the issues and methodologies in sustainability assessment tools for higher education

http://jsd.sagepub.com/Development

Journal of Education for Sustainable

http://jsd.sagepub.com/content/6/1/63The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/097340821100600113

2012 6: 63Journal of Education for Sustainable DevelopmentMasaru Yarime and Yuko Tanaka

Institutions: A Review of Recent Trends and Future ChallengesThe Issues and Methodologies in Sustainability Assessment Tools for Higher Education

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Centre For Environment Education

can be found at:Journal of Education for Sustainable DevelopmentAdditional services and information for

http://jsd.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jsd.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jsd.sagepub.com/content/6/1/63.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Apr 27, 2012Version of Record >>

at UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO on October 29, 2013jsd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO on October 29, 2013jsd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO on October 29, 2013jsd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO on October 29, 2013jsd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO on October 29, 2013jsd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO on October 29, 2013jsd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO on October 29, 2013jsd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO on October 29, 2013jsd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO on October 29, 2013jsd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO on October 29, 2013jsd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO on October 29, 2013jsd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO on October 29, 2013jsd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO on October 29, 2013jsd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO on October 29, 2013jsd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO on October 29, 2013jsd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO on October 29, 2013jsd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jsd.sagepub.com/

http://jsd.sagepub.com/content/6/1/63

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.ceeindia.org/

http://jsd.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jsd.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jsd.sagepub.com/content/6/1/63.refs.html

http://jsd.sagepub.com/content/6/1/63.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml

















RESEARCHESD in Higher Education, the Professions and at HomeCopyright © 2012SAGE Publications(Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC)www.sagepublications.comVol 6(1): 63–7710.1177/097340821100600113

The Issues and Methodologies in Sustainability Assessment Tools for Higher Education Institutions

A Review of Recent Trends and Future Challenges

MASARu yARIME And yuko TAnAkA

AbstractAssessment tools influence incentives to higher education institutions by encouraging them to move towards sustainability. A review of 16 sustain-ability assessment tools was conducted to examine the recent trends in the issues and methodologies addressed in assessment tools quantitatively and qualitatively. The characteristics of the current approaches as well as problems and obstacles are identified, and implications and suggestions offered for improvements. The sustainability assessment tools reviewed focus mainly on the environmental impacts of university operation and issues related to governance. Aspects of education, research and outreach activities are not well addressed by these tools. As activities for sustainability at higher education institutions increasingly involve inter-/trans-disciplinary cooperation and close collaboration with diverse stakeholders in society, it will be of critical importance to develop and implement concepts and methodologies for conducting comprehensive, long-term and integrated assessment of research, education and outreach on sustainability at higher education institutions.

keywords: Sustainability assessment tool, higher education institutions, governance, operation, education, research, outreach

Masaru yarime and yuko Tanaka are in the Graduate Program in Sustainability Science (GPSS) at the Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, University of Tokyo. Email: [email protected]

64

Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 6:1 (2012): 63–77

Masaru Yarime and Yuko Tanaka

InTRoduCTIon

The concept of sustainability was first introduced to education at an international level by the UNESCO-UNEP International Environmental Education Programme

in 1975, jointly administered by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cul-tural Organization (UNESCO) and the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) (UNESCO 1984). Since then, a number of national and international declara-tions directly relating to sustainability in higher education institutions (HEIs) have been developed and gained broad acceptance in the higher education community. The emerging themes in these declarations include sustainable physical operations, sustainable research, public outreach, interuniversity cooperation, partnership with government, nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) and industry, ecological lit-eracy, developing interdisciplinary curriculum, and moral obligation (Wright 2002, 2004).

The importance of reorienting existing education programs to incorporate sustainability-related principles, knowledge, skills, perspectives and values has been emphasised further by the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014) and UNESCO’s International Implementation Scheme (UNESCO Education Sector 2005). Here education for sustainable development is defined as a dynamic concept that utilises all aspects of public awareness, educa-tion and training, to create and enhance an understanding of the linkages among the issues of sustainable development and to develop the knowledge, skills, perspec-tives and values that will empower people of all ages to assume responsibility for creating and enjoying a sustainable future. It requires HEIs to rethink their mis-sions, and to restructure their courses research priorities, community outreach and campus operations. Integrating sustainability into all of the major activities of HEIs presents a tremendous opportunity to prepare students, and the campus community, to become more adept decision makers in an increasingly complex, dynamic and un-certain future (Glasser et al. 2005).

