Campus Sustainability: Sustainability Assessment Framework at the

ERS 490 / 475 Final
Campus Sustainability: Sustainability
Assessment Framework at the University
of Waterloo
************************************
By Crystal Legacy
ID# 99071214
Fall 2003 / Winter 2004
For Susan Wismer
Executive Summary
The University of Waterloo (UW) has made ample progress over the past ten years in the field of
campus sustainability. This progress is evident through the initiation of the WATgreen Advisory
Committee, the Environment and Resource Studies Greening the Campus Course (ERS 250) and
the student-driven University of Waterloo Sustainability Project (UWSP), all of which have
allowed UW to enhance the socio-economic and biophysical sustainability of the university
campus.
This report proposes that the University of Waterloo adopt a Campus Sustainability Assessment
Framework (CSAF) complete with socio-economic and biophysical indicators that can be used to
quantitatively and qualitatively measure and monitor campus sustainability at UW. The question
that this research paper explores is: how can a Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework be
applied at the University of Waterloo? The objectives of this project include:
• Determining how a sustainability assessment framework can be applied at UW.
• Understanding the role that WATgreen, UWSP, ERS 250 course and other relevant
courses can play in gathering and analysing data for a campus sustainability assessment
framework.
• Understanding what the primary barriers will be in implementing this project.
• Preparing a guide that will direct students in the ERS “Greening the Campus” course and
UWSP volunteers on how to undertake the data gathering and synthesis of information
for the assessment.
Exploration into this question found that the assessment framework proposed can most
effectively be applied at UW through a bottom-up approach, which suggests that students take
the lead in implementing the framework. The student volunteers in UWSP will act as the
coordinating body. They will have each of their working groups undertake parts of the
assessment, as well as gather and record any information obtained through student course work.
The ERS 250 course will allow students to conduct assessments on groupings of indicators. The
means for which this can be done is clearly outlined in the Assessment Guide found in Appendix
C. WATgreen, will play a multi-stakeholder role. As this assessment is conducted the
WATgreen Advisory Committee will act as a liaison to information that may be difficult for
students to access, as well as the liaison to the university administration. The final goal of the
assessment is for it to be published as a “sustainability report”. The credibility of the work
undertaken by students in UWSP and ERS 250 will be enhanced if the professors and staff
members of the WATGreen Advisory Committee are supportive of the assessment throughout its
development.
By undertaking the following recommended assessment, the University of Waterloo will be able
to track its progress in sustainability, furthermore enabling the quantitative and qualitative
identification of areas of success and areas that require work. Ultimately, this assessment will
help guide the efforts of student volunteers, student projects, staff, and faculty and administrative
efforts to making the University of Waterloo a model of socio-biophysical responsibility.
2
Table of Contents
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Introduction…………………………………………………………….……..4
Purpose…………………………………………………………………….….4
2.1
Research Question…………………………………………………..…5
2.2
Justification………………………………………………………….…6
2.3
Scope…………………………………………………………………...6
2.4
Assumptions……………………………………………………………6
2.5
Limitations……………………………………………………………...7
Background……………………………………………………………………7
3.1
Campus Sustainability at UW…………………………………………..7
3.2
Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework………………………..8
Analysis………………………………………………………………………...8
4.1
The Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework…………………...9
4.2
Critique of Other Sustainability Assessment Frameworks……………..9
4.3
Global Reporting Initiative: Another Avenue……………………….…11
4.4
Benefits to Assessment………………………………………................12
4.5
Indicators: Are they Useful?....................................................................13
4.6
How Are Indicators Measured?...............................................................13
4.7
How Can the CSAF be Used? …………………………………………14
4.8
What does Sustainable Development Include?.......................................15
4.9
Why are Universities so Important to Advancing Sustainability in
Society………………………………………………………………….15
5.0
Methodology…………………………………………………………………...15
5.1
Literature Review………………………………………………………16
5.2
Formation and Consultation with the Advisory
Panel………………………………………………………..…………...16
5.3
Case Study – Concordia University…………………………………….17
5.4
University of Waterloo Sustainability Project Working Group………...17
6.0
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...18
7.0
Recommendations/Implementation
Plan……………………………………………………………………………...19
Literature Cited………………………………………………………………………...22
Appendix A: WATgreen Advisory Committee……………………………………...25
Appendix B: Case Study: Concordia University……………………………………..28
Appendix C: The University of Waterloo Campus Sustainability Assessment
Framework Guide……………………………………...……………....31
Figures
Figure 1: Critique of Sustainability Frameworks………………………………………..9
3
1.0
Introduction
David Orr, professor at Oberlin College in Ohio and advocate of campus sustainability
encourages universities across the world to consider their respective campuses as “living
laboratories”. These “living laboratories” allow students to learn, faculty to teach, and staff to
work in a system that is a model of what the world community ought to resemble.
As a practice tool, the university campus as a “living laboratory” allows students to
undertake projects that will enhance the biophysical, social and economic environment of their
university. To date, efforts to create a sustainable campus at the University of Waterloo have
been random and not mediated within a greater plan for sustainability.
2.0
Purpose
The University of Waterloo (UW) has made tremendous advances to be among the top
universities in Canada on campus sustainability. Ten years ago, after the inception of the
WATgreen Advisory Committee, which advises on environmental initiatives on campus, the
University of Waterloo was at the forefront of campus sustainability. Three initiatives that set
UW apart from all other universities in Canada was the creation of the ERS 250 “Greening the
Campus” course, and the University of Waterloo Sustainability Project (UWSP) in combination
with WATgreen. These three initiatives have been modelled and implemented on university and
college campuses across the country.
The University of Waterloo has since fallen behind such universities as Concordia
University in Montreal, who recently undertaken a Campus Sustainability Assessment
Framework, used to monitor and measure on an on-going basis, the progress of sustainability at
their campus. The purpose for this report is to help initiate the next wave of campus
sustainability by proposing that Waterloo undertake the same Campus Sustainability Assessment
Framework undertaken by Concordia University in 2003. Once this initiative is undertaken, the
University of Waterloo can act in the innovative fashion that it prides itself on, and be able to be
among the leaders that will take campus sustainability into the next phase.
A campus sustainability assessment framework, which identifies over 170 indicators, was
developed by the work of Lindsay Cole, a Master student from Royal Roads University in 2003
in collaboration with a team of campus sustainability advocates across Canada. The motivation
for the project came from an apparent gap in current campus sustainability frameworks and the
4
understanding that Canadian universities were ready to adopt a tool that would measure and
monitor sustainability of a campus. Now many universities across Canada have implemented
sustainability groups, and sustainability coursework, the next phase is using a measuring and
monitoring system to assess, measure, monitor and compare the biophysical, social, political,
cultural and economic sustainability of these campuses. Such a tool could be used as a device to
compare university campuses to each other. Currently work is being done to lobby MacLeans
Magazine to adopt the measuring of campus sustainability in their Annual Guide to Canadian
Universities.1
An assessment based on the indicators in the campus sustainability framework could be a
means by which UW communicates how sustainable it has become and what areas need focus.
This will allow UW to compare itself to other universities and ultimately help push UW ahead of
other universities in Canada on the grounds of campus sustainability.
2.1
Research Question
How can a Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework be applied at the University of
Waterloo?
The objectives of this project include:
•
Determining how an adapted Cole’s sustainability assessment framework can be applied
at UW.
•
Understanding the role that WATgreen, UWSP, the ERS 250 class, and other relevant
courses can play in gathering and analysing data for a campus sustainability assessment
framework.
•
Understanding what the primary barriers will be in implementing this project.
•
Preparing a guide that will direct students in the ERS “Greening the Campus” course and
UWSP volunteers on how to undertake the data gathering and synthesis of information
for the assessment.
2.2
Justification
When Lindsay Cole completed the Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework
(CSAF), a group of students at Concordia University in Montreal proceeded to conduct the
1
Each year MacLeans Magazine releases its “annual Guide to Canadian Universities” where it ranks universities
across Canada using such indicators as comprehensiveness, and top undergraduate institutions.
5
assessment. The Sierra Youth Coalition (SYC)2 caught wind of what the Concordia students
were doing and decided to incorporate the CSAF as one of the driving forces in SYC’s Greening
the Ivory Towers3 project. The Sierra Youth Coalition is now working with university campuses
across Canada, including the University of Waterloo in establishing the capacity to undertake
this assessment. Before the assessment will be conducted, the University of Waterloo must first
build student capacity through course work (ERS 250) and the UWSP volunteer group. Students
will undertake the initial phase of the assessment; hence this undertaking is a bottom-up
approach to encourage the university, in the future, to quantitatively and qualitatively measure
and monitor environmental and social endeavours. The final goal is to have the University of
Waterloo publish an annual “Sustainability Report” that uses the CSAF as its foundation.
2.3
Scope
This research paper proposes that the University of Waterloo adopt a qualitatively and
quantitatively measured and monitored framework that can effectively assess the state of
sustainability on campus. There are multiple frameworks available; however, this research paper
focuses on the Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework (CSAF), with some comparative
analysis other existing frameworks.
It is not within the scope of this paper to undertake the assessment. However, the paper
will provide a Guide, which outlines how the assessment could be conducted at UW. This will
include an identification of indicators most readily available for collection, where on campus
data can be collected from, and how the information should be synthesized once gathered. The
Guide will also outline the preferred format for data collection and documentation.
2.4
Assumptions
Several assumptions have been made. The first assumption is that students in the ERS 250
“Greening the Campus” course and the student volunteers in UWSP will be interested in
2
The Sierra Youth Coalition (SYC) is the student-led volunteer component to the Sierra Club of Canada. Their
mandate is to establish a working network of university and college campuses across Canada that are working
toward campus sustainability (www.sierrayouthcoalition.org)
3
Greening the Ivory Towers Project (GITP) is a SYC project initiated in 2003. The goal is to draw a realistic picture
of the state of campus sustainability using the CSAF in Canadian Universities and to use this information to promote
changes that will lead practices in our post-secondary institutions to be more socially, environmentally and
economically responsible (www.sierrayouthcoalition.org)
6
conducting a sustainability assessment of the campus. The second assumption is that staff,
faculty and administration will be willing to release data to students.
2.5
Limitations
Time has been the greatest inhibiting factor as there were only eight months allotted for
the completion of this research paper and guide.
3.0
Background
3.1
Campus Sustainability at UW
It was in 1991 with the visit of Professor David Orr from Oberlin College in Ohio, that
the University of Waterloo evolved into a leading university in Canada on campus sustainability.
The concept introduced by Orr was to transform the campus into a living laboratory where
students, through coursework can conduct research and implement ideas that enhance campus
sustainability. It was at this time that UW integrated the WATgreen Advisory Committee into
the fabric of the institution and from here UW gained the reputation of being an environmentally
progressive university.
WATgreen, short for Greening Waterloo, is an advisory committee that provides
feedback to projects undertaken on campus sustainability. The student extension of WATgreen
is the Environment and Resource Studies (ERS) 250 “Greening the Campus” course, which
allows students the opportunity to do research projects on some aspect of the University of
Waterloo community that could advance it toward sustainability. Students, at the end of the
course, present their project ideas to key stakeholders and to the WATgreen Advisory
Committee, who may either show their support for implementation of the idea, or communicate
their concerns about what still needs to be researched before the project can take the
implementation route.
Unfortunately many completed ERS 250 projects have been put on the shelf. Some
Environment and Resource Studies students seeing the value in unimplemented projects done by
the ERS 250 students, decided to start up a student-driven organization that would allow students
from all disciplines the opportunity to take some of the projects and implement them. The result
was the University of Waterloo Sustainability Project (UWSP). UWSP began in 2002, modeled
after the University of Victoria University Sustainability Project.
7
After ten years of being among the leading universities in Canada on campus
sustainability, the University of Waterloo, in September 2002, hosted the annual conference on
Campus Sustainability put on by the non-government organization, the Sierra Youth Coalition.
This was UW’s opportunity to show the nation first hand the progress it had made in the area of
campus sustainability, including, for example, the natural gardens created by the UWSP
Naturalistic Landscaping Group on campus.
3.2 Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework
Lindsay Cole’s thesis is a comprehensive project that identifies over 170 campus
sustainability indicators. Each of the indicators contains short and long-tern benchmarks
identified for use by universities across Canada. Cole’s project entitled Assessing Sustainability
on Canadian University Campuses: Development of a Campus Sustainability Assessment
Framework is presently being utilized by campuses across Canada including Concordia
University, Queens University and University of Victoria. Concordia University, the case study
example for this research paper, has recently completed the assessment in 2003 and published
the report in January 2004.
Waterloo has fallen from among the top universities in Canada with respect to campus
sustainability initiatives. There is a strong desire from students in UWSP to establish UW as
being the innovative leader in Canada. One initiative which will assist with establishing this
position could be the implementation of the campus sustainability assessment framework.
4.0
Analysis
Sustainable development is not purely the responsibility of an environmental
studies lecturer, an occupational health and safety department or a steering
committee for environmental care. The involvement should be more intense and
general. Sustainable development can only develop into a natural yard stick
against which all choices and decisions are measured in individual staff and
students are sufficiently conscious of its importance
(Association of European Universities, 1996, 5)
It is the assumption of this research that the University of Waterloo has now reached the
point in its development of sustainability consciousness where it can integrate an assessment
framework for effectively monitoring and measuring its progress toward campus sustainability.
8
Once able to actively measure, on a continuous basis, using an accepted tool of assessment by
universities across Canada, the University of Waterloo will be able to properly assess its social,
economic and environmental sustainability. Furthermore, UW will be in position to make steps
to improve in areas that the assessment focuses.
4.1
The Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework
A participatory action research approach was used in the design of the Campus
Sustainability Assessment Framework (CSAF) starting from a modified version of the Robert
Prescott-Allen’s Wellbeing Assessment (2001). Cole writes in her thesis, “through working with
his methodological framework, trying to shape and mould it to the university campus context and
through piloting it with over 130 different sustainability campus proponents the CSAF evolved”
(Cole, 2003, 22).
According to the Sierra Youth Coalition’s, “this framework will be used in an integrated
methodology to assist universities in accurately understanding their socio-economic and
environmental impacts while offering support, resources and assistance in developing solutions
that address overarching structural problems in society and facilitate institutional as well as
lifestyle change” (www.sierrayouthcoalition.com).
4.2
Critique of Other Sustainability Assessment Frameworks
Other sustainability assessment frameworks were assessed and analysed along with the
Prescott-Allen tool to allow for the development of the CSAF. Below a number of alternative
sustainability assessment frameworks are named. Each has shortfalls; however, a common
shortfall is lack of comprehensiveness.
Figure 1: Critique of Sustainability Frameworks
#
1
2
Title
Campus Sustainability
Assessment Review
Project by Andrew
Nixon and Dr. Harold
Glasser at Western
Michigan University
Good Company’s
Sustainable Pathways
Toolkit by Good
Description
The assessment identifies and defines a set of preliminary
campus sustainability assessment qualifications (Nixon,
2002).
The Good Company, a private sector business based in
Oregon, USA produced 20 core indicators each with a
performance benchmark to market to potential university
9
Company
and college customers interested in sustainability assessment
(www.goodcompany.com/lib/campus.htm)
An extensive questionnaire on campus environmental
performance and sent it to three high-level administrators at
each of the 3 907 degree granting higher education
institutions in the USA
(www.nwf.org/campusEcology/index.cfm)
This tool takes the form of a questionnaire with 22 questions
requiring responses on a scale of 1-5 an open-ended
paragraph answers (www.ulsf.org/)
3
National Wildlife
Federation’s State of
the Campus
Environment
4
University Leaders for
a Sustainable Future’s
Sustainability
Assessment
Questionnaire
Auditing Instrument for It has 20 issues that are assessed and loosely follows an
Sustainability in Higher environmental management system process plan, do, check
Education
and act cycle
(www.ulsf.org/programs_conferences_mar2001agenda.html)
Penn State Indicators
This report covers 33 different indicators of campus
Report
sustainability issues and rates each one using a 4 point
system
(http://sustainable.state.fl.us/fdi/edesign/news/9908/psusust.htm)
MacLeans Magazine
This is a very limited assessment of social issues and not a
Annual Guide to
sustainability assessment tool in the same category as the
Canadian Universities
others that have been reviewed. This guide divides
universities into three types and then assesses each school
according to six main categories, each with a subset of
indicators (www.macleans.ca)
Canadian Center for
This report is published annually by the Canadian Center for
policy Alternatives
Policy Alternatives in direct response to gaps in the annual
Missing Pieces Report MacLeans guide. CCPA felt that the highly popular
I, II and III
MacLeans guide does not include critical issues of postsecondary education, quality, accessibility, affordability,
opportunity, quality and public accountability (Cole, 2003)
5
6
7
8
The National Round Table on the Environment and Economy (NRTEE) reviewed
material in addition to those reviewed by Cole. In reviewing the literature on environmental
management at universities, the NRTEE found that within the publications, few described and
dealt with the responsibilities of various campus groups in an integrated or systematic fashion.
