: New building standards set by CIRS would ensure that this criterion is met. If UBC continues to strive for the level of sustainability set by CIRS and outlined in The Climate Action Plan, this criterion should be met. However, in existing buildings, this is not necessarily accomplished. Raise awareness of sustainability; promote communication

✕ Comments: Operations initiatives don’t actively promote communication or spread awareness of sustainability. Reduces material and energy demands; enhances efficiency of material and energy use; reduces stresses on ecosystems and ecosystem services

✓ Comments: UBC has a strong focus on resource efficiency and on reducing energy and material demands. This criterion is met both my new building standards set by CIRS, but also in ongoing building retrofits. Sustainability Research Engages multiple stakeholders

✓ Comments: Research often involves external partners, and incorporates multiple faculty, staff, and students. Encourages collaboration and shared understanding across disciplines, mandates and areas of expertise

✓ Comments: Through the Teaching and Learning Office Fellow positions, faculty from multiple departments, collaborate, research

34

sustainability, and disseminate their findings.

Serves multiple objectives and seeks positive feedbacks

~ Comments: Some research is able to reinforce positive feedbacks and serve multiple objectives, but some research performed by faculty is very limited by disciplines. Is open-ended, applicable to broader opportunities

✓ Comments: All of the research completed by the Sustainability Fellows is open ended and is continually seeking contributions and expansion from the following years’ fellows. Fosters innovation, builds and mobilizes capacity for innovation

✓ Comments: Sustainability Fellows aim to foster innovation in campus sustainability and by adding new fellows each year, the capacity for innovation on campus is improved. Is grounded within a conception of what a better future looks like; seeks to help society reach that future.

~

Comments: Much of the sustainability research at UBC is centred around energy systems and building design. Just as many projects at UBC are technical-focused, the research could benefit by embracing a wider undertaking of sustainability research. It is possible that this research exists, but is not publicized on the sustainability research website. Community Outreach Bridges gaps within the university and between university and broader communities

~ Comments: The university seeks many partners with public, private, and NGO partners. This is done at the administrative and operation scales, but it is unclear whether community outreach occurs in education. Demonstrates widely applicable exemplary design and positive behaviour

✓ Comments: UBC has a portfolio of actions to empower community engagement on multiple scales. They have organized community outreach actions through goals and corresponding steps to implement said goals through the UBC official plan. Administrative Support Provides a consistent and reliable basis for longer term planning ~ Comments: There is potential for significant change in administrative policy every five years with the election of a new university president. Encourages continual improvement

✓ Comments: The administration has many support systems in place such as steering committees and official plans to ensure continual

35

improvement. Celebrates accomplishment

~ Comments: Successes are celebrated in terms of media and marketing, but there could be communication of accomplishments within the university community. Overall, UBC accomplishes the majority of criteria for campus-wide sustainability.

There are a few areas where improvement could be made, as well as some areas

where the university excels, such as building a knowledgeable faculty and

incorporating stakeholders in operational initiatives. In general their weaknesses

include promotion of sustainability awareness, consistent curriculum

expectations, and true integration of the three pillars. The following section will

outline significant findings from the framework analysis.

5.3 Summary and Implications

Overall, UBC appears to be making progress towards meeting the majority of

these criteria. There is only one criterion of the Sustainability in Higher Education

Framework that they do did not meet, 13 of 27 criteria they have addressed only

partially. Further research is required to fully explore the impacts of the various

sustainability initiatives and programs, especially regarding curriculum.

5.3.1 Sustainability Curriculum

It is worth further mentioning that much of the sustainability curriculum at UBC

does not appear to attempt integration of the three pillars, and instead focus on

the pillars as separate elements. It is safe to say that, perhaps outside of

Resource Management, that majority of courses do not integrate social,

environmental, and economic concerns, and instead contain content on either

one or two of the three pillars. The analysis showed that, even when a course

contained content in all three pillars, it still rarely claimed to be ‘sustainability

focused’ suggesting that the course did not function from a sustainability lens.

There is no monitoring of sustainability content for courses once lecturers claim

they contain sustainability content. Interviewees were adamant that it was not

36

acceptable to control the definition of sustainability; instead the university offers

resources for lecturers in hopes that they will incorporate sustainability into their

courses. Without any monitoring of course content, and without knowing how

many lecturers employ the resources provided, it is difficult to truly assess

sustainability content without further investigation. Further, without ensuring

that the three pillars and their relationships are all represented in courses, there

is no way to evaluate how much progress towards sustainability-based education

is being made.

5.3.2 Operational Initiatives

CIRS has set the highest standard for building sustainability and net positive

design. By incorporating net positive resource systems, social sustainability

aspects and human health, productivity, and happiness into the building design it

embraces the concept of regenerative sustainability. Operational initiatives at

UBC would greatly benefit from further retrofitting to bring existing buildings up

to standards set by CIRS. The Campus as a Living Lab program incorporates

academics and learning into operations, but as was outlined above, there are

shortcomings in the reach of these projects. Operational initiatives administered

through the Campus as a Living Lab program would not only increase

stakeholder cooperation, but would better integrate social sustainability into their

projects by widening their perspective from only technical projects to include

projects from other research fields such as arts. One area that undeniably needs

improvement is the ability of operational initiatives to raise awareness of

sustainability initiatives and issues. This may be simply a matter of better

communicating successes and shortcomings, or it could be because of a lack of

community involvement in projects.

5.3.3 Sustainability Research

Sustainability research at UBC is partially mandated through the Teaching and

Learning Office faculty fellows. This program ensures that each year there are

37

multiple faculty members involved in researching sustainability, and more

specifically, campus sustainability. Each year, the new fellows build upon the

research of the previous years’ work, ensuring that the research is open ended

and seeks positive feedback. Much of the sustainability research at UBC supports

campus initiatives and campus sustainability with research focus areas such as

energy systems, water management and policy development. There may be a

plethora of research on sustainability at the university that is not publically

available from the UBC Sustainability Research webpage. This prevents

communication the full extent of the sustainability research undertaken at UBC

and further, limits awareness.

5.3.4 Community Outreach

The amount or degree of community outreach at UBC is presently unclear. There

is evidence of partnerships with third party companies in operational initiatives,

and some cooperation with provincial government bodies. However, there is

limited evidence of local scale outreach. The outreach initiated in the Campus as

a Living Lab projects is a widely applicable approach that could be easily

replicated at other institutions. This type of community outreach not only

connects the university with public and private institutions but also promotes

sustainability application. However, the reoccurring issue of limiting endeavors to

technical-based projects appears to also be evident in community outreach

projects.

5.3.5 Administrative Support

Generally, the administration at UBC works well to inspire and promote

sustainability initiatives. There is proficient support in the form of official plans nd

funding. The administrative leadership at UBC cycles on five-year terms

(University of British Columbia, 2013h); because of this, there is a potential for

major changes in university policy. The most recent President, Stephen J. Toope,

began his second term in 2011, and therefore another three years of consistent

38

policies can be expected, however; it us unknown what type of leadership will

follow. It can be assumed that because of UBC’s reputation and long track record

of sustainability, these initiatives will continue, but ba