Progress on campuses, however has been much slower than expected (Velazquez et al. 2005). The slow pace in HEIs’ movements towards sustainability is particularly influenced by the conventional university evaluation systems that do not seriously consider sustainability perspectives in their assessment frameworks. Currently, HEIs are under increasing pressure from the government’s requirements for qual- ity assurance, and by market-based evaluations, which use quantitative data such as the number of academic papers published or cited and have become a power-ful tool to provide simplified impressions of HEI performance. Because ranking and assessment systems are increasingly influential in guiding the activities of HEIs, they, if modified appropriately, could be a significant force for transformation towards a more sustainable direction (Fadeeva and Mochizuki 2010).

Since the development of the major declarations on sustainability in higher educa-tion in the 1990s, a variety of assessment tools have been published and implemented with a considerable diversity in scope and methodology, covering a broad range of aspects related to sustainability of HEIs. Three primary functions are addressed in the campus sustainability assessments; namely, to understand where an institution stands

Sustainability Assessment Tools for Higher Education Institutions 65


with regard to sustainability objectives; to identify areas and develop strategies for improving an institution’s sustainability performances; and to help build a culture committed to sustainability (Nixon 2002). To fully understand where an institution stands as well as what initiatives could improve sustainability, a comprehensive framework helps make critical linkages and connections among different areas of the institution, which might not be possible with a focused analysis. Furthermore, a cul-ture committed to sustainability can be better fostered by comprehensive reporting, which can inspire interest in sustainability by presenting information in a form easily accessible and digestible to all stakeholders (Heilmayr 2005).

To achieve far-reaching impacts in the community of higher education, it is crucial that assessment tools are constructed and implemented across different institutions. A study analysing 11 major cross-institutional sustainability assessment tools found that while the assessment tools vary greatly in purpose, scope, function and the state of development, they tend to emphasise the following attributes of sustainability in higher education—decreased usage of energy, water, and other materials and inputs, incremental and systemic progress, sustainability education as a core function, incor-poration of teaching, research, operations and service, and cross-institutional action (Shriberg 2002). While these previous studies described the basic characteristics, strengths and weaknesses of existing sustainability assessment tools, they were most-ly based on qualitative analysis; and the focused areas, specific issues, and methodolo-gies were not examined quantitatively, which would make it difficult to trace chrono-logical trends and to make more precise comparisons among universities. Recently, more sustainability assessment tools have been developed, and their issues and meth-odologies require close examination. This article reviews the major assessment tools used in dealing with sustainability in higher education over the past 20 years and to examine the basic trends and characteristics in the scope and methodology of these tools. In particular, it examines the issues addressed in these assessment tools with quantitative as well as qualitative measures. It compares the similarities and differ-ences among the major assessment tools. Based on the analysis of the characteristics of the existing assessment tools, we draw implications and suggestions for improving sustainability assessment tools for HEIs.

METHodoLoGy And dATA

In a major study of assessment tools for sustainability in higher education, Shriberg argued that ideal sustainability assessments across institutions in general should identify important issues, be calculable and comparable, move beyond eco-efficiency, measure processes and motivations, and stress comprehensibility (Shriberg 2002). This study follows this criteria for choosing the sustainability assessment tools. Including the sustainability assessment tools analysed by Shriberg, as well as more recent ones, we selected 16 assessment tools for close examination. Basic informa-tion on the sustainability assessment tools is provided in Table 1.

The categories and indicators used in assessment and reporting tools are diverse, and indicators and questions asking the same content are categorised differently, depending on the assessment tool. In this study, indicators and questions were

66



Table 1 List of the sustainability assessment tools analysed

no. Sustainability Assessment Toolorganisation/Individual for development year

1 Campus Ecology Student Environmental Action Coalition (SEAC)

1993

2 Higher Education Funding Council for England’s environmental report and workbook (Environmental Workbook)

Higher Education Funding Council for England

1998

3 University Leaders for a Sustainable Future’s Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire for Colleges and Universities (SAQ)

University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (ULSF)

1999

4 Environmental Management System Self-Assessment Checklist

Campus Consortium for Environmental Excellence

2000

5 Penn State Indicator Report Penn State Green Destiny Council 2000

6 Auditing Instrument for Sustainability in Higher Education (AISHE)

Dutch Committee on Sustainable Higher Education (CDHO)