The majority focused on single sector programs such as energy or solid waste rather than
developing and implementing the campus wide management systems required for effective
management. The study concluded that information on rationale, options and strategies for
10
developing and implementing environmental management systems on universities is scarce
(Thompson, 1995) 4.
The publications reviewed by NRTEE include: Green Guide: A Users’ Guide to
Sustainable Development for Canadian Colleges (Association of Canadian Community Colleges,
1992); Creating a Common Future: Proceedings of the Conference on University Action for
Sustainable Development (Jenks Clarke, 1992); the Campus and Environmental Responsibility
(Eagan and Orr, 1992); In Our Backyard: Environmental Issues at UCLA, Proposals for Change
and Institutions Potential as a Model (Brink et al, 1989); Campus Ecology: A Guide to Assessing
Environmental Quality and Creating Strategies for Change (Smith et al, 1993); Case Studies in
Environmental Health and Safety Association of Physical Plant Administrators of University
Colleges (1990) (Thompson, 1995).
Each of the NRTEE-assessed frameworks was less comprehensive than the more recent
framework developed by Cole. The CSAF, which utilises approximately 170 social,
environmental, cultural, political and economic indicators, is the most comprehensive framework
developed to date.
However, through the research process of identifying and assessing
alternative assessment frameworks to Cole’s CSAF, identified was an alternative assessment
framework used by many corporations developed by the Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI) that
could also be used at UW.
4.3
Global Reporting Initiative: Another Avenue
The GRI has become the de facto instrument for sustainability reporting in the corporate
world. While GRI is tailored for business, not higher education, it does include broad enough
guidance that it allows and even encourages adaptation to different organisation types (Newport,
2003).
Global Reporting Initiative officials note that the GRI is the only global, triple-bottom
line, multi-stakeholder reporting framework. It is recognised by a wide range of global
constituencies. The GRI’s governance structure is open and universities have an opportunity to
take leadership position within this international organisation (Newport, 2003).
The University of Florida was the first university to publish sustainability metrics
according to the GRI’s global business standards. Global Reporting Initiative has been found to
4
The data gathered from the Thompson (1995) is dated, however there appears to be limited literature available that
critiques existing campus sustainability assessment frameworks.
11
be a valuable tool in university-corporate relationships as it establishes a common language for
the discussion of sustainability between the university and corporate entities with which the
university seeks to interface.
According to Dave Newport, at the University of Florida,
“adopting the GRI to higher education is the most promising and shortest path to a generally
accepted framework for reporting” (Newport, 2003, 5).
When the Sierra Youth Coalition was asked about the GRI as an assessment framework
for their Greening the Ivory Towers project, the response in February 2004 indicated that SYC
did conduct research on the GRI as a tool used by universities and have concluded that Cole’s
CSAF remains as the preferred framework. In addition, SYC, encourages Cole’s CSAF over the
GRI alternative on the basis that the GRI is a business tool. The SYC believes that GRI lacks the
ability to be adaptive to the unique setting of university campuses and they criticize it for not
taking into account the biophysical and social factors.
The GRI, as an internationally recognised business assessment tool, may be an alternative
candidate framework for the University of Waterloo. The framework, because it is widely known
and established, may be easier to sell to University administration then the CSAF as a measuring
and monitoring tool. For this paper the GRI will be set aside, however, the GRI tool will be
encouraged as an alternative to the CSAF to be look at in greater detail at a later date in the
“Recommendations” section of this report. The remainder of this research paper focuses on
Cole’s CSAF as a currently preferred framework.
4.4
Benefits of Assessment
Campus sustainability assessments serve several functions.
Andrew Nixon and Dr.
Harold Gasser, researchers in the area of campus sustainability, identify three (Nixon, 2002).
The first is to help an institution understand where it stands with regards to sustainability
objectives. These objectives may include self-defined sustainability policies or goals; externally
defined, voluntary declarations, charters or environmental/sustainability management systems;
widely accepted sustainability indicators or metrics; and mandatory regulations. The second
function is to identify problem areas and develop strategies for improvement.
Assessing
institutions “state of sustainability” helps identify relative strengths and weaknesses. A campus
sustainability assessment can provide detailed information to inform specific solutions and
strategies for change. The third function is to help build a “culture of commitment”.
12
Assessments are good for building diverse stakeholder commitment to sustainability because it
provides the campus community and other stakeholders with opportunity to participate in
visioning and decision-making processes that ultimately effect them (Nixon, 2002).
4.5
Indicators: Are They Useful?
Indicators of sustainable development are a means to an end, and are not an end
in themselves (Bell, 2003).
Indicators often pose challenges to the institutions that use them. Problems often
attributed to indicator frameworks include complexity and compromise. They are complex
because indicator projects can lose sight of the bigger picture and become enmeshed in detail.
Indicator projects can regain compromise because any particular indicator framework may not
allow an immediately apparent analysis of trade-offs between some indicators and others (Bell,
2003).
Numerous writers and practitioners have discussed the desirability of integrating a suite
of indicators into a single index for sustainable development. Experts are divided into those who
see this as a good thing and those who stress the dangers. The concern is that if indicators were
to become weighted and averaged together leading to one single index which tries to add up all
the apples and oranges into a single number coefficient, this could be misleading. Many experts
believe it is better on scientific grounds to have a group of indicators covering different
dimensions (Bell, 2003).
4.6
How Are Indicators Measured?
Short-term and long-term benchmarks as indicator goals are used as part of the measuring
and monitoring tool in the CSAF. According to Cole, “because the CSAF model is new and still
being developed, benchmarks for optimum campus sustainability have not been fully
established” (Guerin, 2003, p.8). Since the CSAF has been flagged by it’s developers as a
“working model”, there is flexibility given to the ERS 250 class and UWSP in what benchmarks
could be use. One recommendation to be made in establishing long-term and short-term goals for
each of the indicators is for each student group working on the indicators to collaborate with the
relevant departments on campus as a means to develop benchmarks that are tangible. The
benefits to this process is that the department that is responsible for the information of an
13
indicator obtains a sense of ownership to the process when working with the students to develop
the goal that the departments will be encouraged to meet. The sample indicator undertaken in the
Guide (Appendix C) provides a thorough example of benchmark selection using the studentdepartment collaboration approach.
To summarize, short-term and long-term indicators should be established by both the
students undertaking the assessment in cooperation with the relevant departments. The benefit to
this approach is that students will be able to work with UW staff, administration and faculty to
brainstorm potential benchmarks. These benchmarks and the recommendations made to achieve
them will be tangible and arguably more feasible to achieve then they would be if students
themselves established them on their own. Depending upon how often this assessment will be
undertaken (bi-yearly, every five years, etc) will determine how often the benchmarks will be reestablished. It will be recommended that the approach taken to re-assess benchmarks in the
future be the same approach taken during the first assessment to maintain consistency. However,
if the approach recommended here proves to be problematique, a new approach to establish
benchmarks may be needed to avoid further challenges.
4.7
How Can the CSAF be Used?
According to Cole there are two ways that the CSAF can be used: assessment-use and
indicator- use. The assessment-use of the CSAF involves regarding the 10 dimensions and the 33
elements of the CSAF as a research outline whereby extensive institution-specific examinations
of each topic can be assessed and reported on. Indicator-use of the CSAF is a scaled down
project that only involves researching the data specifically required for assessing each indicator,
without the broader institution-specific assessment of each topic area (Guerin, 2003).
A recommendation that will be made at the end of this report will be for the University of
Waterloo to undertake the assessment-use approach to the CSAF. The Assessment-use research
approach to the CSAF focuses more on process, long-term planning, and capacity and
community building then the indicator-use approach. Benefits to conducting an assessment
include a more developed context in which to place the indicators. This will facilitate the
development of recommendations to improve sustainability, while providing a foundation onto
which the implementation strategies will be firmly grounded. It will also provide a more
cohesive and thorough report, which will assist the project in establishing legitimacy and
14
longevity (Guerin, 2003). However, there are challenges to this approach, including capacity
needs, solid coordination and consistency in reporting from various contributors (Guerin, 2003).
Challenges associated with the assessment-use approach would make the indicator-use
approach seem more attractive, however, the University of Waterloo Sustainability Project, has
the capacity to be the solid coordinating body of the CSAF, therefore, the assessment-use
approach will be the recommended approach.
4.8
What does Sustainable Development Include?
Sustainable development dictates that meeting all three: social, environmental and
economic imperatives is necessary. It is counter productive to debate, which may be more
fundamental.
Without satisfying ecological imperatives, we poison ourselves, deplete our
resources, and destroy the basic life support systems essential to the human and non-human
survival. Without satisfying the economic imperative, we cannot provide the necessities of life,
let alone meaningful work. Without satisfying the social imperative, our societies will collapse
into chaos. Given the interconnected nature of sustainable development, failure in any one area
will result in failure in the other two (Dale, 2001).
4.9
Why are Universities so Important to Advancing Sustainability in Society?
A sustainable university campus is an academic institution committed to sustainability
helping students understand the roots of environmental degradation while motivating them to
engage in environmentally sustainable practices (Clugston, 1999). Students, who learn and
practice a sustainable lifestyle while in school may be inclined to transfer these practices into
their daily lives after they graduate.
5.0
Methodology
There were four approaches used as the methodology for this research. This allowed for a
comprehensive analysis of the CSAF, in the context of UW to be carried out in order to provide
the basis for the development of the Guide, which will direct the application of the assessment at
the University of Waterloo. The four approaches included a literature review; formation and
consultation with an advisory panel; a case study of Concordia University; and, consultation with
a student-working group from the University of Waterloo Sustainability Project.
15
5.1
Literature Review
A literature review of all relevant and current journal articles and projects in the area of
campus sustainability and sustainability indicators was carried out. The information gathered
from the review has been incorporated throughout this document, and the complete list can be
found in the “Literature Cited” at the end of this document. Much of the information gathered
was integrated into the “Analysis” section of the paper to help strengthen the case for using the
CSAF as the chosen framework.
5.2
Formation and Consultation with an Advisory Panel
Creating an advisory committee was important for establishing a process that will work
well at this university. Having a diverse range of people involved in the process will provide
credibility to the research.
WATgreen, which consists of faculty representation from each of the faculties on
campus, representation from administration, staff and undergraduate and graduate students,
meets each term to advise environment related projects on campus. Students and local
environmental groups make presentations to the committee who then make comments and
recommendations about the direction of these projects. WATgreen also acts as the advisory
committee to the University of Waterloo Sustainability Project (UWSP).
As a result of WATgreen’s diverse membership, the WATgreen Advisory Committee
was selected to act as the advisory committee to the Campus Sustainability Assessment Guide
project at UW. Not everyone on the committee has an affinity for the environment, therefore the
diverse views and opinions of the committee provided a rich array of ideas that strengthened the
development of the sustainability guide.
During the research, the WATgreen Advisory Committee helped to develop a definition
of “Campus Sustainability” used as the foundation for the assessment framework and Guide.
Secondly, WATgreen provided input to the “Vision of Sustainability”. The purpose of the vision
was to forecast an image of what UW should strive to resemble. In addition, the vision was also
developed to update the previous WATgreen vision, to reflect campus sustainability as it appears
today at UW. The new definition may be found in Appendix A.
16
5.3
Case Study – Concordia
Concordia University in Montreal, Quebec has already undertaken and completed a
sustainability assessment of their campus using the CSAF. The student-driven team drafted a
400 page analysis. Melissa Garcia-Lamarca, a graduate student in Community Economic
Development who has worked on the project since it began in July 2002 reported “that it’s not a
silver bullet”. Instead Garcia-Lamarca sees it as the framework for slow but steady change in the
way that Concordia does everything (Curran, 2004). A student researcher at Western Michigan
University, Andrew Nixon, said Concordia ranked second only to Penn State in his data base
study of sustainability assessments conducted by universities across Canada and the United
Stated.
Nixon states that, “the collaborative nature of the project at Concordia is almost
unprecedented. Typically, what we find are huge obstacles between administrators and students
in trying to build partnerships” (Curran, 2004).
As the pilot project to Cole’s CSAF, Concordia experienced numerous challenges as well
as many successes. The challenges and mistakes have been identified to help alleviate any
possibility of UW making the same ones. The structure of their assessment has helped directly
with the evolution of the UW Campus Sustainability Assessment Guide. The cse study may be
found in Appendix B.
5.4
University of Waterloo Sustainability Project Working Group
A group of students who volunteer for UWSP were consulted in the development of the
Guide. This small group was also advised on the same scale as the WATgreen Advisory
Committee. Although the primary focus of the working group was to help with establishing
connections on campus of key individuals and groups from which they can gather information,
the working group also undertook the gathering and documentation of a sample group of
indicators to illustrate how students in UWSP and the ERS 250 class could undertake the
assessment.
The group met weekly to brainstorm ideas that would be incorporated into the guide. The
main area brainstormed was with regards to what a sustainable campus looks like. Apart from
brainstorming, the group also gathered data from Plant Operations at UW, which were assessed
and documented as the protocol for the format for the assessment. Appendix C contains the
17
Guide that will be used by the ERS 250 course and UWSP volunteers in undertaking the
assessment.
In future academic terms, the UWSP working group will play a key role in ensuring that
this proposed assessment framework is utilized. It will be the task of the working group to keep
in close correspondence with the WATgreen Advisory Committee, specifically the co-chair, Patti
Cook to ensure that students that take and professors that teach any of the ERS 250, ERS 390,
ERS 490, ERS 316, ERS 339, ERS 669 and ERS 375 and 475 “Special Reading” courses are
aware that such a framework exists and that segments can be drawn from it to undertake valuable
research projects with the benefit of advancing campus sustainability at UW in the process.
6.0
Conclusion
This research paper has established an argument for the application of the Campus
Sustainability Assessment Framework at the University of Waterloo. The volunteer students in
UWSP and the ERS courses will provide the effort in undertaking the assessment. WATgreen is
important to the assessment process for it can provide the much needed staff, faculty and
administrative support required to undertake a credible assessment. The Guide, found in
Appendix C provides the foundation from which student, staff, and faculty volunteers can
conduct the assessment in the near future.
Once the University of Waterloo completes the assessment, this effort will place UW
among the top echelon of universities in Canada in campus sustainability. As well, this initiative
will establish UW as a school that prides itself on leading the pack in all areas that make
universities competitive, including sustainability of a campus.
18
7.0
Recommendations/Implementation Plan
The following are recommendations describing how to advance the Campus
Sustainability Assessment Framework at the University of Waterloo. Every recommendation is
categorized into “Four Months”, “Eight Months”, “One Year” and “Five Years”. This is the
suggested route to be taken to undertake the CSAF.
Four Months
• Sierra Youth Coalition: Maintain the working relationship with the Sierra Youth
Coalition, specifically Jeca Glor-Bell at [email protected]. The Sierra Youth Coalition
can help undertake the assessment at UW, by answering questions, helping to build
capacity and helping with fundraising.
• Commitment: UWSP should commit to undertaking the assessment. The Sierra Youth
Coalition wants UWSP to complete the assessment in a 12 month time frame. This may
not be possible; therefore, UWSP may want to commit to a 3 year focus on the
assessment. In three years, the ERS 250 class and other related classes can utilize the
assessment, while UWSP volunteers complete the indicators that classes do not work on.
• Assessment-Use Approach: Two approaches to undertaking the assessment was
described in this report. The approach recommended to be used is the assessment-use
approach. Appendix C outlines the assessment-use approach to undertaking this
assessment.
