3.1. early stages compared to corporations.(Lozano 2011) (Lozano,

3.1.
Integration sustainability on campus

Universities have struggled to integrate
sustainability into their organizational structures and business models
M. M’Gonigle, J. Starke, U. Planet Sustaining the
World, Reinventing the University New Society
Publishers, Canada (2006). Nonetheless, the actual reach of making a green curriculum seems to
be limited by internal, interdisciplinary barriers, requiring governmental
assistance and student pressure to effect greater change (Haigh 2005) (Haigh,
M. (2005). Greening the university curriculum: Appraising an international
movement. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 29 (1), 31–48).
Full integration of sustainability into the overall curriculum is progressing
more slowly than ‘greening’ of campuses, with the emergence of a ‘third wave of
sustainability’ in higher education now focusing on teaching and learning (Wals
and Blewitt 2010). The numbers of higher education institutions undertaking
sustainability reporting, and the level of that reporting, is still in its
early stages compared to corporations.(Lozano 2011) (Lozano, R. (2011).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

3.1.
Defining a “Sustainable Campus”

To move forward with the framework for a sustainable
campus our parallel research
was to name exactly what it was to be a   “sustainable campus”. The parallel research groups created this definition:

A
sustainable campus community follows up its local and global responsibilities
to ensure and upgrade the health and welfare of humans and ecosystems. It
effectively connects the knowledge of the university community to address
ecological and social challenges that we confront now and in the future.

All
of respondents had previously worked with the concepts of environment, social
justice, sustainable development and sustainability, but each member had their
own personalized definition of what a “sustainable campus” meant. This definition must be viewed
as an employed model, a definition that needs to be modified with time. This
definition symbolizes the strong combined effort of a petit group of campus
sustainability practitioners to name exactly how this strategy will aide
campuses to achieve their sustainability goals.

 

 

 

3.2.
Sustainability Assessment Methodologies

 

A
great amount of sustainability assessment tools are already in use, all of which helped to construct an
obtainable and sustainable campus strategy. Thus, rather than starting
from scratch, 2 of these strategies were selected for a careful review and review of their prospected applicability
to our final goal. The author developed a set of 7 criteria that were
used to assess each of the 2 strategies on their performance on key issues of
importance for RTU campus sustainability work. These 7 criteria came about from an analysis of
an array of literature works on this subject and combined with the
expertise and needs of the interviewed experts. This set of “methodology
assessment criteria” was:

Balanced treatment of human and
ecosystem dimensions of sustainability. Human and ecosystem
dimensions should be balanced and a total review in the area specified and reachedRBR1  in a manner that is whole and covering
all. This element of being holistic should be an
important part of the assessment tools utilized to make sure that inclined
assessments will not resultRBR2 .
The tool must give useful results. The final result of the methodology
tested needs to be in a way in which is useful for decision-making and
taking action. This means that it should be easily communicated,
concise, allow for comparisons to be made, and demonstrate data trends within time.
Results should have the ability
to make a change. The tool should assist decision- makers in
developing goals and targets for action.
The tool must address issues of
equity. Amongst generations, gender,
cultural aspects, and social class in addition to resources and services
issues should be mentioned in an effective tool.

4. The makeup of the
tool should be transparent. Setup of the tool will have to be concise and describe the following
items for it to be understood, reviewed, and supported:

How the indicators were selected, and how they
are organized and perhaps, put together
Sources of data and good reflections of data
bias, information gaps, and other data

source issuesRBR3 ,

Data
collection methodologies used,
The
criteria assessed were for the performance of each indicator and how it

relates
to making progress toward sustainability,

The
degree of rigor in the makeup of the tool and analysis of data,
Bias and values
placed in the design of the tool, and
“Sustainability”
as a definition is being used in the assessment as it describes the

paradigm
from which everything else is viewed and assessed.

5.
The tool must be accessible. The makeup, use, and final product of the tool needs to be user
visually pleasing, correct, and friendly. Application of the tool should
be efficient regarding
cost, for users with different financial and which human resource will be able
to utilize. The design of the tool needs to be available given the
knowledge, volume, and
organizational makes of the users.

6.
The tool must be adaptable. The tool needs to be adaptable to and adequate for the specific
demands and needs of the users, and to their specific context. To show varying
scales, cultures, and values of the group using it, the tool needs to vary to
what they are trying to accomplish. The tool needs to be able to include a variety of spatial and temporary
stages as necessary by the nature of the campus environment.