2001

7 National Wildlife Federation’s State of the Campus Environment

National Wildlife Federation (NWF) 2001

8 Campus Sustainability Selected Indicators Snapshot

New Jersey Higher Education Partnership for Sustainability

2001

9 Campus Sustainability Assessment Review Project (CSARP)

Western Michigan University 2002

10 Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework (CSAF)

Lindsay Cole 2003

11 Higher Education Partnership for Sustainability (HEPS)

Forum for the Future 2003

12 Good Company’s Sustainable Pathways Toolkit

Good Company 2004

13 Global Reporting Initiative Modified for Universities

Global Reporting Initiative 2006

14 Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System (STARS) for Colleges and Universities Version 0.4

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

2007

15 Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework Core (CSAF Core)

Sirra Youth Coalition 2009

16 College Sustainability Report Card Sustainable Endowment Institute 2010

examined individually by the authors and recategorised into the five categories— governance, operations, education, research and outreach. These categories were mentioned as crucial elements of sustainability in HEIs in many of the previous stud-ies of sustainability assessment tools.



Governance—Questions and indicators concerning the administrative structure and policy directions of a HEI. This category indicates a basic framework to pro-mote sustainability in the institution, thus it includes visions and policies imposed on the whole institution with regard to working conditions, such as employment and payment.

Operation—Indicators and questions directly related to campus operations and environmental performance, such as energy and water consumption, and waste and hazardous materials management. It also includes policies and funding guidelines implemented on a specific part of environmentally conscious performance, such as environmental purchasing policies and investment in renewable energy.

Education—Indicators and questions related to the curriculum, teaching and cap-acity development offered for students at the institution. Other learning opportunities for faculty members and staff are categorised in the governance section and learning opportunities for communities are categorised in the outreach section.

Research—Indicators and questions asking the institution’s efforts and commit-ments to promote research activities in relation to sustainability and to establish the surrounding conditions that enables them.

Outreach—Indicators and questions representing the extent of transformation that the institution has undergone towards reaching sustainability goals, such as net-working with stakeholders outside the institution as well as regional, national and international engagement.

RESuLTS oF AnALySIS

Table 2 shows that the questions and indicators on governance and operation have received much attention, accounting for 39 and 44 per cent of questions and indi-cators, respectively. Education, research and outreach account only for 8 per cent, 5 per cent and 4 per cent, respectively, which suggests that there is a relative lack of attention to these areas in the existing assessment tools.

To understand trends in the areas addressed in sustainability assessment tools, we examined the questions and indicators in different tools by recategorising the ques-tions and indicators into the five areas of governance, operation, education, research and outreach. The share of the number of indicators and questions on governance,

Table 2 Areas addressed in sustainability assessment tools for HEIs

Area Share (%)

Governance 39

Operation 44

Education 8

Research 5

Outreach 4

Total 100

68



operation, education, research and outreach to the total number of indicators and questions in each assessment tool is given in Table 3. The 16 assessment tools are listed in a chronological order depending on the year of development as shown in Table 1.

Table 3 Share of indicators on governance, operation, education, research and outreach in sustainability assessment tools for HEIs

Assessment Tool no. Governance operation Education Research outreach

1 26 54 8 8 4

2 35 64 0 0 1

3 46 18 20 8 8

4 97 3 0 0 0

5 12 61 0 12 15

6 50 0 40 5 5

7 16 66 4 10 4

8 0 90 7 3 0

9 44 45 6 4 1

10 43 44 5 3 5

11 52 31 9 4 4

12 10 83 7 0 0

13 53 23 11 13 0

14 46 31 10 6 7

15 51 41 2 2 4

16 45 45 2 0 8

Governance and operation received attention in assessment tools developed in early periods, and have also been emphasised in more recent assessment tools. Conversely, the areas of education, research, and outreach do not exhibit a clear tendency over the years. Nonetheless, the attention given these three areas has been consistently smaller than that given to governance and operation.

Qualitative Analysis

Qualitative analysis was conducted on the content of individual indicators. The issues addressed in the fields of governance, operation, education, research and outreach in the 16 assessment tools are shown in Tables 4–7 respectively. Elements and aspects mentioned more than two times in the assessment tools were included. Indicators and questions interpreted as addressing the same content are combined into one indicator. For example, in the category of governance, indicators asking if the institu-tion has either a policy, vision or mission for sustainability are regarded as a single indicator.