• Budgeting: A budget should be established by UWSP in collaboration with the Sierra
Youth Coalition to gain a full understanding of how much money will be required to
undertake the assessment.
o The budget should include:
ƒ Coordinator Position (fulltime co-op student for four months and part-time
work study students for four months). The Coordinator will coordinator
the assessment undertaken by the ERS classes and UWSP volunteers
ƒ Supplies (paper, photo copying surveys, etc)
ƒ Cost of publishing the report (This is a long term goal, but should still be
included into the budget)
• Economic Feasibility: The economic feasibility of this assessment should be conducted
during the development of the budget. Before undertaking the assessment UWSP should
ensure that money will be available.
• Fundraising: UWSP should look to raise money to fund a coordinator for this assessment
that will work from the UWSP office on the third floor of the Student Life Building
Room 3102. The University of Waterloo has an Undergraduate Research Internship
Fund that may be used. Patti Cook, the Waste Management Coordinator at UW may
request for this fund, to allow a four month student work position to work on the
assessment under the supervisor of Patti Cook. For more details regarding this fund,
please contact Olaf Naese of Co-op Education and Career Services at ext. 3782.
• Course Integration: Courses other then ERS 250 that the assessment could be integrated
into should be research. The following course have been identified and the professors
should be contacted:
19
•
•
•
•
o
o
o
o
o
ERS 250 contact Professor Paul Kay at [email protected]
ERS 339 contact Professor Greg Michalenko at [email protected]
ERS 316 contact Jim Robinson at jrobin@[email protected]
ERS 390 contact Susan Wismer at [email protected]
ERS 669 contact Susan Wismer at [email protected]
o
ERS 375 and 475 (Special Readings) contact Patti Bester
[email protected]
Critic of the CSAF: The first class project recommended to be undertaken by the ERS
250 class is an in-depth analysis of the proposed CSAF. This analysis should look at the
relevance of each of the indicators (if they are the most effective ones to be used to
achieve the intended information), and a critique of other possible assessment
frameworks including the Global Reporting Initiative.
FEDS and WPIRG Partnership: Over the spring 2004 academic term, UWSP should meet
with the new Federation of Students Executive and the Waterloo Public Interest Research
Group to educate them on the assessment. Establishing a strong support network with
other student groups on campus will help build the student capacity for the assessment to
be undertaken.
Website: Jen Owens, from the UWSP Sustainable Indicators Working Group has
committed to developing a web page for the assessment over the spring term. The web
page can be found as a link from the current UWSP web page at
http://watserv1.uwaterloo.ca/~uwsp/
WATgreen: UWSP should maintain a working relationship with the WATgreen
Advisory Committee. WATgreen has already been very involved with the development
of this assessment at UW thus far. Therefore it would be beneficial to maintain this
connection to allow for continued support from this committee.
Eight Months
• Volunteer Capacity: In September, two members from the Sustainable Indicators
Working Group from Winter 2004, Jen Owens and Michel Wahome, will initiate the
start-up of the group again. They will participate in the first UWSP General Meeting in
September by doing a brief presentation of what the assessment is in an attempt to build
the volunteer capacity.
• UWSP Working Groups: The UWSP Sustainability Indicator Group, in September,
should encourage each of the other five working groups (Climate Change, Alternative
Transportation, Renewable Energies, Waste Management and Naturalistic Landscaping)
to work on parts of the assessment that relate to their individual group focus for the
following academic year.
One Year
• Multi-Stakeholder Group: Once the assessment gets going and all of the initial analysis of
the CSAF has been completed, a multi-stakeholder working group should be established
to help work through the assessment. Members of the group should include UW
undergraduate and graduate students from various faculties, staff, faculty and
administrators, WPIRG representative and members of the local community.
20
Five Years
• Publish: In 5 years, the assessment should be completed and ready to be published.
• Comparison: Assuming that the universities that the SYC are currently working with
finish their reports in five years, the results from the UW Sustainability Report can be
compared to the other universities and colleges in Canada.
• MacLeans Ranking: The Sierra Youth Coalition hopes to have sustainability as one of the
rankings in MacLean’s Magazine Annual Guide to Canadian Universities.
21
Literature Cited
Bell, Simon, Stephen Morse, Measuring Sustainability: Learning from Doing, Earthscan
Publications Ltd., Virginia, 2003
Bell, Simon, Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable, Earthscan Publications
Ltd., 1999.
Berridge Lewinberg Greenberg Ltd., Campus Master Plan: Framework for Development,
University of Waterloo, 1992
Clugston, Richard M. and Wynn Calder, Critical Dimensions of Sustainability in Higher
Education, Peter Lang, 1999
Cole, Lindsay, Assessing Sustainability on Canadian University Campuses: Development of a
Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework, Royal Roads University, British
Columbia, 2003
Communications and Public Affairs, We’re Waterloo, University of Waterloo, 2004
Concordia University, Sustainability Assessment Published, “Concordia’s Thursday Report”,
Vol. 25, No. 9, January 2004.
Creighton, Sarah Hammond, Greening the Ivory Tower: Improving the Environmental Track
Record of Universities, Colleges and Other Institutions, The MIT Press, Cambridge,
1998
Curran, Peggy, Concordia Project Sustains the Future, Montreal Gazette, February, 2004
Dale, Anne, At the Edge: Sustainable Development in the 21st Century, UBC Press, British
Columbia, Vancouver, 2001
Glasser, Harold, Campus Sustainability Assessment: Knowledge Behaviour, Environmental and
Sustainability Issues, Western Michigan University, 2003
Guerin, Geneva, and Lindsay Cole, Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework Toolkit,
Sierra Youth Coalition, 2003
Hammond, Allen, Environmental Indicators: A Systematic Approach to Measuring and
Reporting on Environmental Policy Performance in the Context of Sustainable
Development, World Resources Institute, 1995.
Leal Fillho, Walter, Implementing Sustainable Development at the University Level: A Manuel of
Good Practice, Association of European Universities, Switzerland, 1996.
22
Leal Fillho, Walter, Sustainability and University Life: Some European Perspectives, Peter Lang,
New York, 1999
Mcleod, A.J., University of Waterloo ISO 14001 Gap Analyses, University of Waterloo, 2003
National Wildlife Federation, State of the Campus Environment: A National Report Card on
Environmental Performance and Sustainability in Higher Education, 2001
Newport, Dave, University and Sustainability Reporting: Adopting the GRI to Academia,
University of Florida, 2003
Nixon, Andrew, Improving the Campus Sustainability Assessment Process, Western Michigan
University, May 2002
Orr, David, The Nature of Design: Ecological Culture and Human Intention, Oxford University
Press, Toronto, 2002.
Prescott-Allen, Robert, The Wellbeing of Nations: A Country-by-Country Index of Quality of Life
and the Environment, Island Press, Washington, 2001.
Sierra Youth Coalition, Greening the Ivory Towers Academia to Action: Measuring
Sustainability at Canadian Campuses, June 2003
Smith, April A, Campus Ecology: A Guide to Assessing Environmental Quality and Creating
Strategies for Change, The Student Environmental Action Coalition, Living Planet Press,
Los Angeles, 1993
Stevenson, Robert B., Schooling and Environmental Education: Contradictions in Purpose and
Practice, “Environmental Education: Practice and Possibility”, Deakin University,
Australia, 1987
Thompson, Dixon, Serene Van Bakel, A Practical Introduction to Environmental Management
on Canadian Campuses, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy,
Toronto, 1995
University of waterloo, More Naturalization Can be Done on Campus: What’s Stopping It? ERS
250 Student Project, 2001
University of Waterloo, WATgreen: The Vision, “The State of the Environment Report”, 1998
University of Waterloo, We’re Waterloo: Annual Report 2003, Waterloo 2003.
Warren Wilson College, People and Nature: Our Future in the Balance, National
Wildlife Federation, 2002
23
Web Sources
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, 2003, www.blackhole.on.ca/quotes_4.htm
Environmental Center, Land Degradation and Development, 2003 www.environmentalcenter.com/magazine/wiley/1085-3278/
Global Centres, Understanding our Changing Planet: What is Global Climate Change?,
www.globalcentres.org/cgcp/english/html_documents/publications/overview/intro_i.html
Government of Canada, Agenda 21: Promoting Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development,
2002 www.sdinfo.gc.ca/docs/en/a21/21_14_pE.cfm
Plant Operations, University of Waterloo Turf Grass Maintenance Action Plan, 1994
www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infowast/watgreen/turf.html
Prescott-Allen, Robert, How Do We Know When We Are Sustainable? IUCN International
Assessment Team, Switzerland www.iucn.org/50/workshops/wkshp_3c_abs_en.html
Science for Global Insight, Modeling Land-Use and Land-Cover Changes, 2003
www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/
Sierra Youth Coalition, Sierra Youth Coalition, 2003, www.sierrayouthcoalition.org
University of Waterloo, Campus Map, 2002
www.math.uwaterloo.ca/navigation/general/CampusMap.shtml/
University of Waterloo, University of Waterloo Act, 1996
www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infosec/uwact/uwactindex.html
University of Waterloo, WATgreen, www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infowast/watgreen/#vision
World Bank, Global Environmental Facility Program, Land Degradation, 2003
http://Inweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/envext.nsf/45ByDocName/ThemesLandDegradation
World Resources Institute, Disappearing Land: Soil Degradation, Sustainable Development
Information services, 2003 www.wri.org/trends/soilloss.html
24
APPENDIX A
WATGreen Advisory Committee
Definition of Campus Sustainability
An initial definition of Campus Sustainability was taken from Cole’s CSAF. Cole took a
participatory action research approach to the design of the assessment framework.
This
participatory approach resulted in Cole developing a team of 15 co-researchers into an ad-hoc
advisory group. The definition of Campus Sustainability that they developed is as follows:
A sustainable campus community acts upon its local and global responsibilities to
protect and enhance the health and well being of humans and ecosystems. It actively
engages the knowledge of the university community to address the ecological and
social challenges that we face now and in the future
(Cole, 2003)
Each member of Cole’s advisory group had their own personal idea of what campus
sustainability is and how to achieve it. The success in getting such a diverse group to collaborate
and even agree on a definition was an important first step in getting this group to work together
in developing the methodology and completing the CSAF (Cole, 2003). It would appear that this
would be the first step in establishing a campus sustainability assessment framework at UW;
engaging the members of WATgreen in a discussion on what UW’s definition of “campus
sustainability” should be.
According to Cole, the definition of campus sustainability, “should be seen as a working model,
one that needs to be continually revised over time” (Coles, 2003, 30) thus WATgreen was not
trying to undo the work done by another advisory group, but instead, enrich the definition to fit
the fabric at UW.
25
The WATgreen Advisory Committee was able to agree on the following definition of campus
sustainability in February 2004:
A sustainable campus community, including staff, faculty, administration,
students and the city acknowledges its local, regional and global responsibilities
to protect and enhance the health and well being of humans and ecosystems. It
actively engages the knowledge of the university community to address the
ecological, social, cultural, political and economic changes that we face now and
in the future (Legacy, 2003).
The original “vision of sustainability” as found on the WATgreen website (1991)
(http://www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infowast/watgreen/) is as follows:
We envision UW transforming itself into a showcase of sustainability, a true
ecosystem in harmony with its environment. We refer to this process as "Greening
the Campus". This undertaking presents an opportunity for students, staff, and
faculty to improve the quality of their environment, while decreasing the overall
operating cost of the University. This project offers significant new directions and
opportunities for education and research. It is promoting an environmentallyaware campus community. "Greening the Campus" represents an opportunity for
UW to act as a model and a catalyst for other campuses and institutions. UW
students will take with them into society the knowledge and motivation necessary
to foster the transformation to a sustainable society. In short, UW in the 21st
century could do for the environment what it did for computers in the 20th
century.
Overall, the “vision of sustainability” statement is old and should be updated to reflect the
current changes that have occurred including the development of UWSP and the current campus
projects that students have been undertaking.
The WATgreen Advisory Committee, through consultation with them has agreed to the
following two-part vision statement in February 2004. The first part is the actual vision, and the
second part incorporates the campus sustainability assessment framework into how UW can go
about striving toward its vision:
26
To transform the University of Waterloo into an institution of environmental
responsibility, while achieving short-term cost savings while obtaining long-term
cost efficiency. The University of Waterloo will aim to increase awareness of
environmental sustainable development through offering education for
environmentally responsible citizenship and encouraging interdisciplinary
approaches to research. In promoting an environmentally aware campus
community, UW students will take with them into society the knowledge and
motivation necessary to foster the transformation to a sustainable society.
An avenue to pursue in the journey toward a sustainable campus is in establishing
a quantitative and qualitative measuring and monitoring device such as a campus
sustainability assessment framework. Such a framework will help guide UW
toward a sustainable campus that is both ecologically and economically efficient.
The process used to develop the definition and vision included, introducing Cole’s definition and
the original WATgreen vision to the WATgreen group at a WATgreen meeting in October, 2003.
Each member of WATgreen was met with individually during the time period of December 2003
and January 2004. It was important to meet with each member on an individual basis to allow
each member the opportunity to critic and add his or her ideas in a relaxed atmosphere. The
outcome was the agreement by WATgreen to conditionally accept this “vision of sustainability”
as a “vision in progress” (to be changed on a continual basis to reflect changes at UW). They had
problems with the first sentence, which they collectively felt should remain the same as the
original vision established in 1991.
27
Appendix B Case Study: Concordia University
Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework at Concordia
The ability to market, network and build capacity for the implementation of the Campus
Sustainability Assessment Framework (CSAF) had to stem from passionate individuals. At
Concordia University it was the leadership of students who saw the value in the CSAF who then
took the initiative to implement it. Common interest in campus sustainability brought Concordia
students to the 2002 Campus Sustainability Conference at the University of Waterloo where
Melissa Garcia-Lamarca and Geneva Guerin from Concordia University met Lindsay Cole from
Royal Roads University (author of the Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework). This
meeting started what soon crystallized into a yearlong process of marketing, building capacity
and executing the assessment at Concordia University.
Concordia University
Concordia University has a reputation of having a very active student population. Their
mission statement states, “…Concordia is committed to responsible and innovative leadership in
fulfilling the mission of university to develop and disseminate knowledge and values and to act
as a social critic” (Concordia University, 2003). This mission speaks to Concordia’s unique
structure. As communicated on their website, Concordia is a large urban university, which was
founded in 1974 after the merger of two institutions, Loyola College (1896) and Sir William
University (1927).
Located in downtown Montreal, Quebec, Concordia has two campuses
located a few blocks away from each other. The student population as of Fall 2003 was 30 824
students all of which are enrolled in one of the more then 180 undergraduate programs and 80
graduate programs (Concordia University, 2003).
Sustainable Concordia Project
Sustainable Concordia is a working group under the Quebec Public Interest Research
Group (QPIRG) that strives for environmental, economic and social change on the Concordia
campus. The Sustainable Concordia Project is a “student run initiative aimed at facilitating the
28
transition of University practices from the current situation to that of a successfully sustainable
campus” (Sustainable Concordia Project, 2003).
Sustainable Concordia is the driving organization on campus that embraced the
assessment. The completed document has carved a passageway for much of the efforts by the
Sustainable Concordia Project group. As outlined in the assessment document, released in
January 2004, the focus for Sustainable Concordia Project will be to alternate yearly between
assessing the status of environmental, economic and social sustainability at Concordia and
implementing alternative measures (Sustainable Concordia Project, 2003).
Undertaking the Assessment
Melissa Garcia-Lamarca and Geneva Guerin both saw the value in Concordia
undertaking a sustainability assessment of its campus. After identifying this value they had to
articulate it to other students who could help them raise capacity for the assessment to prosper.
These two strong student leaders were successful in gathering a base of approximately ten
committed students, the backing of the Sustainable Concordia Project and support from key staff
and professors on campus. According to an article published in the Concordia Thursday Report,
“the students who conducted the audit were especially pleased by the co-operation they got from
the university staff in terms of information and financial aid” (Concordia Thursday Report,
2004).
The initial steps taken by Melissa and Geneva began with utilizing a two page report that
provided an overview of the project proposal which they later presented to all the Deans from
each of the Faculties on campus. This first step was imperative in establishing the much-needed
support from staff, faculty and administration to have the assessment undertaken. The second
big endeavour was enhancing the economic feasibility of Concordia undertaking the assessment.
By setting out a budget of $15 000 (Concordia Thursday Report, 2004), they were able to focus
their efforts on how much money this assessment would cost and where such funding could
come from.
Once the dollars were secured, the committed students (some paid, some strictly
volunteers) worked on completing the assessment in a one year time period. The effort was
supported by the Sierra Youth Coalition and the multi-stakeholder group that they establish a
working relationship with early in the process.