7.
Participatory process in tool development and use. The makeup of the tool needs to
utilize the viewpoint and values of the communities that will be using it.
Those who will use or be affected by the use of the tool should be actively
engaged in the application and use of the tool on-site.

Each
of the 2 existing sustainability assessment tools was reviewed carefully
according to these 7 criteria. These were reviewed separately from the campus
specific sustainability assessment tools in order to widen our range of
literature reviewed to some other leading edge tools from other sectors.

 

3.3.
Indicator Selection

An
indicator of sustainability is defined as a package of data in order to simple define, measure, and
communicate complex and ornate information for use by decision-makers, policy-shapers,
and the public.

At
this thesis, the literature was used to develop “indicator selection criteria”.
Our specific indicator set was developed using the experience, values, and
expertise of the sustainable experts. The set of criteria was developed to use
in determining a “good indicator” was that it is:

Based
on accurate, available and accessible data of known quality. Can high-quality data be found and
accessed?
Representative
of the phenomena being measured. Does the indicator actually represent the
larger phenomenon that it is attempting to paint a picture about?
Relevant
to users, decision-makers, local and global sustainability challenges. Does the indicator help
decision-makers to be
proactive and take action? Does it without a doubt  describe a phenomenon? Does it
make sense in terms of
reaching local and global sustainability? Does it inspire action?
Understandable
to the university and broader communities. Does the indicator clearly describe
a particular phenomenon in
a method that is attainable to the communities that will use the
results?
Geographically
and temporally comparable. Does this indicator take into account both
short- and long-term time scale effects, and both local- and global
geographic effects into account?
Attached
to a clear and ambitious goal. Does the indicator let the user know which
direction to head when aiming for improvement towards a more sustainable
state?
Reflective
of the university’s capacity to effect change. Is the university able to
take action on improving indicator performance without relying on other
people to make decisions?

 

3.4.
Benchmarking and Aggregation

One
the good acceptable start to set up the sustainable strategy for university is Wellbeing
Assessments’ “barometer of sustainability” method (Prescott-Allen, 2001). This
process had several useful insights to offer for sustainable managers. The
first was a set of tools and techniques to use when setting performance
criteria, or benchmarks. These included:


Estimated sustainable rates
– Estimated background rates
– An ecological or social threshold
– International (or national) standard


International (or national) target
– Expert opinion

 -Derivation from a related indicator

-The
judgment of participants

(Prescott-Allen,
2001).

Prescott-Allen
(2001) then used these tools to develop a barometer of sustainability for each
indicator used in Wellbeing of Nations. Each indicator had five bands of
performance, where at least one level of performance was set through
one/several of the above mechanisms, and the other bands were then set in
relation to it. The five bands of performance were labeled bad, poor, medium,
fair, and good.

It
appeared to be very eager
to set five different levels of performance at early stage in the campus
sustainability movement at RTU. The first three criteria from the above list
(rates and thresholds) can be used to set the long-term “sustainable state”
goals, and for the tools of “expert opinion” and “the judgment of participants”
to set short-term benchmarks.

For
RTU strategy is better to use a system modeled after the United States Green
Building Council (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
program to aggregate indicator performance (USGBC, 2002), rather than the
barometer of sustainability model with five different levels of possible
performance and greater complexity of aggregation. LEED uses a point- based
system to measure performance. LEED provides building owners and operators a
concise framework for identifying and implementing practical and measurable
green building design, construction, operation, and maintenance solutions. It
was developed through a broad consensus process that included nonprofit
organizations, government agencies, architects, engineers, developers,
builders, product manufacturers, and other industry leaders. LEED has grown
from one rating system for new construction to a suite of rating systems that
address the complete life cycle of buildings.

Although
diverse in type and location, college and university campuses function as small
cities and towns, requiring master plans that coordinate new construction and
building renovations, facilities management, transportation planning, and
procurement procedures. Determining how to develop and implement a campus-wide
sustainability plan may seem daunting, but it does not have to be. LEED can
provide a concise framework to guide discussions, outline plans, and implement
solutions.

 Besides ranking system LEED, the company USGBC
provides the framework Roadmap to a green campus. The Roadmap outlines
the steps for creating, launching and implementing a campus-wide sustainability
plan. It is not a prescriptive guide, but rather a tool that colleges and
universities can use on their journey to institute green and sustainable
practices that reflect their unique needs and attributes.

Also, the author takes into account CMFW
introduced by den Heijer the accomplish sustainable development policy with
real estate point of view. It involves strategic, financial, functional and physical aspects as
well as multiple stakeholders.