Tab

le 4

Iss

ues

ad

dre

ssed

in t

he

field

of g

over

nan

ce in

su

stai

nab

ility

ass

essm

ent

too

ls

Issu

e1

23

45

67

89

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Tota

l

Cre

atio

n o

f Po

licie

s, St

rate

gie

s, Pl

ann

ing,

In

itia

tive

s an

d V

isio

ns

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

12

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n o

f Po

licie

s,

Man

agem

ent

Pro

gra

ms

xx

x3

Mo

nit

ori

ng,

Inve

stig

atio

n, A

ud

it,

Ass

essm

ent

and

Su

rvey

xx

xx

xx

xx

8

Sust

ain

abili

ty-R

elat

ed C

oo

rdin

ato

r an

d O

ffice

xx

xx

xx

6

Emp

loym

ent

(Div

ersi

ty, D

isab

led,

Eth

nic

Min

ori

ty)

xx

xx

4

Facu

lty

Dev

elo

pm

ent

in S

ust

ain

abili

ty (H

irin

g,

Pro

mo

tio

n a

nd

Oth

er In

cen

tive

s)x

x2

Sala

ry, P

aym

ent

xx

xx

4

Inve

stm

ent,

Bu

dg

et a

nd

Fu

nd

ing

xx

xx

xx

xx

8

Stak

eho

lder

Invo

lvem

ent

in

Dec

isio

n-M

akin

g P

roce

ssx

xx

3

Ori

enta

tio

n fo

r Sta

ff a

nd

Fac

ult

y, W

ritt

en

Gu

idel

ine

and

Tra

inin

gx

xx

xx

xx

7

Pub

lic R

elat

ion

s (R

epo

rtin

g, W

ebsi

te, e

tc.)

xx

xx

xx

6

Stu

den

t O

rgan

isat

ion

xx

x3

Stu

den

t R

eten

tio

n, G

rad

uat

ion

Rat

esx

xx

x4

Volu

nte

erx

xx

3

Hea

lth

an

d W

ell-

bei

ng

(Men

tal a

nd

Ph

ysic

al

Hea

lth

, Ho

usi

ng

)x

xx

xx

x6

Emer

gen

cy P

lan

xx

x3

no

te:

X in

dic

ates

th

e co

nte

nt

is a

dd

ress

ed in

th

e as

sess

men

t to

ol.

Tab

le 5

Iss

ues

ad

dre

ssed

in t

he

field

of o

per

atio

n in

su

stai

nab

ility

ass

essm

ent

too

ls

Issu

e1

23

45

67

89

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Tota

l

Ener

gy

Co

nsu

mp

tio

n, R

enew

able

En

erg

y U

sex

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

x12

GH

G E

mis

sio

ns

xx

xx

4

Wat

er/S

ewag

ex

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

13

Air

Qu

alit

yx

xx

xx

xx

7

No

ise

Pollu

tio

nx

x2

Trea

tmen

t o

f Haz

ard

ou

s/To

xic

Mat

eria

ls,

Pollu

tio

n C

on

tro

lx

xx

xx

xx

7

Solid

Was

te M

anag

emen

t

(Rec

ycle

, Red

uct

ion

)x

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

x12

Mat

eria

ls (P

aper

, etc

.)x

xx

xx

x6

Foo

d (O

rgan

ic, V

eget

aria

n)

xx

xx

xx

xx

x9

Purc

has

ing

Pro

du

cts

and

Ser

vice

sx

xx

xx

xx

xx

9

Lan

dsc

ape

xx

xx

xx

xx

x9

Bio

div

ersi

tyx

xx

xx

5

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

14

Bu

ildin

g, R

enov

atio

nx

xx

xx

xx

7

no

te:

X in

dic

ates

th

e co

nte

nt

is a

dd

ress

ed in

th

e as

sess

men

t to

ol.