29
Where They Are Now
With the pending completion of the first phase of the assessment, a Geography Course
(GEOG 398) developed. The premise of the course was to institutionalize the assessment in a
course designed to allow students from all faculties and disciplines the opportunity to enhance
campus sustainability. Using the campus as a laboratory, the course explores the “creation of
sustainable communities” (Moore, 2003), designed to support Concordia’s biennial sustainability
assessment. According to the Geography 398 Course outline, at Concordia the assessment,
comprehensively measures economic, social and ecological indicators of sustainability of the
university’s practices and proposes recommendations for improvement (Moore, 2003). Hence,
the course was developed to provide a means for the assessment.
The Geography 398 course was offered for the first time in September 2003 with an
enrolment of 24 students (Moore, 2004). Seven groups of students worked on such elements of
the assessment including completing a feasibility study on a recommendation from the
assessment resulting in two being implemented. The first concerns the university's recently
launched new fleet of shuttle buses to link the two campuses. The buses are fuelled in part by
biodiesel, as suggested by the student project. The community group decided to divide their
event into two phases. The first took place recently and had Maude Barlow among others
speaking about food and globalization. They will also had a community event in September to
facilitate student participation in the various groups and activities on campus. Implementation
action continues on several others: the recto verso/recycling campaign, the incorporation of a
sustainability course at the John Molson School of Business, and the allocation of a portion of
the university's investments to socially responsible investments
The long-term goals of the project, which will continue to be worked on by the
Geography 398 students, consist of the development of the implementation strategies, which are
created to carry out the recommendations and allow for a follow-up assessment each year
(Concordia Thursday Report, 2004). Therefore, the course was developed to allow students to
conduct studies that directly contribute to it. During non-assessment years, the students will
examine the most recent assessment, conduct feasibility studies of the proposed
recommendations and compare the results both from previous assessments at Concordia and with
other universities.
30
University of Waterloo:
Campus Sustainability
Assessment Framework
Guide
Crystal Legacy
ERS 490 / 475
Advisor: Susan Wismer
Fall 2003 / Winter 2004
31
Preface
The University of Waterloo Campus Sustainability Assessment Guide provides students, staff,
faculty and administration at the University of Waterloo (UW) with the required information and
guidance to complete this assessment at UW. There is a toolkit available which answers the
question, “how do I conduct this assessment?” It provides information on understanding
sustainability in a campus context, a discussion of each of the 10 subsections of indicators and
their importance to sustainability on campus, as well as, an indicator by indicator breakdown of
how to satisfy the research requirements for each indicator. This toolkit, developed by the
creators of the Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework (CSAF), is accessible through the
Sierra Youth Coalition at http://www.syc-cjs.org/gitp/en/tools/toolkit.htm, a copy may also be
accessed from Patti Cook the Waste Management Coordinator at UW, along with the copy of the
original CSAF. You can email Patti Cook at [email protected] to obtain this copy.
The following guide is to be used in conjunction with the toolkit. Information found in this guide
includes, a brief introduction to the Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework and its
methodology, background to campus sustainability at UW, an introduction to the University of
Waterloo Sustainability Project (UWSP), as well as the campus map and the administrative
structure at UW. This information is to be considered the background information to the CSAF at
UW.
Following the introductory information, is an example of the Assessment-Use approach to the
CSAF. This outlines the type of research that should be gathered and how to go about
documenting it. In addition to the example of how to undertake the assessment, a number of
appendices are attached at the end of this guide. The information found in these appendices
includes the original list of indicators (Appendix A), the indicators and their contact departments
(Appendix B), and the list of key contacts on campus (Appendix C). All of the information
contained here will allow students in ERS 250 and UWSP volunteers to undertake the
assessment promptly without having to figure out key people on campus to talk with, etc,
because all of that information may be found here. Although the list of contacts is extensive, it is
not complete and may change as people leave departments, retire, etc. Please add and take away
from these lists as the assessment at UW evolves.
Data collected for each of the indicators on the assessment whether by the ERS 250 class, or
student volunteers at UWSP, should be given to the UWSP office manager who will be
responsible to input the information into a data base at the UWSP office. The UWSP office
manager is located in the UWSP office on the third floor of the Student Life Center room 3102,
or you can contact him/her at [email protected].
32
Table of Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………..35
Albert Einstein Quote……………………………………………………….36
Background on Campus Sustainability and the University of Waterloo….…37
Life at a Sustainable University of Waterloo………………………………...40
The University of Waterloo Sustainability Project……………………….….42
Campus Sustainability: Why is it Important?..................................................44
Methodology………………………………………………………………....45
A Glimpse into the University of Waterloo……………………………….....49
Chapter Example: Land……………………………………………………...53
Land in a Global Context…………………………………………………....54
Land in a Canadian Context…………………………………………………55
Land in a Local Context at the University of Waterloo……………………..56
Recommendations…………………………………………………………...60
Feasibility Study……………………………………………………………..61
Best Practices………………………………………………………………..62
Appendix A: Original List of Indicators…………………………………………………63
Appendix B: Indicators and their Contact Departments…………………………………79
Appendix C: List of Key Contacts……………………………………………………….91
List of Figures:
Figure 1: Egg of Sustainability…………………………………………………..……...45
Figure 2: Campus Sustainability Chapters and Subgroups………………………..….…48
Figure 3: University of Waterloo Campus Map…………………………………….…..50
Figure 4: List of Buildings and Names……………………………………………….....51
Figure 5: Administrative Structure at Waterloo………………………………………...52
Figure 6: Managed Greenspace Indicators……………………………………………...58
33
Acknowledgements
This Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework Guide (CSAF Guide) is the product that
extends from collaboration with various significant individuals and groups on the University of
Waterloo Campus. Several people have helped me to create and fine-tune the following guide,
which will act as a tool to be used by volunteers in the Campus Sustainability Indicator working
group in the University of Waterloo Sustainability Project (UWSP) and students in the
Environment and Resource Studies (ERS 250) “Greening the Campus Course” and all
subsequent ERS courses that allow students to undertake independent projects.
The following people, I would like to commend for their support and contribution to the
University of Waterloo Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework Guide:
Patti Cook, UW
Susan Wismer, UW
Greg Michalenko, UW
Jeca Glor-Bell, SYC
Jenn Davis, Concordia University
Melissa Garcia-Lamarca, Concordia University
Susan Mayor, Concordia University
Catherine Moore, Concordia University
Lindsay Cole, Royal Roads University
WATgreen Advisory Committee, UW
• Ian Fraser, Grant Russell, Dennis Huber, Andrew Martin, Stephanie Guildford,
Paul Eagles, Eric Croiset, Val Rynnimeri, Winston Cherry, Phoebe Ming-Lam
Chow, Darren Becks.
Sandy Kiang, UW
Athletic Department, UW
Plant Operations, UW
Department of Statistics, UW
Human Resources, UW
Purchasing and Graphics, UW
Registrars Office, UW
Trace Office, UW
Health and Safety Office, UW
Marketing, UW
Police Services, UW
Secretariat, UW
Persons with Disabilities, UW
Institutional Analysis and
Federation of Students, UW
Planning, UW
Research Office, UW
UWSP: Campus
Co-operative Services, UW
Sustainability
Residence/Housing, UW
Indicator Group
Food Services, UW
Communications Department, UW
Health Services, UW
34
"The significant
problems we face
cannot be solved by
the same level of
thinking that created
them."
— Albert Einstein
35
Background on Campus Sustainability and the University of Waterloo
It was in 1991 with the visit of Professor David Orr from Oberlin College in Ohio, that the
University of Waterloo evolved into a leading university in Canada on campus sustainability.
The concept introduced by Orr was to transform the campus into a living laboratory where
students, through coursework can conduct research and implement ideas that enhance campus
sustainability. It was at this time that UW integrated the WATgreen advisory committee into the
fabric of the institution and from here UW gained the reputation of being an environmentally
progressive university.
WATgreen, short for Greening Waterloo, is an advisory committee that provides feedback to
projects undertaken on campus sustainability.
The student extension of WATgreen is the
Environment and Resource Studies (ERS) 250 “Greening the Campus” course, which allows
students the opportunity to do research projects on some aspect of the University of Waterloo
community that advances it toward sustainability. Students, at the end of the course, present
their project idea to decision-makers and to the WATgreen Advisory Committee, who either
show their support for implementation of the idea, or communicate their concerns about what
still needs to be researched before the project can take the implementation route.
Many of the projects go through the exploratory research phase, only to be “put on the shelf”.
Some Environment and Resource Studies students saw the opportunity to start up a studentdriven organization that would allow students from all disciplines the opportunity to take some
of the projects and implement them. The result was the inception of the University of Waterloo
Sustainability Project (UWSP) in 2002 modeled after the University of Victoria University
Sustainability Project.
After ten years of being among the leading universities in Canada on campus sustainability, the
University of Waterloo, in September 2002, hosted the annual conference on Campus
Sustainability put on by the non-government organization the Sierra Youth Coalition. This was
UW’s opportunity to showcase the newly formed UWSP organization and all the volunteer
36
projects that were currently being implemented from such groups as the Naturalistic Landscaping
group.
The University of Waterloo has since fallen behind such universities as Concordia University in
Montreal, who recently undertook a Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework, to monitor
and measure, on an on-going basis, the progress of sustainability at their campus. The purpose
for this Guide is to help initiate the next wave of campus sustainability by proposing that
Waterloo undertake the same Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework undertaken by
Concordia University in 2003. Once this initiative is undertaken, the University of Waterloo can
act in the innovative fashion that it prides itself on, and be able to be among the leaders that will
take campus sustainability into the next phase.
Vision of Sustainability
The “Vision of Sustainability” developed by the WATgreen Advisory Committee that will be
used as the inspiration for the implementation of this assessment reads as follows:
To transform the University of Waterloo into an institution of environmental
responsibility, while achieving short-term cost savings while obtaining long-term
cost efficiency. The University of Waterloo will aim to increase awareness of
environmental sustainable development through offering education for
environmentally responsible citizenship and encouraging interdisciplinary
approaches to research. In promoting an environmentally aware campus
community, UW students will take with them into society the knowledge and
motivation necessary to foster the transformation to a sustainable society (Legacy,
2004).
An avenue to pursue in the journey toward a sustainable campus is in establishing
a quantitative and qualitative measuring and monitoring device such as a campus
sustainability assessment framework. Such a framework will help guide UW
toward a sustainable campus that is both ecologically and economically efficient
(Legacy, 2004).
This vision is important because it articulates the aim of sustainability of the university campus
and how to go about reaching it.
37
Life at a Sustainable University of Waterloo
The following is a creative story developed by the University of Waterloo Sustainability Project
Campus Sustainability Indicator Group, 2004
Morgan, a first year student at the University of Waterloo leaves early on Monday morning from
her eco-resident house at the Columbia Lake Townhouses (CLT). The CLT was not always
considered eco-residences, however, as the result of an ERS 250 “Greening the Campus” project,
the residences were retrofitted to resemble ecological sustainable living quarters.
A busy
university student has everything she/he needs at their fingertips. Composting, three-stream
recycling bins in each house make effective waste management easy. The solar panels on top of
each building are spectacular to look at, which nicely compliments the naturalistic landscape that
extends throughout the CLT village and the university campus. Morgan, who enjoys sleeping in,
never is woken by the grounds crew mowing the lawn because the landscape does not require
any type of fuel-endorsed maintenance.
As Morgan leaves the CLT, she says hello to the friendly grounds worker who is trimming the
bushes.
Morgan, who loves her first year ecological literacy course taught by professors that sit on the
WATgreen Advisory Committee, can’t wait because today in her tutorial two students, one from
civil engineering, and the other in science and business are presenting their project on wind
turbines as an alternative source of energy for the university. What a neat idea! On the way, she
has to first go to the Environmental Studies Computer lab to do some paper work via email for
the registrar’s office. Morgan notices how much less paper-intensive this university is compared
to her old high school.
She parked her bicycle at Lot A. Lot A used to be a parking lot for cars but was transformed over
to a bicycle parking lot after the inception of a universal bus pass that reduced the volume of cars
driven to campus each day, Morgan proceeds to the UW book Store. She has to pick up a text
book from the store. Like many students, Morgan is strapped for money, but she does not have
to worry. Recently the UW Book Store put in place a Pay-to-Loan system where students pay a
38
down payment for a textbook and then receive that money back at the end of the term when they
return the textbook to be recycled to students in the upcoming school term. This system is
optional; students who want to Pay-to-Own their text books can still do so.
Morgan is
particularly happy that she does not have to purchase any course notes, because the University
has just passed a policy that course notes are to be posted on line. Students can then read the
notes on the computer screen or choose to print off the notes on post-consumer paper available at
every printing station on campus.
Morgan is unaware of this, but the university made a major change-around to undertake more
sustainable business practices a few years ago when the administration integrated a line in their
6th Decade plan, which communicated that the university is now committed to striving towards
sustainability. Since that time faculty and staff have started to undertake sustainable development
training, which educates each employee of the university on the importance of their job, how it
relates to sustainability, and how they can incorporate sustainability practices into their routine at
work.
As Morgan walks across campus to get to her ecological literacy class, she readily notices the
effort put forth by all levels of the university community to become more sustainable. While
Morgan walks along Ring Road, she sees solar panels on buildings with university students
given high school students lessons on how they work; she sees native species blooming in
naturalistic gardens including rock and butterfly gardens; and she sees the hybrid access van
driving students who are physically challenged.
Can the University of Waterloo ever look like this? Yes!
Sustainability is a work in progress. Through continuous improvement, the campus can continue
to evolve towards a vision of sustainability. The ability to do so will result through continuous
consultation with community members outside of the university as well as staff, faculty,
administration and students representing all faculties on campus. The University of Waterloo
Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework Guide is just one step towards a sustainable
campus. However, it is an important first step. It will assess the current state of campus
39
sustainability in a qualitative and quantitative manner that will allow students through course and
volunteer work the opportunity to make positive change happen in the areas most needed on
campus.
The University of Waterloo Sustainability Project
Vision
The vision of the University of Waterloo Sustainability Project is to strive to continually develop
and implement environmentally sustainable practices on the University of Waterloo (UW)
campus. The environment, as defined by UWSP, includes the biophysical, social, economical
and political environment.
The mission of the University of Waterloo Sustainability Project (UWSP) is to increase student
biophysical, social, economic and political awareness of the environment while educating and
involving the campus community on issues related to the sustainable development of the
campus. UWSP aims to do this by strengthening the environmental network of UW students,
faculty, and administration.
Working out of the UW Sustainability Project office, the UWSP Coordinators facilitate
individual, group and class-related projects aimed at reducing the environmental impact of the
University of Waterloo.
The University of Waterloo Sustainability Project embraces the 1987 Brundtland Commission’s
definition of sustainable development, which suggests that “development meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.
In January 2002, the University of Waterloo Sustainability Project opened its door in the Student
Life Center at the University of Waterloo. UWSP started as a result of a few students who saw a
vision, which would allow students from all faculties the opportunity to work on projects that
would enhance the sustainability of the campus either through course work or through
volunteerism. The office provides space for students to meet, computer space for students to
40
conduct internet searches, and a library of past ERS 250 projects waiting to be implemented. A
hired office manager assists working groups and all students in project development.
UWSP has developed a working relationship with the Waterloo Public Interest Research Group
(WPIRG) and with other established environmental/sustainable development groups on campus.
As well as these partnerships, UWSP also has a number of its own working groups that have
been working each term to implement projects on campus. The working groups consist of Waste
Management, Climate Change, Naturalistic Landscaping, Alternative Transportation and
Renewable Energy.
The WATgreen Advisory Committee chaired by Patti Cook the Waste Management Coordinator
at UW, plays a role in institutionalizing UWSP. Each academic term, the Federation of Students
appoints two students as UWSP Coordinators.
These students run the UWSP office by
coordinating and providing support to all student projects. The Coordinators are the liaison
between UWSP volunteers and the Federation of Students and they also report each term to the
WATgreen Advisory Committee with updates with what each working group and UWSP as an
organization is up too.
To contact the UWSP Office Manager please email [email protected] or visit the office on the
third floor of the Student Life Centre room number 3102.
41
Campus Sustainability: Why is it Important?
