turning indicators into reality: methodology and results on assessing the sustainability in large...

Turning Indicators into Reality: Methodology and Results on

Assessing the Sustainability in Large Campuses

Chemical & Biological Engineering (CHBE) Sustainability ClubUniversity of British Columbia – VancouverDora Ip, Alexandre Vigneault, James Butler

AASHE 2010 Conference Denver, October 10-12th

Who are we?

• Since 2006, the CHBE Sustainability Club aims to serve as a model of sustainability for individual members and our community.

• Since 2007, we have been looking at ways to assess sustainability in our department, • Assess our strengths and weaknesses• Target Actions: to yield the most results

effectively

Relevance of Department Level Assessment• Large university campuses are comprised of thousands

of students & employees spread out over many different dept & admin units– CHBE represents less than 0.7% of UBC community

• At UBC, a large portion of the administration is decentralized, with individual departments having autonomy over daily operations.

• Campus wide assessments are a significant time & resource commitment

• Campus wide results might not provide an accurate picture of the strengths and weaknesses for specific departments

Why not wait for UBC to do it first?

We are here!

What we have proposed

• 1st: Using surveys• Learn about habits of individuals, • Know their perceptions • Usually not studied in many campus

frameworks

• 2nd: Department level • Can be answered by an individual• Emphasis on “Yes/No” questions

• 3rd: Campus level• Done at higher level (Sustainability Office)• Follow STARS

• 3 level indicators framework

Others at UBC and beyond

(no)

Our Method• Frameworks for indicators have been reviewed: • ie – CSAF, STARS, GRI, UBC Inspiration & Aspiration, College Sustainability

Green Card, Gross Happiness Index • Can we apply them to a department? Which ones are actually relevant?

Influence and or Interest (maybe)

Control (yes)

• Rating system based on STARS, but with added “Community & Health”

• Total 144 indicators;

• 78 answered by surveys, separated by pop. categories (Undergrad, Staff, et al);

• Department level: 66 indicators; ~40 “yes/no” indicators;

• For the motivated: e.g. GHG Inventories, paper, electricity, water tracking;

• Questions with informative answers that are not rated;

Department Sustainability AssessmentSUMMARY: Chemical & Biological Engineering

Results Max Points

1. Education & Research 20 44Co-curricular EducationCurriculum 11,8 25,6Research 2,8 12,0

2. Operations 45 97Building & Grounds 1,1 3,3Dining and Food Services 5,4 15,0Energy and Climate 7,5 21,0Air Quality 6,0 9,5Materials, Recycling & Waste Minimization 9,4 18,8Purchasing 1,1 3,3Water 10,1 18,8Transportation 4,4 7,5

3. Planning, Admin & Finance 21 38Investment 0,6 1,5Governance & Planning 2,0 4,0Human Resources 11,1 18,0Affordability 7,7 14,0

4. Community & Health 25 49Diversity and accessibility 4,0 6,5Physical health 6,7 11,5Emotional Health 5,7 11,0Community Engagement 8,5 20,3

Total 111 227

2009-10

Example: Research & Education: Curriculum Section

Sustainability Related Courses Taught by Department / total Courses 14 / 51

Sustainability Courses Required by Department 0

Surveys [0: least satisfied - 4: most satisfied]

Satisfaction with Non-Sustainability Courses 3.0

Satisfaction with Sustainability Related Courses 2.7

• Department level questions (green): What are we doing?• Survey questions (blue): Are we doing it well?

Example: Operation: Water Section

Drinking Water Options (e.g. filtered water, fountain) Yes* 3/4*Undergrads don't have easy access to filtered tap water

Undergrad Graduate Faculty Staff RatingAmount of bottled water drank per person per week

0.8 0.1 0.3 0.3 3.1 / 4Usage of water fountains, coolers, filtration units

29% 48% 70% 46% 1.8 / 4

Perception of tap water quality on campus [0 = very poor, 4 = excellent]2.8 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.80 / 4

Example: Operation: Transportation Section

Commuting Average Distance (km) 12.5 7.6 9.3 23.8

Undergrad Graduate Faculty Staff

What prevents you from biking/walking to campus?

Weather 41% 20% - -

Distance 59% 15% 30% 50%

Safety 7% 0% 20% 8%

Time 30% 20% 10% 17%

No Bike Facilities 5% 20% - -

Other 11% 30% 10% 25%

Example: Community & Health Section

Undergrad Graduate Faculty StaffSense of Belonging to the Community [0 - None; 4 - Strong]

2009 1.7 2.4 2.9 2.7

2007 1.9 1.9 2.5 1.8

How stressed do you feel at school? [Not at all - 0 Extremely - 4] 2.3

Smoking [0 - Never; 1 - Occasionally; 2 - Weekly; 3 - Often] 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3

Conclusion• Measuring Sustainability at the Department is a great

tool to learn, educate and create real changes• Comparing trends from then to now to evaluate what

we can do to improve our department • We established a tool that can be utilized by all

departments across the entire campus to analyze their sustainable efforts that requires modest resources

Thank you!• Please contact us:

• Tips, copy of surveys, excel tool• alexandrev@chbe.ubc.ca• doraip@interchange.ubc.ca

• Thanks to our supporters• UBC Sustainability Office• Department of Chemical & Biological Engineering

Example: Admin & Finance

Graduate Faculty Staff

Number of Hours Worked per Week (h) 42.0 47.4 41.4

Undergrad Grad National Average

Students with Loans at Graduation 42% 45% 73%

Average Student Debt Load Estimate at Graduation $ 15 400 $ 14 450 $ 19 000

2007 2009

Tonne CO2e / year Tonne CO2e / year in % of Total Per PersonScope 1: Direct

Natural Gas for Steam (Heating)a 733,9 843,6 58%Natural Gas direct use 95,7 7%Heating Oil for Steam 26,7 1,8%Fleet 1,9 0,1%

Total Scope 1 734 968 67% 2,7

Scope 2: IndirectElectricity from Grid 55,6 61,7 4%

Total Scope 2 55,6 61,7 4% 0,2

Scope 3: OthersAir Travel

Graduate Students 131,1 165 11% 1,4Faculty 90,0 115 8% 5,0

Sub Total Air Travel 221 281 19%

CommutingUndergrad Students 79,6 6% 0,4Graduate Students 6,4 0,4% 0,1Staff 37,6 3% 2,1Faculty 3,9 0,3% 0,2

Sub Total Commuting 89,4 127,4 9%

Paper 6,6 6,0 0,4% 0,02

Total Scope 3 317 414 29% 1,2

Total Emissions (Tonne CO2e / year) 1107 1444 100% 4,1

Lessons learned • Surveys:

• Undergrad: paper great meet in classroom

• Grad, staff & faculty, in person contact essential. Email, close to useless

• Great education tools, some people might be angry

• Lead to action: examples of changes