Tab

le 6

Iss

ues

ad

dre

ssed

in t

he

field

of e

du

cati

on

in s

ust

ain

abili

ty a

sses

smen

t to

ols

Issu

e1

23

45

67

89

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Tota

l

Cu

rric

ulu

m, C

red

its

Req

uir

emen

tx

xx

xx

xx

7

Co

urs

e an

d P

rog

ram

xx

xx

xx

6

Facu

lty

Part

icip

atio

nx

xx

3

Fun

d, B

ud

get

xx

2

Stu

den

t Li

tera

cy in

clu

din

g G

rad

uat

esx

xx

xx

xx

7

no

te:

X in

dic

ates

th

e co

nte

nt

is a

dd

ress

ed in

th

e as

sess

men

t to

ol.

Tab

le 7

Iss

ues

ad

dre

ssed

in t

he

field

of r

esea

rch

in s

ust

ain

abili

ty a

sses

smen

t to

ols

Issu

e1

23

45

67

89

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Tota

l

Res

earc

h P

roje

ctx

xx

xx

xx

xx

9

Facu

lty

Part

icip

atio

nx

xx

x4

Fun

d, B

ud

get

xx

xx

xx

6

Eth

ical

Tre

atm

ent

of R

esea

rch

R

elat

ed to

Su

stai

nab

ility

xx

2

no

te:

X in

dic

ates

th

e co

nte

nt

is a

dd

ress

ed in

th

e as

sess

men

t to

ol.

Tab

le 8

: Is

sues

ad

dre

ssed

in t

he

field

of o

utr

each

in s

ust

ain

abili

ty a

sses

smen

t to

ols

Issu

e1

23

45

67

89

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Tota

l

Alu

mn

i Net

wo

rkx

x2

Gra

du

atin

g S

tud

ents

Car

eer S

up

po

rtx

xx

x4

Stu

den

t In

tern

ship

, Vo

lun

teer

an

d S

ervi

ce

to C

om

mu

nit

yx

xx

3

Invo

lvem

ent

and

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

wit

h

Loca

l Co

mm

un

ity

xx

xx

x5

Loca

lly P

rod

uce

d P

rod

uct

xx

2

Part

ner

ship

at

Reg

ion

al, N

atio

nal

an

d

Inte

rnat

ion

al L

evel

xx

2

no

te:

X in

dic

ates

th

e co

nte

nt

is a

dd

ress

ed in

th

e as

sess

men

t to

ol.



In the field of governance, due to a wide variety of issues and aspects, ranging from the management of the whole university to human rights, some differences can be identified among assessment tools. Nevertheless, most of the assessment tools address the importance of creating policies, strategies, planning, initiatives and visions. The issue of monitoring, investigation, audit, assessment and survey as well as financial aspects including investment, budget and funding are also frequently addressed in many assessment tools. Conversely, faculty development in sustainabil-ity areas, implementation of policies, stakeholder involvement in decision making and emergency plans have not received much attention.

The field of operations showed similarities with regard to the attention received in different assessment tools, compared with other fields. Assessing HEIs’ physical opera-tions incorporating environmental impacts has been addressed well. That is probably because relevant quantitative data can be collected relatively easily, which makes it possible to compare performance with that of other institutions. Accordingly, several of the assessment tools are specifically focused on this area. In particular, the issues of energy consumption, water/sewage, solid waste management and transportation received attention most frequently.

Attention to the fields of education, research and outreach has been small in most existing assessment tools. One exception is research projects for sustainability, as this aspect can be relatively easily evaluated based on the increasingly sophisticated da-tabase on scientific articles in academic journals (Yarime et al. 2010). As these three areas are increasingly emphasised in the activities of HEIs for sustainability, more at-tention needs to be given to them in sustainability assessment tools even though the outcomes of educational, research and outreach activities are not easily evaluated, because it will take some time to see if they have actually made any impact.

The types of indicators and questions used in the 16 assessment tools were also examined to give useful information on their frequency of use and effectiveness. Table 9 shows the percentage of four types of indicators and questions; namely, yes/no questions, ratings or multiple options, quantitative questions and free descrip-tions. If an indicator/question has both a yes or no question and free descriptions, each of them is counted once. Although there is variety in the composition of the different types of indicators and questions, many of the early assessment tools rely on asking questions with multiple options, whereas more recent assessment tools often ask for quantitative information. That difference suggests that assessment tools are increasingly aimed at obtaining more subtle, detailed information, reflecting the diversity and complexity of sustainability.