David Orr, professor at Oberlin College in Ohio and advocate of campus sustainability
encourages universities across the world to consider their respective campuses as “living
laboratories”. These “living laboratories” allow students to learn, faculty to teach and staff to
work within a system that is understood as being a model for the world community beyond the
university. As a practice tool for what students want to accomplish once they graduate, the
university campus as a “living laboratory” allows students to undertake projects that will
enhance the biophysical, social and economic environment of their university. To date, efforts to
create a sustainable campus have lacked a strategic plan to direct the focus in a way that would
allow areas that have been identified as “areas of concern” to be worked on in a coordinated
fashion from year to year.
The campus sustainability assessment framework was developed under the supervision of
campus sustainability experts across Canada, as a proposed strategic plan to direct the
sustainability work done on campuses across Canada. The motivation for the project came from
an apparent gap in current campus sustainability frameworks in terms of their potential
application to Canadian university campuses.
This indicator-based assessment can be a means by which UW establishes how sustainable it has
become and what areas need focus in order to push UW ahead of all other universities in Canada
on the grounds of campus sustainability.
Definition of Campus Sustainability
The WATgreen Advisory Committee, with aid from the definition of campus sustainability
proposed by Cole in the CSAF, adopted the following definition of campus sustainability in
February 2004. The definition is as follows:
A sustainable campus community, including staff, faculty, administration,
students and the city acknowledges its local, regional and global responsibilities
to protect and enhance the health and well being of humans and ecosystems. It
actively engages the knowledge of the university community to address the
ecological, social, cultural, political and economic changes that we face now and
in the future.
42
Methodology
The methodology used for this guide, and used as well in Concordia’s CSAF, is the same
methodology developed by Lindsay Cole in her CSAF.
The methodology was developed
through consultation with Cole’s co-research team of campus sustainability stakeholders.5
Figure 1: Egg of Sustainability
Sustainability is currently ill-defined. It is complex, interdependent, and very difficult to
accurately divide into smaller parts. The Egg of Sustainability
(Figure 1) attempts to synthesize sustainability into a
ECOSYSTEM
manageable model.
LAND
WATER
This model – the egg of
sustainability – is meant to help with understanding
MATERIALS
and
describing
the
wide
range
of
campus
sustainability issues included in the CSAF (Cole,
PEOPLE
AIR
KNOWLEDGE
ENERGY
COMMUNITY
2003).
The schematic diagram in Figure 1 illustrates that
the people subsystem lies within the eco-subsystem,
HEALTH &
WELL-BEING
GOVERNANCE
ECONOMY
& WEALTH
representing its supportive function, and that each
subsystem needs to be healthy in order for the whole
system to be healthy.
Within each subsystem are five
“dimensions,” representing the key campus sustainability issues.
The ecosystem dimensions are air, water, land, materials, and energy. The people dimensions
are knowledge, community, economy and wealth, governance, and health and wellbeing. Each
dimension is then further broken down into “elements” and “sub-elements” until the
organizational level of indicators is reached (Cole, 2003).
At the University of Waterloo, many challenges in data and information gathering, to fully
complete the CSAF will be faced. The CSAF is the largest tool of its kind, containing over 170
indicators.
At UW, students will not be able to find information on all of the indicators
5
Crystal Legacy undertook extensive research of past and present campus sustainability assessment frameworks in
assessing which framework would be of the most use at UW. Her research may be found through Patti Cook, the
Waste Management Coordinator at UW at extension 3245.
43
contained in the CSAF, and perhaps whole sub-sections will have to be left blank due to
inaccessibility or unavailability of information. Found in this guide is a list of all the indicators
found in the CSAF, with additional information with regards to who on campus such data may
be gathered from, whether information is available on campus, and how to gather the information
i.e. using audits and surveys.
As part of this initiation, the ERS 250 “Greening the Campus” course, as well as student
volunteers in UWSP should describe data collection difficulties, communicate these issues by,
identifying what departments on campus lack information, and make concrete suggestions on
how to move forward. Inaccessible or uncollected information does not mean that the issue is
not important for the UW campus (Cole, 2003); in fact it may be that these exact issues are the
most important ones for the campus to address. The CSAF has been designed as a whole to
describe overall movement of our campus towards sustainability. Implementation of the CSAF
will be a great challenge, and an important one, requiring patience, diplomacy, strategic planning
and perseverance to complete (Cole, 2003).
The University of Waterloo assessment is comprised of ten chapters based on ten indicator
framework categories. Five focus on ecological areas including energy, land, air, water and
materials. Five focus on socio-economic areas, which are knowledge, governance, economy and
wealth, health and wellbeing and community.
Each chapter is further divided into subsections (Figure 2). When data is collected on a group of
indicators, each “chapter” of indicators should be documented using the following as a guide:
Context
The global and local context will be set to help explain the importance of the issue at hand.
Importance will be explained from a global perspective as well as in the context of the University
community at Waterloo.
44
Indicators
Measurements of UW’s sustainability are set according to the standard indicator framework used
by the universities.
Recommendations
Each subsection will have a recommendation section that will highlight the require steps to be
taken to get the University to the next level in sustainability. The recommendations are broken
down into three categories “maintenance”, “preventative”, and “innovative”. The maintenance
recommendations are those practices that can be done on a daily basis that will help reduce any
adverse impacts to the socio-biophysical environment. Preventative measures are those practices
that stop an adverse effect from occurring in the future. Innovative practices are those that
prevent any foreseen negative effects from occurring as a result from an accumulation of
practices occurring presently.
Feasibility Studies
After the recommendations are made, feasibility studies should be undertaken. Each
recommendation should be practical and therefore include an assessment of the economic, social
and environmental feasibility.
Case Studies/Best practices
Best practices from Universities around the world will be illustrated in each section. The best
practices will pertain to the focus of the particular subsection. Best practices will highlight the
achievements of universities while setting a standard of feasibility.
An example of this process is later described using a sample group of indicators.
45
Figure 2: Campus Sustainability Chapters and Subgroups
Ecological Chapter
Materials
Buildings
Energy
Sources
Air
Indoor
Paper
Food
Management
Outdoor
Intensity of Use
Land
Water
Managed Green Consumption
Space****
Natural Areas
Management
Intensity of Use Storm and
Waste Water
Equipment
Hazardous
Waste
Solid Waste
Socio-Economic Chapter
Governance
Policy
Implementation
Monitoring
Knowledge
Training
Research
Curriculum
Economy and
Wealth
Individual
Institutional
Health and
Wellbeing
Recreation
Food
Safety
Health Services
Environment
Community
Involvement
Diversity
Services
Note: **** Indicates the area of focus for the sample indicator which appears later in the guide.
46
A Glimpse into the University of Waterloo
The University of Waterloo, located in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada was founded in 1957. Since
1957, the University of Waterloo (UW) has evolved into a flourishing academic institution with
an alumni base of 112,000 from approximately 135 countries around the globe (Communications
and Public Affairs, 2003). These numbers are a testament to the international reputation UW has
established for itself in each of its seven disciplines, which includes one of the largest Math
Faculties in the world.
The University of Waterloo is a large university with a student base of 18,913 full-time
undergraduates, 2,637 part-time undergraduates, 2,039 full-time graduate students and 446 parttime graduate students (Communications and Public Affairs, 2003).
The University of Waterloo has the largest co-operative education program in North America,
which allows UW students to graduate with the knowledge, skills, and practical experience
required to solve current complex and pressing problems and to embrace future challenges
(Communication and Public Affairs, 2003).
Mission Statement (Annual Report)
Waterloo has long been recognized as the most innovative university in Canada. Like many
universities, Waterloo is committed to advancing learning and knowledge through teaching,
research and scholarship. What sets Waterloo apart, however, is how it goes about accomplishing
its mission.
From the beginning, Waterloo had been an outward-looking university, aware of and responsive
to the needs of society. But producing the leaders of tomorrow is just part of the mission. As a
research intensive university, Waterloo is committed to discovering new knowledge and finding
ways to use that knowledge for the benefit of all. Waterloo is the national leader in the transfer
of ideas and technology to the private sector. More Canadian high-tech and knowledge-based
spin-off companies trace their roots to the University of Waterloo than to any other school
(University of Waterloo, 2003).
47
Figure 3: University of Waterloo Campus Map
(University of Waterloo, 2002)
48
Figure 4: List of Buildings and Names
AL
Arts Lecture Hall
GH
Graduate House
B1
Biology 1
GSC General Services Complex
B2
Biology 2
HH
J.G. Hagey Hall of the Humanities
BAU Bauer Warehouse
HMN Hildegard Marsden Nursery
BFG 195 Columbia St.
HS
Health Services
BMH B.C. Mathews Hall
LHI
Lyle S. Hallman Institute for Health Promotion
BRH Brubacher House
LIB
Dana Porter Library
C2
MC
Mathematics & Computer
Chemistry 2
CDC Clemmer Day Care
MHR Minota Hagey Residence
CGR Conrad Grebel University College
MKV Wm. Lyon Mackenzie King Village
CIF
ML
Modern Languages
CLT Columbia Lake Townhouses
NH
Ira G. Needles Hall
COG Columbia Greenhouses
OPT Optometry
COM Commissary (UW Police & Parking)
PAC Physical Activities Complex
CPH Carl A. Pollock Hall
PAS Psychology, Anthropology, Sociology
CSB Central Services Building
PHY Physics
DC
Columbia Icefield
William G. Davis Computer Research
RCH J.R. Coutts Engineering Lecture Hall
Centre
DWE Douglas Wright Engineering Building REN Renison College
E2
Engineering 2
REV Ron Eydt Village
E3
Engineering 3
SCH South Campus Hall
ECH East Campus Hall
SLC Student Life Centre
EIT
Centre for Environmental Information
STJ
Technology
St. Jerome's University
ES1
Environmental Studies 1
STP
St. Paul's College
ES2
Environmental Studies 2
TC
William M. Tatham Centre for Co-operative
Education and Career Services
ESC Earth Sciences & Chemistry
TH
Tutor's Houses
FED Federation Hall
UC
University Club
GA
335 Gage Avenue
(Distance & Continuing Education,
Part-time Studies)
for map, click here.
UWP University of Waterloo Place
V1
Student Village 1
(University of Waterloo, 2002)
49
Figure 5: Administrative Structure at Waterloo (University of Waterloo, 2003)
50
Chapter Sample: Land
The following is an example of the process that should be undertaken for each of the
indicators. This is the recommended format and procedure to be used initially by all of
the students who participate in preparing this assessment. However, as experience with
the assessment is accumulated, the CSAF may change and evolve in order to become a
more effective measuring and monitoring device for UW. The format illustrated in this
example is based on the format used by the Concordia University Report.
What we do on
Land is mirrored
in the water…
-Central Lake Ontario Conservation
Authority
51
Land in a Global Context
The world’s soils provide the foundation for all life on land6. Furthermore, soil
degradation is the loss of the land productivity; hence the potential extinction of life
forms on the planet. Since 1990, soil loss has continued to mount yearly, with an
additional 5 to 6 million hectares lost to severe soil degradation annually (World
Resources Institute, 2003). Consequently, over the past 45 years, an estimated 11% of the
earth’s vegetated land surface has experienced moderate to extreme soil degradation
(Global Centres, 2003). Degradation may come in several forms including soil erosion,
water erosion, wind erosion, and over-intensive cultivation of land (World Resources
Institute, 2003).
Alterations in the surface of the earth hold major implications for global radiation balance
and energy fluxes, contributions to changes in biogeochemical cycles, alterations in
hydrological cycles and influences on ecological balances and complexity (Science for
Global Insight, 2003).
Through these environmental impacts at local, regional and global levels, land-use and
land cover changes driven by human activity have the potential to significantly affect
food security and sustainability of world agricultural and forest product supply systems
(Science for Global Insight, 2003). Controlling land degradation is central to achieving
food security and sustainable agricultural and rural development in many countries
(World Bank, 2003).
Independent of long-term global cumulative dimensions, changes in land use and land
cover will have profound regional environmental implications, such as alterations in
6
The following text was written by Crystal Legacy as an example of how each grouping of indicators could
be assessed. The information in this section was researched and written by Legacy.
52
surface runoff dynamics, lowering of groundwater tables, impacts on rates and types of
land degradation and reduced biodiversity (Science for Global Insight, 2003).
Land in a Canadian Context
In trying to understand the environment in a holistic fashion, one realizes that any
degradation to the environment may start from a single cause, but that in turn affects
several other entities with the environment. The result is a web of problems. Land
degradation in Canada is like this. There may be a single cause or a complex mix of
causes, some may be biogeophysical (natural), and some socio-economic (human), and
perhaps even a accumulation of effects from the combination of natural and human
causes (Environmental Centre, 2003).
Canadians are depleting their soil resources through a combination of improper farming
and other land practices leading to soil erosion, inappropriate use of fertilizers, over-use
of pesticides, over irrigation causing salinization, and the conversion of some of their best
agricultural land into urban areas (Global Centres, 2003).
Land degradation in Canada is serious because the productivity of huge areas of land is
declining just when populations are increasing rapidly and the demand on the land to
produce more food fibre and fuel is growing (Government of Canada, 2002). There is no
one solution in sight to overcome land degradation. There is however the possibility of
using better land use-planning mechanisms. While land use planning and land zoning
combined with better land management should provide long-term solutions, it is urgent to
arrest land degradation and launch conservation and rehabilitation programs in affected
and vulnerable areas (Government of Canada, 2002).
53
Land in a Local Context at the University of Waterloo
In the early 1960s, when UW was first becoming established the dominant landscape
outlay for the area was grass and trees. The original landscape required large amounts of
resources, energy, labour and time to maintain (University of Waterloo, 2001). The
original vision of the campus landscape was to be a “clean-cut, straight-line university”
with no ivy growing on building walls or stray plants surrounding the buildings
(University of Waterloo, 2001).
In 1991, there was a change to the objectives of maintaining the campus.
Plant
Operations was directed to maintain the landscape as a “park-like’ setting. This meant
that along with grass and trees, the landscape could also include grassy meadow type
areas. This was a big step toward a more sustainable landscape (University of Waterloo,
2001).
In July 1991, the University of Waterloo Campus Master Plan was developed,
articulating the university’s purpose of maintaining and enhancing the quality of South
Campus, providing a strategy for management of the North Campus and creating goals
with respect to environmental sustainability for the campus landscape. The Master Plan
54
suggests that a naturalized, low-maintenance setting should be established (Berridge
Lewinberg Greenberg, 1991).
Landscape Characteristics
South Campus is situated on approximately 300 acres of gently rolling land formally used
for farming. North Campus is still predominately agricultural land with small woodlots
and residual hedge groves. The Laurel Creek watercourse bisects the campus and
includes approximately 170 acres of creek and lake, all under the control of the Grand
River Conservation Authority (Berridge Lewinberg Greenberg, 1991).
The University of Waterloo is part of the Carolinian Plant Life Zone in Ontario. This
region has a range of habitats with a variety of native plants (University of Waterloo,
2001).
On the campus there are a number of different terrains and habitats in which
native plants can grow and some include: wetland communities around Laurel Creek;
prairie habitat where there is little to no shade; woodland habitats where trees around
campus provide a moist shady environment for smaller plants; or any combination of
these three (University of Waterloo, 2001).
Current Landscape Practices
Over the years, there has been a gradual reduction of pesticide spraying on campus. For
the general turf areas, the target was to have 0% pesticide use on campus by 2000; this
target has been reached, however, spot spraying is still used only as required to maintain
safe playing conditions on turf used for sport (WATgreen, 1998). Interestingly, as
reported by Plant Operations in March 2004, when pesticide use was reduced, the use of
organic fertilizers increased. This is a common occurrence when pesticide use is
eliminated. Plant Operations have been committed, however, to keep up-to-date on new
lawn practices that could help to reduce inorganic fertilizers by attending work-shops and
conferences on the subject area.