ConCLuSIonS And dISCuSSIon

HEIs are expected to play a significant role in contributing to creating a more sustain-able world through their major functions of education, research and outreach (Fadeeva and Mochizuki 2010). Assessment systems and frameworks are increasingly influential in guiding the activities of HEIs. The results of our analysis show, however, that the existing sustainability assessment tools are not sufficiently addressing the

74



Table 9 Share of different types of indicators and questions used in sustainability assessment tools for HEIs

yes/no Multiple options Quantitative Free description

1 33 1 25 41

2 – 100 – –

3 23 28 2 47

4 – 50 – 50

5 – – 64 36

6 – 50 – 50

7 – 100 – –

8 – 100 – –

9 – – 24 76

10 – – 100 –

11 – – 63 37

12 – – 40 60

13 – – 50 50

14 92 8 – –

15 – – 100 –

16 38 25 21 17

importance of education, research and outreach activities in HEIs. A close look at the indicators and questions included in the assessment tools reveals that they mostly deal with the environmental impacts of university operation and issues related to gov-ernance. These aspects are relatively easily observable and manageable, often with quantitative goals and objectives.

In the field of governance, some of the assessment tools have started to consider as important indicators informal meetings of faculty members, student groups and community activities, which are not necessarily recognised officially. The practice of assessment itself has been increasingly recognised as a driving force to promote efforts in transforming HEIs into sustainable directions. However, while it is often emphasised that we need to consider problem-oriented nature, long-term perspec-tives, multi-stakeholders involvement and inter-/trans-disciplinary approaches, many of the existing assessment tools fail to address these aspects sufficiently.

In the area of education, indicators and questions mainly address curricula, the avail-ability of sustainability-related courses, and students’ environmental literacy. While many assessment tools ask for the numbers of courses offered and the number of faculty and students participating in these courses, there are few indicators concern-ing course content; for example, what skills and knowledge students learn through sustainability education. Analysis of course content would require more careful work, as sustainability-related programs are quite diverse at HEIs across the world.



It will also be necessary to examine the various kinds of measurement used to evaluate student learning. While immediate results of education are usually measured by tests and exams, a key challenge ahead will be in developing yardsticks that can measure long-term impacts of education for sustainability, the ultimate objective of which is to contribute to promoting sustainability in the future (Trencher and Tanaka 2010). Multiple approaches to sustainability assessment will contribute to a com-prehensive understanding of how well and under what pedagogies and educational experiences students learn those outcomes that an institution values (Hernon 2010).

The amount of research funding and number of participating faculty and research projects are the measures commonly addressed in the field of research. Most of the questions in this area ask whether HEIs are making efforts to support research activities related to sustainability and how actively. Thus indicators on research are mainly dealing with the inputs and processes of sustainability-related research activities. Evaluating the outputs of those research activities is especially difficult compared with traditional types of research, because of the inter-/trans-disciplinary nature and the long time period necessary for having any effects on society. While conventional approaches to quantitative evaluation of research performance of HEIs are often based on bibliometric data, such as the numbers of academic papers pub-lished and cited, there is no established methodology to assess whether a research project has made any positive impact with regard to sustainability. Even with their limitations, conventional methods of research performance evaluation, including academic articles and patents, could be used to focus on specific subjects considered to contribute to sustainability such as renewable energy.

Only rarely do universities and their surrounding communities collaborate closely with each other to initiate integrated approaches to sustainability, despite huge op-portunities for mutual benefits (Elder 2008). There remains a barrier between town and gown even though universities should be able to create research and education opportunities based on real-world problems rather than making unidirectional con-tributions to society. Community colleges can work on local issues through their strong connections with local communities, whereas large research universities can promote efforts for linking research findings to global challenges such as climate change. It will be necessary to develop assessment tools which take into account such functional differentiations, since indicators are not necessarily applicable to all types of HEIs.

Sustainability is not just another issue to be added to an already overcrowded cur-riculum, but rather can be a gateway to a different view of curriculum, pedagogy, organizational change, policy, and, in particular, ethos (Sterling 2004). While interest in sustainability is growing rapidly at HEIs across the globe, it will be of vital impor-tance to develop methodologies to assess and evaluate appropriately new activities, which transcend mere efficient environmental management of university infrastruc-ture (Wals and Blewitt 2010). Among the novel initiatives recently emerging at some HEIs is the integration of education, research and outreach—three major functions of contemporary universities—through social experimentation based on collaboration with various types of stakeholders (Yarime et al. 2012). Integrated assessment tools will be required to make appropriate evaluation of this kind of ambitious attempts,

76



which will go beyond the existing disciplinary boundaries and organisational barri-ers so that HEIs are encouraged to lead efforts for making steady progress towards sustainability (Yarime 2010).