55
Ten percent of campus is now (2004) naturalized landscape instead of grass. The 1992
WATgreen Task Force on Turf Grass Maintenance investigated options and alternatives
to turf grass maintenance. The result was the five year Turf Grass Maintenance Action
Plan
found
at
the
following
website:
www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infowast/watgreen/turf.html. This action plan was held by Plant
Operations, with the objective of eliminating pesticide spraying on turf grass at UW by
the year 2000, which would be achieved by implementing a modified turf maintenance
program through the monitoring and evaluation of results (Plant Operations, 1994). The
action plan (1994) outlines a number of steps to be taken if pest control is necessary on
campus. The steps are as follows:
1. The problem is identified and confirmed
2. The problem must exceed acceptable levels of damage
3. Alternative methods are evaluated
4. The best method with the least impact is implemented
5. Timing control for maximum results and safety
6. Monitoring results for follow-up and record keeping
7. Modify the program as necessary
The alternative methods, in point 3, are consistently being developed and assessed by
Plant Operations. They are always looking for improved non-chemical control
techniques, which include desirable vegetation, mulches, manipulation of environmental
factors such as irrigation, soil fertility, pest habitat, manual and mechanical cultivation.
These ideas are exchanged and shared with other agencies also trying Integrated Past
Management (Plant Operations, 1994).
Managed Greenspace Indicators7
7
This section illustrates the format for data analysis. This is the exact format suggested by Lindsay Cole in
her CSAF and the format utilized by Concordia University when they undertook their assessment. It is
recommended that UW stay with this format to allow for consistency with the other universities for future
comparison sake.
56
Managed Greenspace
Issues:
Managed greenspace includes all permeable (i.e. not paved, and water can
penetrate) surfaces on campus that are managed in some way, including
lawns, landscaped beds (with both native and non-native plant species),
gardens, agricultural lands, gravel walkways, etc. Any greenspace on
campus that requires maintenance by university staff should be included.
These areas are important contributors to campus sustainability both in
terms of human and ecosystem well-being (Cole, 2003).
Indicators and Benchmarks:
MEASUREMENT UNITS
RESULTS
Total hectares of managed greenspaces, divided
by the total on-campus greenspace (both
managed and natural, including everything that
is not built, or that is permeable); multiply by
100.
Note: the percent of total on-campus greenspace
that is ‘natural’ can also be found here by
subtracting the result of this indicator from 100.
Total volume of solid and liquid inorganic
fertilizers used annually (in kilograms), divided
by the total hectares of managed greenspace.
21% of total
acreage
No.
Indicator
L-1
Managed
Greenspace
L-2
Inorganic
Fertilizers
L-3
Pesticides
Total volume of solid and liquid pesticides
(including both plant and animal poisons of all
types) used annually (in litres), divided by the
total hectares of managed greenspace.
L-4
Native
Plants
Total number of native plants installed (number
of individual plants) annually in managed
greenspaces, divided by the total number of
plants installed in that year; multiply by 100.
Spring 2003:
15000kg at
14-12-10,
1050kg corn
gluten at 82-4
Summer/Fal
l 2003:
12000kg at
20-5-15,
3600kg corn
gluten at 82-4 on the
playing
fields
In 2003: 20
Litres of
round-up
only, there
were no
selective
herbicides or
insecticides
used.
Approximat
ely 40% of
total tree
population is
native.
SHORT-TERM
BENCHMARK
LONGTERM
GOAL
Zero
Zero
At least 50%
100%
57
Approximat
ely 20% of
the ground
cover is
native
Recommendations:
The following recommendations were developed by the University of Waterloo
Sustainability Project, Sustainable Indicators Working Group, in collaboration with Tom
Galloway, Les Van Dongen and Jerry Hutten from Plant Operations in March 2004.
Each of the recommendations for managed greenspace, inorganic fertilizers, pesticides
and native species are categorized under the subheadings: “Maintenance”,
“Preventative” and “Innovative”. The recommendations made are directed toward the
staffs that work in Plant Operations at the University of Waterloo.
Maintenance
¾ Reduce Mowing
¾ Take islands on campus that are currently being maintained in the traditional
sense of landscaping and allow students to transform them into perennial gardens.
¾ The playing fields on North Campus have not been sprayed in two years. Plant
Operations only sprays the fields when an infestation occurs. When this happens,
the infested area of the field is sprayed. The fields do have to be sprayed when an
infestation occurs to ensure that the fields remain safe for play. Irrigation systems
on the fields, which help the grass to grow, reduce the need for pesticides.
Therefore, the irrigation system should continue to be maintained to ensure proper
irrigation to avoid requiring the use of pesticides.
¾ Plant Operations should continue to only plant native species on campus.
Preventative
¾ There is still a patch of Carolinian regrowth forest on North Campus. The
biological reserve proposed for North Campus should include the Carolinian
forest to prevent the forest from being adversely affected from any further
development in the region.
¾ Conduct a follow-up report to the 1994 Turf Grass Maintenance Action Plan to
see how many of the goals have been reached and which areas still require work.
¾ Develop a working partnership with Larry Lamb, UW’s Ecology Specialist, and
his students. These students can do the research to explore new landscaping
approaches on campus.
Innovative
¾ Use the Dorney Garden and its extension as a model to be used around campus.
¾ As use of pesticides decreases, use of inorganic fertilizers increases. Organic
fertilizers are currently expensive; however, Plant Operations feel that over time
they will come down in price to reflect the increase in demand for them.
58
¾ The only type of pesticide being used is Roundup. This pesticide is being used on
parking lots and other paved surfaces where weeds are showing through the
cracks in the pavement. Roundup is not being used on turf. Plant Operations
should consider substituting pesticides for inorganic fertilizers, which currently
contributes less of an adverse affect to the environment compared to pesticides.
Feasibility Study
The following is an example of a feasibility study using the recommendation to reduce
mowing on campus.
Economic Feasibility: Reduction in mowing will reduce the need to maintain a lawn
mower, which has the potential to breakdown and therefore require repair. There will
also be fewer dollars from the Plant Operations operating budget spent towards fuel for
the lawn mowers.
Environmental Feasibility: Less air pollution and less noise. The alternative to using
lawn mowers on the UW campus property is the increase in trees, shrubs, easy to care
perennials, and walking paths to reduce the amount of lawn space that requires mowing.
Social Feasibility: A reduction in lawn mowing due to an increase in naturalized areas,
will require that more walking paths be established to compensate for the loss of “shortcut” grassy areas.
59
Best Practices
Outlined below is one example of a best practice in native species planting. As students
undergo the actual assessment, it is recommended that between 3 to 5 best practice
examples be illustrated for each of the indicator groups. Using more than one example
will provide those who are undertaking the assessment with a plethora of standards for
which UW can be measured against.
Native Species:
Warren Wilson College,
North Carolina, USA
Students at Warren Wilson College, a private college for
liberal arts and science students located in the Swannanoa
Valley within the Blue Ridge Mountains, developed the
Native Grasses Project. This project, which was designed
and implemented by 40 student members, promotes the use
of native plants in commercial landscaping, encouraging
the reintroduction of native species into areas where they
have been extirpated.
To achieve the projects ends, there are short and long term
goals including the creation of a seed stock from local
sources, the construction of a greenhouse, the improvement
and expansion of the arboretum site and the beginning of
the propagation of a variety of species. In addition, the
student group created an information guide for native
propagation at the College.
Warren Wilson emphasizes campus greening and
environmental stewardship in its policies. In 2000, the
Campus Greening Document was finalized and was
60
accepted by the community. This document attested to the
dedication of the school to strive sustainability and
encourages policy decision-making at the College to
consider local, native and organic materials while
discouraging the use of chemicals and exotics.
Warren Wilson College, People and Nature: Our Future in
the Balance, National Wildlife Federation, 2002
61
Appendix A: Original List of Indicators
The following chart is an exact replica of the “Table of Indicators” found in Cole’s
CSAF. The Benchmarks found in the last two columns were developed by Cole in
collaboration with her multi-stakeholder group. I encourage UW to use the established
benchmarks. Areas that have not yet benchmarked, should be developed by the students
in cooperation with the UW CSAF multi-stakeholder group once one is established.
(Cole, 2003)
No.
Indicator
HW-1
Recreation
Space
HW-2
Recreation
Participation
HW-3
Diet Types
HW-4
Nutritional
Information
HW-5
Organic, NonGMO, Fair
Trade Food
HW-6
Motor Vehicle
Accidents
HW-7
Workplace
Incidents
Measurement Units
Total square metres dedicated to recreation uses (both inand outdoor to be included) divided by total campus square
metres; multiply by 100.
Total number of CCMs participating in one or more oncampus recreation programs (avoid double counting of
people who participate in more than one program) divided
by the total number of CCMs; multiply by 100.
Total annual number of meal servings (i.e. breakfast, lunch
and/or dinner) provided by all food service outlets oncampus that have all listed diet types provided for in the
serving, divided by total number of meal servings provided
by all food services each year; multiply by 100.
Different diet types include: regular, vegan, vegetarian
(lacto ovo), kosher, halal, diabetic, gluten free, and low
calorie, cholesterol and salt.
Total annual number of meal servings (i.e. breakfast, lunch
and/or dinner) provided by all food service outlets oncampus that provide detailed nutritional information to the
consumer at point of purchase, divided by the total meals
served; multiply by 100.
Note: if one meal serving (i.e. breakfast) has 25% of its
food products labeled with detailed nutritional information,
then only 25% of that one meal should be counted towards
the total.
Total annual dollar value of certified organic, and/or nongenetically modified, and/or fairly traded food products for
all outlets selling food (prepared and unprepared) on
campus, divided by the total annual food budget; multiply
by 100. Note: if a food meets two or more of the categories,
it should only be counted once.
Total annual number of accidents on-campus occurring on
campus lands and involving at least one motor vehicle
(include accidents involving cyclists, pedestrians, etc. with
motor vehicles) divided by the total number of CCMs;
multiply by 1000.
Total annual number of workplace incidents divided by
total number of staff and faculty CCMs (do not include FTE
students); multiply by 1000.
Short-Term
Benchmark
Long-Term
Benchmark
At least 40%
100%
At least 30%
100%
At least 30%
100%
At least 30%
100%
Zero per 1000
CCMs
Zero per 1000
CCMs
62
HW-8
Incidents of
Assault
HW-9
Physical Health
Care
Practitioners
HW10
HW11
HW12
Sick Days
HW13
Retention Rate
HW14
Spiritual
Services
HW15
Mental Illness
HW16
HW17
Student Suicide
Rate
Accessible
Greenspace
HW18
Noise Pollution
HW19
Light Pollution
C-1
Volunteerism
C-2
Financing
Volunteer
Groups
C-3
Alumni
Smoking
Mental Health
Care
Practitioner
Total annual number of reported incidents of rape, sexual
assault, racism, physical assault, homophobia, and other
similar events divided by the total number of CCMs;
multiply by 1000
Total number of CCMs divided by the total number of
certified FTE physical health care professionals on-campus
in assessment year (doctors, nurses, naturopaths,
physiotherapists, etc.).
Total annual number of sick days taken by FTE staff and
faculty, divided by the total FTE staff and faculty members.
Total number of CCMs who smoke daily in assessment
year, divided by the total number of CCMs.
Total number of CCMs divided by the total number of
certified FTE mental health care professionals on-campus in
assessment year (psychiatrists, psychologists, counsellors,
etc.).
Measure annual retention rates of staff, students and faculty
and average them based on the total FTE populations of
each group.
Total number of CCMs practicing a spiritual discipline who
are serviced by spirituality outlets available on-campus
(with care taken not to double count individuals using more
than one service) divided by the total number of CCMs;
multiply by 100.
Total annual number of people reporting depression,
alcohol/drug abuse, etc., divided by the total campus
headcount; multiply by 100.
Total annual number of student suicides, divided by the
total headcount of students; multiply by 1000.
Total hectares of greenspace accessible to CCMs within 1
kilometre of campus (both on- and off-campus) in
assessment year divided by the total number of CCMs;
multiply by 1000.
Number of unoccupied classrooms and offices with noise
levels of 35 decibels or lessii divided by the total number of
classrooms in assessment year; multiply by 100.
Subtract average uplight level above built campus space (in
foot-candles) from ambient uplight levels (i.e. levels with
all campus lights turned off)iii. Divide the difference by the
built campus uplight levels; multiply by 100.
Total annual number of CCMs who volunteer at least 2
hours per week divided by the total number of CCMs, and
multiplied by 100. Volunteering can be with one, or several
different groups working on any issue but must be based
on-campus. Organizations actively working against the
concepts of sustainability (i.e. racial discrimination, waste
of resources, etc.) shall not be included, and double
counting of people should be avoided.
Total annual amount of money university gives to each oncampus volunteer driven organization (excluding those
working against sustainability), divided by the total number
of organizations (excluding those working against
sustainability). Money from both university and student
government administrations should be included.
Total annual hours of volunteer work done by university
Zero per 1000
CCMs
X CCMs/ FTE
professional
X CCMs/ FTE
professional
Zero
14.5%i or less
Zero
X CCMs/ FTE
professional
X CCMs/ FTE
professional
At least 85%
100%
100%
Zero
X hectares per
1000 CCMs
Zero per 1000
students.
X hectares per
1000 CCMs
At least 50%
100%
25% or less
contribution of
campus lighting
to uplight levels.
At least 30%
Zero
100%
At least $250
per group each
year.
At least $500
per group each
year.
At least 12
At least 24
63
Volunteerism
alumni for university specific tasks, divided by the total
number of living alumni.
Total annual number of incoming students from the local
community, subtract total number of those local students
who graduate and are still living in the community 1 year
after graduation. Divide the difference by the total number
of incoming students from the local community; multiply
by 100. “Local’ is defined as the local or regional
government management area, as this is most likely how
statistics will be kept.
Total annual number of CCMs who feel a very strong sense
of belonging, attachment to, confidence in, and engagement
in their campus community according to survey results,
divided by total number of survey respondents; multiply by
100.
Number of student voters in most recent student election (of
any type), divided by total number of eligible voters;
multiply by 100. If more than one election was held in the
previous year, average the voter turnout results.
Percent of FTE faculty with physical and/or mental
disabilities from each of three faculty groups (in FTE’s):
tenured faculty; non-tenured faculty; and sessional
instructors. Subtract the provincial population average of
people of working age with disabilities from the percent for
each of the three faculty groups.
hours per year.
hours per year
At least 50%
100%
At least 75%
100%
At least 50%
100%
Gap of 10% or
less above or
below zero for
all three faculty
groupings.
Zero
difference
between
campus and
provincial
populations for
all three
faculty
groupings.
Zero
difference
between
campus and
provincial
populations for
all three staff
groupings.
Zero
difference
between
campus and
provincial
populations for
all
departments.
Zero
difference
between
campus and
provincial
populations for
all three
faculty
groupings.
Zero
difference
C-4
Graduates In the
Community
C-5
Sense of
Community
C-6
Voter Turnout
C-7
Faculty with
Disabilities
C-8
Staff with
Disabilities
Percent of FTE staff with physical and/or mental disabilities
from each of the three staff groups (in FTE’s): staff from
the top 33% of salary; the middle 33%; and the bottom
34%. Subtract the provincial population average of people
of working age with disabilities from the percent for each of
the three staff groups.
Gap of 10% or
less above or
below zero for
all three staff
groupings.
C-9
Students with
Disabilities
Percent of FTE students with physical and/or mental
disabilities from each department on campus, by number of
FTE students. Note: each campus will have different
department listings, according to their unique academic
structures. Subtract the provincial population average of
people of working age with disabilities from the percent for
each of the departments.
Gap of 10% or
less above or
below zero for
all departments.
C-10
Faculty of
Ethnic
Minorities
Percent of FTE faculty that self-identify as a member of an
ethnic minority from each of the three faculty groups (in
FTE’s): tenured faculty; non-tenured faculty; and sessional
instructors. Subtract the provincial population average of
people of working age who self-identify as members of
ethnic minorities from the percent from all three faculty
groups.
Gap of 10% or
less above or
below zero for
all three faculty
groupings.
C-11
Staff of Ethnic
Minorities
Percent of FTE staff that self-identify as a member of an
ethnic minority from each of the three staff groups (in
Gap of 10% or
less above or
64
FTE’s): staff from the top 33% of salary; the middle 33%;
and the bottom 34%. Subtract the provincial population
average of people of working age that self-identify as
members of ethnic minorities from the percent from each of
the three staff groups.
below zero for
all three staff
groupings.
Percent of FTE students that self-identify as a member of an
ethnic minority from each department on campus, by
number of FTE students. Note: each campus will have
different department listings, according to their unique
academic structures. Subtract the provincial population
average of people of working age that self-identify as
members of ethnic minorities from the percent from all
departments.
Percent of FTE women in each of the three faculty groups
(in FTE’s): non-tenured full-time faculty, and sessionals.
Subtract the provincial population average of women of
working age from the percent from each of the three faculty
groups.
Gap of 10% or
less above or
below zero for
all departments.
C-12
Students of
Ethnic
Minorities
C-13
Faculty Gender
C-14
Staff Gender
Percent of FTE women in each of the three staff groups (in
FTE’s): staff from the top 33% of salary; the middle 33%;
and the bottom 34%. Subtract the provincial population
average of working age women from the percent for each of
the three staff groups.
Gap of 10% or
less above or
below zero for
all three staff
groupings.
C-15
Student Gender
Percent of FTE women students in each department on
campus (in student FTE’s). Note: each campus will have
different department listings, according to their unique
academic structures. Subtract the provincial population
average of working age women from the percentage of all
departments.
Gap of 10% or
less above or
below zero for
all departments.
C-16
Equity of
Indigenous
Peoples: Faculty
Percent of faculty that self-identify as Indigenous Peoples in
each of the three faculty groups (in FTE’s): tenured faculty;
non-tenured full-time faculty; and sessionals. Subtract the
national population average of people of working age that
self-identify as Indigenous Peoples from the percent from
each faculty group.
Gap of 10%
above or below
zero for all three
faculty
groupings.
C-17
Equity of
Indigenous
Peoples: Staff
Percent of staff that self-identify as Indigenous Peoples in
each of the three staff groups (in FTE’s): staff in the top
33% salary range; the middle 33%; and the bottom 34%.
Subtract the national population average of people of
working age that self-identify as Indigenous Peoples from
the percent for each staff group.
Gap of 10%
above or below
zero for all three
staff groupings.
C-18
Equity of
Percent of students that self-identify as Indigenous Peoples
Gap of 10%
Gap of 10% or
less above or
below zero for
all three faculty
groupings.
65
between
campus and
provincial
populations for
all three staff
groupings.
Zero
difference
between
campus and
provincial
populations for
all
departments.
Zero
difference
between
campus and
provincial
populations for
all three
faculty
groupings.
Zero
difference
between
campus and
provincial
populations for
all three staff
groupings.
Zero
difference
between
campus and
provincial
populations for
all
departments.
Zero between
campus and
national
populations for
all three
faculty
groupings.
Zero
difference
between
campus and
national
populations for
all three staff
groupings.
Zero
Indigenous
Peoples:
Students
from each department on campus (in FTE’s). Note: each
campus will have different department listings, according to
their academic structures. Subtract the national population
average of people that self-identify as Indigenous Peoples
from the percent for each department.
above or below
zero for all
departments.
C-19
Indoor
Community
Space
At least 15%
C-20
On-campus
Housing
C-21
On-campus
Housing
Affordability
C-22
On-campus
Employment
Services
C-23
Community
Library Cards
C-24
On-campus
Media
Expenditures
C-25
Affordability of
Public Transit
K-1
New Faculty
Orientation
K-2
New Staff
Orientation
K-3
New Student
Orientation
Square metres of designated indoor community gathering
space, divided by the total indoor square metres; multiply
by 100. Indoor community gathering space includes
lounges, food service outlets, designated meeting rooms,
computer laboratories (accessible to whole campus), etc. It
excludes hallways, classrooms, offices, private study
spaces, etc.
Total number of university owned and managed beds (for
students, staff and faculty), both on- and off-campus,
divided by the total number of CCMs; multiply by 100.
Average cost of university owned and managed single
student housing divided by the total average expenses per
single student (based on a normal months’ costs while in
school); multiply by 100.
Total number of full-time jobs posted annually by an oncampus student employment centre, divided by the total
number of students graduating in that year (including
undergraduate and graduate students).
Total number of “community library cards” (i.e. nonstudent [of any university], staff or faculty) issued or
renewed annually, divided by the total number of cards
issued; multiply by 100. Note: if there is an annual fee of
$20 or more, these cards should not be counted in the
calculation.
Total annual operating budget for all on-campus media
sources (of all types), subtract total annual financial
contribution in dollars by both student and university
administrations (in order to identify external funding
sources like advertising, grants, etc.). Divide this difference
by the total annual operating budget; multiply by 100.
Total annual cost of providing all CCMs with public transit
passes for their time on campus, subtract total amount of
money spent by university and student administrations on
public transit subsidies each year. Divide this difference by
the total annual cost of providing all CCMs with public
transit passes; multiply by 100.
Total annual number of new faculty (by headcount)
receiving at least 1 hour of in-person orientation to campus
and local community environment/social issues divided by
the total number of new faculty members arriving oncampus in that year, multiply by 100.
Total annual number of new staff (by headcount) receiving
at least 1 hour of in-person orientation to campus and local
community environment/social issues divided by the total
number of new staff arriving on-campus in that year;
multiply by 100.
Total annual number of new students (by headcount)
receiving at least 1 hour of in-person orientation to campus
difference
between
campus and
national
populations for
all
departments.
At least 25%
At least 75%
30 – 35%
(based on
Student Loan
allowances)
At least 0.5 per
student
At least 1 per
student
At least 75%
100%
At least 25%
100%
At least 50%
100%
At least 50%
100%
At least 50%
100%
66
Less than
30%.
K-4
Faculty
Sustainability
Training
K-5
Staff
Sustainability
Training
K-6
On-campus
Student
Sustainability
Jobs
Research
Collaboration:
On-campus
K-7
K-8
Research
Collaboration:
Non-Profit
K-9
Research
Collaboration:
For Profit
K-10
Sustainability
Research
Expenditures
For-profit
Research
Contributions
Faculty
Sustainability
Research
K-11
K-12
K-13
Sustainability
Pledge
K-14
Sustainability
Literacy Survey
K-15
Courses with
Applied
and local community environment/social issues divided by
the total number of new students arriving on-campus in that
year; multiply by 100.
Total annual number of training hours dedicated to
sustainability topics (including on- and off-campus
workshops, seminars, conferences, etc.) for faculty
members (by headcount) divided by the total number of
faculty (headcount).
Total annual number of training hours dedicated to
sustainability topics for staff (by headcount), divided by the
total number of staff (headcount).
Total annual number of on-campus student job postings
(full- and part-time jobs adjusted to FTE) focused on
sustainability issues, divided by total number of jobs posted;
multiply by 100.
Total annual number of on-campus research projects
involving two or more on-campus departments divided by
the total number of on-campus research projects, multiply
by 100. Note: collaborative projects that actively promote
unsustainability should not be included as a collaborative
project in this indicator.
Total number of research projects involving two or more
partners (one of which is the university and the other being
government, community, higher education, and/or not-for
profit organizations) divided by the total number of all
research projects; multiply by 100. Note: collaborative
projects that actively promote unsustainability should not be
included as a partnership in this indicator.
Total number of research projects involving the university
with one or more businesses, corporations, and/or other forprofit organizations, divided by the total number of all
research projects; multiply by 100. Note: collaborative
projects that actively promote sustainability should not be
included as a collaborative project in this indicator.
Total annual research dollars spent on sustainabilityfocused projects divided by the total annual research
dollars, multiply by 100.
Total research dollars from all for-profit sources (i.e.
corporations, businesses, etc.), divided by the total annual
research dollars; multiply by 100.
Total annual tenured and tenure-track faculty (headcount)
“specialized” in sustainability-focused research divided by
the total number of tenured and tenure-track faculty;
multiply by 100.
Total number of annual graduating students (headcount)
who take a sustainability pledge at convocation, divided by
the total number of graduating students (who attend
convocation) in that year; multiply by 100.
Average percent improvement on a sustainability literacy
survey between first semester and last semester of degree
program.
*Note: use calculator provided in Appendix.
Total number of courses with an applied research/ learning
element based on-campus and/or in the local community,
At least 24
hours per year
per faculty
member
At least 60
hours per year
per faculty
member
At least 24
hours per year
per staff person
At least 60
hours per year
per staff
person
40%
At least 10%
At least 50%
Approach
100%
At least 50%
Approach
100%
25% or less
Approach 0%
Approach 0%
50%
100%
40% - 49%
improvement in
scores.
50% or greater
improvement
in scores.
At least 25%
75%
67
Learning
K-16
K-17
K-18
K-19
K-20
K-21
G-1
Courses with
Sustainability
Content
Students Taking
Sustainability
Courses
Faculty
Teaching
Sustainability
Courses
Quality of
Sustainability
Courses
Collaborative
Course
Development
For-profit
Course
Development
University
Government
Policy
divided by total number of courses offered; multiplies by
100.
Total number of courses that have “substantial sustainability
content,” divided by total number of courses; multiply by
100.
Total number of students (headcount) having taken at least
one course with substantial sustainability content upon
graduation, divided by total number of graduating students
in that school year; multiply by 100.
Total number of courses with substantial sustainability
content taught by tenured or tenure track faculty, divided by
total number of courses with substantial sustainability
content; multiply by 100.
Number of courses with substantial sustainability content
that received top marks (i.e. in the top ranking level or scale
band) in their most recent external review, divided by total
number of courses with substantial sustainability content;
multiply by 100.
Total number of courses that were developed using the
input of more than one person in more than one department,
divided by the total number of courses; multiply by 100.
Total number of courses where for-profit agencies were
directly and/or indirectly involved in curriculum
development, divided by the total number of courses
offered; multiply by 100.
Total numbers of policies present on campus from this list
divided by total number of policies in this list; multiply by
100. Only policies of the university government should be
included.
1. Energy Management (efficiency measures, greenhouse
gas reduction, and use of perpetual renewable sources)
2. Water Management (efficiency measures and reuse)
3. Clean Air (both in- and out-door)
4. Health and Safety
5. Ethical and Environmentally Sound Purchasing
6. Solid Waste Management (reduction, reuse and
recycling measures)
7. Hazardous Waste Management (reduction, reuse and
recycling measures)
8. Transportation Demand Management
9. Community Engagement in Campus Decision-making
(both on- and off-campus communities)
10. Ethical and Environmentally Sound Investment
11. Sustainability in Education (sustainability course
content for all graduating students, strategies to meet
this)
12. Sustainability in Research
13. Equity (gender, people with disabilities, and ethnic)
14. Wellness (fitness, safe work environment, spirituality,
nutrition, alternative work arrangements)
15. Long-term Campus Land-use Planning (principles of
smart growth, protection of green space, design for
efficiency, community engagement)
16. University Mission (broad commitment to
sustainability)
At least 25%
75%
At least 25%
100%
At least 50%
100%
At least 50%
100%
At least 50%
100%
10% or less
Approach 0%
At least 50%
100%
68
17. Strategic Plan (academic and administrative planning
and positioning)
18. Preferential Purchase of Local Goods and Services
19. Conflict and Dispute Resolution processes (for both
internal and external issues)
G-2
G-3
Student
Government
Policy
University
Government
Working Groups
If a particular policy covers more than one of the issues
listed in depth, all of the issues covered should be counted.
For example, if a campus has one Resource Efficiency
policy that addresses energy, water, and solid waste, three
points towards the total should be tallied.
Total numbers of policies present on campus from this list
divided by total number of policies in this list; multiply by
100. Only policies of the student government(s) should be
included.
1. Energy Management (efficiency measures, greenhouse
gas reduction, and use of perpetual renewable sources)
2. Water Management (efficiency measures and reuse)
3. Clean Air (both in- and out-door)
4. Health and Safety
5. Ethical and Environmentally Sound Purchasing
6. Solid Waste Management (reduction, reuse and
recycling measures)
7. Hazardous Waste Management (reduction, reuse and
recycling measures)
8. Transportation Demand Management
9. Community Engagement in Student Government
Decision-making (both on- and off-campus
communities)
10. Ethical and Environmentally Sound Investment
11. Equity (gender, people with disabilities, and ethnic)
12. Wellness (fitness, safe work environment, spirituality,
nutrition, alternative work arrangements)
13. Student Government Mission (broad commitment to
sustainability)
14. Long-term Student Government Strategic Plan
(academic and administrative planning and
positioning)
15. Preferential Purchase of Local Goods and Services
16. Conflict and Dispute Resolution processes (for both
internal and external issues)
If a particular policy covers more than one of the issues
listed in depth, all of the issues covered should be counted.
For example, if a campus has one Resource Efficiency
policy that addresses energy, water, and solid waste, three
points towards the total should be tallied.
Percent of policies (from G-1) with active working groups,
committees, or advisory groups that are working within the
university government system divided by the total number
of policies; multiply by 100.
At least 50%
100%
At least 50%
100%
Note: if one policy has more than one working group, this
should count as only one working group. An exception to
this is policies that cover more than one of the issues from
the policy list and are counted for more than one in
69
G-4
G-5
G-6
Diversity of
University
Government
Working Groups
Reporting of
University
Government
Working Groups
University
Staffing for
Sustainability
G-7
University
Financing of
Sustainability
G-8
Reporting of
University
Sustainability
Staff
Student
Government
Working Groups
G-9
indicator G-1.
Percent of total active working groups, committees, or
advisory groups (tied to a policy from the list in the ‘policy:
university government’ section) that have more than five
different stakeholder/interest groups represented divided by
the total number of working groups; multiply by 100.
Note: stakeholder groups include: staff and faculty (divided
by representing unions), students (undergraduate and
graduate), on- and off-campus advocacy groups,
government (different levels), business, professionals/
consultants, and others depending on the issue.
Percent of total working groups that report directly to the
university president, board of governors, and/or senate
divided by the total number of active working groups;
multiply by 100.
Total number of FTE staff responsible for the management
of the issues below, divided by the total number of issues in
the list; multiply by 100.
1. Resource Conservation/ Efficiency (including energy,
water, and solid waste management)
2. Sustainability in Facilities Management (broader
mandate than #1)
3. Equity
4. Environmental Health and Safety
5. Transportation Demand Management
6. Wellness
7. Community (both on- and off-campus) Engagement in
Campus Decision-making
8. Ethical and Environmentally Sound Purchasing
9. Ethical and Environmentally Sound Investment
10. Sustainability in Research
11. Sustainability in Teaching and Education
12. High-level Administrator for Campus-wide
Sustainability Issues.
Note: if one staff person is responsible for more than one of
these issues, they should only be counted once.
Total annual dollars spent on staffing and operations of
sustainability focused programs and initiatives from the list
in G-6, divided by the total annual university budget
(including operations and research/teaching); multiply by
100.
Total number of staff (as counted in G-6) who report
directly to the president, a vice-president, or a departmental
director, divided by the total number of staff counted in G6; multiply by 100.
Percent of policies (from the list in G-2) with active
working groups, committees, or advisory groups that are
working within the student government system divided by
the total number of policies from G-2; multiply by 100.
At least 50%
100%
At least 50%
100%
At least 50%
100%
At least 50%
100%
At least 50%
100%
Note: if one policy has more than one working group, this
should count as only one working group. An exception to
this is policies that cover more than one of the issues from
the policy list and are counted for more than one in G-2.
70
G-10
Diversity of
Student
Government
Working Groups
G-11
Reporting of
Student
Government
Working Groups
Student
Government
Staffing for
Sustainability
G-12
G-13
G-14
G-15
G-16
G-17
G-18
G-19
Student
Government
Financing of
Sustainability
Reporting of
Student
Government
Sustainability
Staff
University
Government:
Implementation
Planning
University
Government:
Reporting
University
Government:
Information
Management
Student
Government:
Implementation
Planning
Student
Government:
Reporting
Percent of total active working groups, committees, or
advisory groups (tied to a policy from the list in G-2) that
have more than five different stakeholder/interest groups
represented divided by the total number of working groups;
multiply by 100. Note: see definition of stakeholders in G4.
Total number of active working groups reporting directly to
the student council president, a vice-president, or the board
of directors divided by the total number of active working
groups; multiply by 100.
Total number of FTE staff responsible for the management
of the issues from this list, divided by the total number of
issues in the list; multiply by 100.
1. Resource Conservation/ Efficiency (including energy,
water, and solid waste management)
2. Sustainability in Facilities Management (broader
definition of sustainability than #1)
3. Equity
4. Environmental Health and Safety
5. Wellness
6. Ethical and Environmentally Sound Purchasing
7. Ethical and Environmentally Sound Investment
8. High-level Administrator of Student Sustainability
Issues.
At least 50%
100%
At least 50%
100%
At least 50%
100%
At least 50%
100%
Percent of policies (from the list in G-1) that annually set
new objectives for policy implementation divided by the
total number of policies from the section, multiply by 100.