References

Elder, L. James. 2008. ‘Think Systemically, Act Cooperatively: The Key to Reaching a Tipping Point for the Sustainability Movement in Higher Education’, Sustainability: The Journal of Record, 1 (5): 319–28.

Fadeeva, Zinaida and Yoko Mochizuki. 2010. ‘Higher Education for Today and Tomorrow: University Appraisal for Diversity, Inovation and Change towards Sustainable Development’, Sustainability Science, 5: 249–56.

Glasser, H., W. Calder and Z. Fadeeva. 2005. Definition: Research in Higher Education for Sustainability. Document prepared for the Halifax Consultation. Halifax Nova Scotia.

Heilmayr, Robert. 2005. Sustainability Reporting at Higher Education Institutions. Senior Thesis, Claremont McKenna College.

Hernon, Peter. 2010. Selecting from the Assessment Tool Chest. In Peter Hernon and E. Robert Dugan, (eds) Outcomes Assessment in Higher Education: Views and Perspectives. United States: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc, 149–73.

Nixon, Andrew. 2002. Improving the Campus Sustainability Assessment Process. Under-graduate Honors Thesis, Western Michigan University.

Shriberg, Michael. 2002. ‘Institutional Assessment Tools for Sustainability in Higher Education: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Implications for Practice and Theory’, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 3 (3): 254–70.

Sterling, Stephen. 2004. Higher Education, Sustainability, and the Role of Systemic Learning. In Peter Blaze Corcoran and Arjen E.J. Wals, (eds) Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability: Problematics, Promise, and Practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press, 47–70.

Trencher, Greg and Aurea Christine Tanaka. 2010. ‘UNU-IAS Meeting Notes, Symposium “Per-spectives on University Performance Evaluation”, 15–16 March 2010, Elizabeth Rose Hall, United Nations University Headquarters, Tokyo, Japan’. United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies (UNU-IAS).

UNESCO. 1984. ‘Activities of the UNESCO-UNEP International Environmental Education Programm (1975–1983)’. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris.

UNESCO Education Sector. 2005. ‘United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Devel-opment (2005–2014): International Implementation Scheme’. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), Paris, France.

Velazquez, Luis, Nora Munguia, & Margarita Sanchez. 2005. ‘Deterring Sustainability in Higher Education Institutions: An Appraisal of the Factors Which Influence Sustainability in Higher Education Institutions’, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 6 (5), 383–91.

Wals, Arjen E.J. and John Blewitt. 2010. ‘Third-wave Sustainability in Higher Education: Some (Inter)national Trends and Development’, Jones, Paula, David Selby, and Stephen Sterling, (eds) Sustainability Education: Perspectives and Practice across Higher Education. London: Earthscan, 55–74.

Wright, Tarah S.A. 2002. ‘Definitions and Frameworks for Environmental Sustainability in Higher Education’, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 3 (3): 203–220.



Wright, Tarah. 2004. ‘The Evolution of Sustainability Declaration in Higher Education’, Corcoran, Peter Blaze and Arjen E. J. Wals (eds) Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustain-ability: Problematics, Promise, and Practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Yarime, Masaru. 2010. ‘Sustainability Innovation as a Social Process of Knowledge Transfor-mation’, Nanotechnology Perceptions, 6 (3): 143–53.

Yarime, Masaru, Yoshiyuki Takeda and Yuya Kajikawa. 2010. ‘Towards Institutional Analysis of Sustainability Science: A Quantitative Examination of the Patterns of Research Collab-oration’, Sustainability Science, 5 (1): 115–25.

Yarime, Masaru, Gregory Trencher, Takashi Mino, Roland W. Scholz, Lennart Olsson, Barry Ness, Niki Frantzeskaki, and Jan Rotmans. 2012. ‘Establishing sustainability science in higher education institutions: towards an integration of academic development, institutionalization, and collaborations with stakeholders’, Sustainability Science, 7 (Supplement 1): 101–113.

the issues and methodologies in sustainability assessment tools for higher education

Documents