At least 50%
100%
Percent of policies (from the list in G-1) that have annual
policy implementation reports made available to the campus
and surrounding communities divided by the total number
of policies; multiply by 100.
Percent of policies (from the list in G-1) with data
collection and management systems in place divided by the
total number of policies, multiply by 100.
At least 50%
100%
At least 50%
100%
Percent of policies (from the list in G-2) that annually set
new objectives for policy implementation divided by the
total number of policies from the section; multiply by 100.
At least 50%
100%
Percent of policies (from the list in G-2) that have annual
policy implementation reports made available to the campus
and surrounding communities divided by the total number
At least 50%
100%
Note: if one staff person is responsible for more than one of
these issues, they should only be counted once.
Total annual student government dollars spent on staffing
and operations of sustainability focused programs and
initiatives from G-12 divided by the total annual student
government budget; multiply by 100.
Total number of staff (as counted in G-12) who report
directly to the student government president, a vicepresident, or the board of directors divided by the total
number of staff from G-12; multiply by 100.
71
G-20
EW-1
Student
Government:
Information
Management
Students With
Loans
EW-2
Student Debt
Load
EW-3
Student Fees
EW-4
Number of
Financial
Awards
Value of
Financial
Awards
EW-5
EW-6
EW-7
Allocation of
Financial
Awards
Wage Gap
EW-8
Gender Pay
Equity
EW-9
Ethnic Minority/
Caucasian Pay
Equity
of policies; multiply by 100.
Percent of policies (from the list in G-2) with data
collection and management systems in place divided by the
total number of policies, multiply by 100.
At least 50%
100%
Total annual number of FTE graduating students with a
government or bank loan, or line of credit divided by total
number of FTE graduating students, measured annually;
multiply by 100.
Average debt per FTE graduating student with a
government or bank loan, or line of credit subtracted from
the national average debt load (of students with a debt).
25% less than
current annual
statistic.
0%
Zero to –10%
Average university fees (including all tuition, recreation,
student, etc. fees) calculated by totalling all fees for all
departments and dividing by the total number of FTE
students. Subtract from average national student fees. Do
not include independent per credit fee levies charged to
fund student groups.
Total annual number of bursaries, scholarships, and other
awards available specifically to students on your campus
divided by the number of FTE students in that year.
Total annual dollar value of bursaries, scholarships and
other financial awards available specifically to students on
your campus, divided by the number of FTE students in that
year. Subtract this value from the total annual fees as
calculated in EW-3.
Total annual dollar value of bursaries, scholarships, and
other financial awards allocated, divided by the total dollar
value of awards available; multiply by 100.
Wage gap between highest and lowest FTE staff and faculty
(not including contractors) calculated by dividing highest
annual salary by lowest annual salary.
Compare average pay for each of the employment types
from the list, comparing male/female pay: tenured faculty;
full-time untenured faculty; sessional instructors; high-level
administrators; mid-level administrators; low-level
administrators; trades workers; general (unskilled) workers
and labourers. Worst performer (i.e. the most imbalanced
group) should be used for reporting indicator performance.
Subtract the highest pay from the lowest in the most
imbalanced group and divide the difference by the highest
pay rate; multiply by 100. Be sure to define which group is
women and which is men.
Compare average pay for each of the employment types
from the list, comparing ethnic minorities/Caucasian pay:
tenured faculty; full-time untenured faculty; sessional
instructors; high-level administrators; mid-level
administrators; low-level administrators; trades workers;
general workers. Worst performer (i.e. the most imbalanced
group) should be used for reporting indicator performance.
Subtract the highest pay from the lowest in the most
imbalanced group and divide the difference by the highest
pay rate; multiply by 100. Be sure to define which group is
ethnic minorities and which group is Caucasian.
Zero to –10%
More than
10% below
national
average.
More than
10% below
national
average
One per
student
Zero difference
(value of awards
is equal to fees)
Less than zero
(more money
awarded than
required)
At least 75%
100%
Gap of 10 times
or less.
Gap of 7 times
or less
Difference of
10% or less in
salary for the
same
employment
group.
Zero
difference –
i.e. men and
women in the
same job type
to be paid the
same salary
Difference of
10% or less in
salary for the
same
employment
group.
Zero
difference –
i.e. ethnic
minorities and
Caucasians in
the same job
type to be paid
the same
salary.
72
EW-10
Indigenous
Peoples/
Caucasian Pay
Equity
EW-11
Income From
Student Fees
EW-12
Income From
Government
EW-13
Income From
Private Sources
EW-14
Departmental
Expenditures
per FTE Student
EW-15
Locally
Purchased
Goods and
Services
EW-16
Deferred
Maintenance
EW-17
Ethically and
Environmentally
Sound
Investments
EW-18
Local
Investments
Compare average pay for each of the employment types
from the list, comparing Indigenous Peoples /Caucasian
pay: tenured faculty; full-time untenured faculty; sessional
instructors; high-level administrators; mid-level
administrators; low-level administrators; trades workers;
general workers. Worst performer (i.e. the most imbalanced
group) should be used for reporting indicator performance.
Subtract the highest pay from the lowest in the most
imbalanced group and divide the difference by the highest
pay rate; multiply by 100. Be sure to define which group
are the Indigenous Peoples and which group is Caucasian.
Subtract percent of annual university budget received from
student fees from the national average for all campuses
percent of budget received from student fees. iv Student
government budget should not be included in this
calculation.
Subtract percent of annual university budget received from
government grants from the national average for all
campuses percent of budget received from government
grants. Student government budget should not be included
in this calculation.
Subtract percent of annual university budget received from
private (i.e. non-government, non-fee) sources from the
national average for all campuses percent of budget
received from private sources. Student government budget
should not be included in this calculation.
Academic (including research and teaching) dollars spent
per FTE students in each department on campus. Divide the
highest expenditure per FTE by the lowest expenditure per
FTE, and report the factor difference between the two.
Total annual dollars spent on locally provided, harvested,
produced and/or manufactured goods and services divided
by the total annual dollars spent on goods and services;
multiply by 100. “Local” means within a 200 kilometre
radius of the campus.
Facilities Condition Index (FCI). Divide the total amount
of deferred maintenance for all buildings on campus by the
total replacement cost for all buildings on campus; multiply
by 100. Note: if insurance replacement values are all that is
available for data, mark these dollar values up by 30% to
more accurately reflect replacement costs.
Total annual dollars invested by university and student
administrations in ethical and environmentally responsible
companies, divided by the total annual invested dollars.
Investments held for less than one full year should be
prorated according to length of investment (i.e. a $100,000
investment made for only 3 months would be worth
$100,000 x 0.25 year = $25,000.)
Total annual dollars invested by university and student
administrations in locally owned and operated companies,
divided by the total annual invested dollars. If investments
are for less than a full year, use the calculation in EW-15.
“Local” means within a 500 kilometre radius of the campus.
“Locally owned and operated” means that the company is at
least 51% owned by local people, and 100% operated by
Difference of
10% or less in
salary for the
same
employment
group.
Zero
difference –
i.e. Indigenous
Peoples and
Caucasians in
the same job
type to be paid
the same
salary.
Zero difference.
Positive
percent value
Zero difference.
Negative
percent value
Zero difference.
Positive
percent value
Difference
should be no
greater than 5
times.
At least 50%
All department
expenditure
per FTE to be
equal.
100%
5% - 10%
Less than 5%
At least 20%
100%
At least 20%
100%
73
W-1
Potable Water
Consumed
W-2
Storm and Grey
Water Reuse
W-3
Leaking
Fixtures
W-4
Water Metering:
Potable
W-5
Water Metering:
Wastewater
W-6
Pressure Testing
for Leaks
W-7
Efficiency of
Fixtures
W-8
Motion
Detectors
Installed
W-9
Wastewater
Produced
Wastewater
Treatment
W-10
W-11
Stormwater
Contaminant
Separation/
Collection
M-1
LEED™ 8
Certified Base
Buildings
M-2
LEED™
Certified
Interiors
local people.
Total annual volume of potable water consumed by the
campus for all uses (in litres), divided by the total number
of CCMs.
Total volume of grey water and/or storm water collected
annually (in litres) that is reused on-site, divided by the total
volume of water consumed (in litres) annually by the
campus for non-potable water requiring uses (i.e. toilets,
irrigation, etc.); multiply by 100.
Number of hours between each leaking fixture incident
report and the time that the leak is repaired. Total the
number of hours taken for each report and divide by the
total number of reports to get the average.
Total number of buildings on campus that have a water
meter for that buildings’ use, divided by the total number of
buildings; multiply by 100.
Total number of buildings on campus that have a
wastewater meter for that buildings’ production, divided by
the total number of buildings; multiply by 100.
Total amount of water distribution system pressure tested
for leaks over the past three years (as measured by length of
pipe tested in metres), divided by the total length of pipe in
the water distribution system; multiply by 100.
Total number of new water fixtures installed annually that
are of highest possible water efficiency rating for that year,
divided by the total number of new fixtures installed in that
year; multiply by 100.
Total number of sinks (all types), toilets, and urinals with
motion detector flushing/flow devices installed, divided by
the total number of toilets, sinks, and urinals; multiply by
100.
Total volume of wastewater produced on campus annually
in litres, divided by the total number of CCMs.
Total volume of wastewater produced annually by the
campus in litres, divided by the total volume of wastewater
treated to tertiary standards either on- or off-site; multiply
by 100.
Total number of storm water drains connected to
contaminant separation/collection systems, divided by the
total number of drains; multiply by 100. The contaminant
collection system should, at minimum, remove oil and gas
and large debris.
Total number of base buildings completed in the previous
three years that have been certified to LEED™ silver, gold
or platinum standard, divided by the total number of
buildings completed in the previous three years; multiply by
100.
Total number of new interiors (including new buildings and
major renovations) completed in the previous three years
that have been certified to LEED™ Commercial Interiors
silver, gold, or platinum standard, divided by the total
number of new interiors completed in the previous three
At least 25%
100%
5 working days
or less
24 hours or
less
At least 50%
100%
At least 50%
100%
At least 50%
100%
At least 50%
100%
At least 50%
100%
At least 25%
100%
At least 50%
100%
At least 50%
100%
At least 50%
100%
8
LEED is the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, green building certification program
established in the United States Green Building Council (Guerin, 2003).
74
M-3
Paper
Consumption
M-4
Post -Consumer
Content of
Paper
M-5
Tree-free Paper
M-6
Chlorine-free
Paper
M-7
Local Food
Production
M-8
Life-cycle Cost
Assessment of
Equipment
M-9
Solid Waste and
Recyclables
Produced
Solid Waste
Reduction
M-10
M-11
Recyclables
Being
Landfilled
M-12
Compost
M-13
Hazardous
Waste Produced
M-14
Reuse of
Hazardous
Waste
M-15
Recycling of
years; multiply by 100.
Total pieces of paper (of all types) purchased by all
departments in the university each year, divided by the total
number of CCMs.
Total percent post-consumer content of all tree-based paper
used on campus each year. Post-consumer recycled paper
counts as a factor of one, whereas post-industrial recycled
paper counts as a factor of 0.5.
*Note: use calculation template in Appendix.
Total pieces of paper purchased by all departments on
campus each year that is tree-free, divided by the total
pieces of paper purchased; multiply by 100.
*Note: use calculation template in Appendix.
Total pieces of paper purchased annually by all departments
on campus that has not been chlorine bleached, divided by
the total pieces of paper purchased; multiply by 100.
*Note: use calculation template in Appendix.
Total amount of food (in dollars) that is locally produced,
divided by total annual food budget; multiply by 100.
“Local” means within a 200 kilometre radius of the campus.
Total annual equipment purchased based upon a life-cycle
cost assessment (using dollars) divided by the total annual
dollars spent on equipment purchase; multiply by 100.
“Equipment” to include all office, communication,
laboratory, kitchen, art, grounds equipment, vehicles, etc.
“Life-cycle cost assessment” means that the purchase
decision is made based on full life-cycle cost, rather than
the purchase cost alone, and includes consideration of longterm energy, water, paper, fuel, and other material and
financial input costs. Soft life-cycle analysis (see below)
dollars should be multiplied by 0.5 before summing totals
and assessing performance against benchmark and goal.
Total weight of solid waste and recycling produced (in
kilograms) annually, divided by the total number of CCMs.
Percent of waste reduced per capita over previous years’
waste production.
*Note: use calculator provided in Appendix.
Total amount of recyclables (including organic wastes) by
weight (in kilograms) contained in the waste destined for
landfill or incineration, divided by the total weight (in
kilograms) of all landfill waste; multiply by 100.
Total volume of organic materials composted (in
kilograms), divided by total volume of organic materials
produced annually; multiply by 100. All organic materials
(including all food and yard wastes) should be included in
the calculation.
Total weight of solid and liquid hazardous waste produced
(in kilograms) annually, divided by the total number of
CCMs.
Total weight (in kilograms) of solid and liquid hazardous
wastes reused (either on- or off-campus) each year, divided
by the total amount of hazardous wastes produced
(including reused materials); multiply by 100.
Total weight (in kilograms) of solid and liquid hazardous
Approach zero
At least 50%
100%
At least 25%
100%
At least 50%
100%
At least 30%
100%
At least 30%
100%
Approach zero
0% to –5%
change.
Positive
percent change
10% or less
Zero
At least 50%
100%
At least 25%
100%
At least 50%
100%
75
Hazardous
Waste
M-16
Reduction of
Hazardous
Waste
A-1
Asbestos and
Mould
A-2
Scent-free
Indoor Spaces
Opening
Windows
A-3
A-4
Air Change
Effectiveness
A-5
Smoke-free
Indoor Spaces
Living Plants
Indoors
A-6
A-7
Chemical Free
Cleaning
A-8
Pesticides Used
Indoors
A-9
Cleaning of Air
Handling Units
A-10
Carbon Dioxide
Monitoring
Indoors
A-11
Indoor Air
Quality
Complaints
A-12
Smoke-free
Outdoor Spaces
A-13
Living Trees
Outdoors
wastes recycled each year, divided by the total amount of
hazardous waste (in kilograms) produced annually
(including recycled wastes); multiply by 100.
Reduction of hazardous wastes produced by CCM over
previous year.
*Note: use excel calculator provided in Appendix.
Total square metres of indoor spaces contaminated with
asbestos and/or mold, divided by the total indoor square
metres; multiply by 100.
Total square metres of scent-free indoor spaces, divided by
the total indoor square metres; multiply by 100.
Total square metres of regularly occupied interior spaces
(excluding corridors, washrooms, etc.) serviced by opening
windows, divided by the total square metres of regularly
occupied interior spaces; multiply by 100.
Total number of interior space zones that achieve air change
effectiveness of 0.9 or greater, divided by total number of
zones; multiply by 100.
*Note: this is a LEED™ green building design standard
based on ASHRAE 129-1997 Appendix B and more
information about measurement of this indicator can be
found there.
Total interior square metres of designated smoke free space,
divided by the total interior square metres; multiply by 100.
Total number of living plants in interior spaces, divided by
the total square metres of interior space.
Total square metres of indoor space always cleaned using a
chemical free system, divided by the total interior square
metres; multiply by 100.
Total amount of pesticides (including all types of plant and
animal poisons) in grams used indoors each year, divided
by the total square metres of interior space; multiply by
1000.
Total number of air handling units cleaned over the last
year, divided by total number of air handling units; multiply
by 100.
Total number of interior zones (as defined by ASHRAE 622001 Appendix D) that have CO2 monitoring systems
installed, divided by total number of interior zones; multiply
by 100.
*Note: this indicator comes from LEED™ 2.1 green
building standard.
Total number of complaints (verbal, written etc.) regarding
poor indoor air quality concerns received by all departments
annually, divided by the total number of CCMs; multiply by
5000.
Total square metres of designated smoke-free outdoor
common spaces, divided by the total square metres of
outdoor common spaces (include all managed outdoor
spaces as calculated in L-1); multiply by 100.
Total number of living trees on campus (including all
natural and managed spaces), divided by the total area of
the campus (in square metres).
0% to –5%
change.
Positive
percent change
20% or less
0%
At least 50%
100%
At least 50%
100%
At least 75%
100%
At least 80%
100%
At least 0.1
plants per
square metre
At least 20%
At least 1 plant
per square
metre
100%
0 grams per
1000 square
metres
At least 50%
100%
At least 50%
100%
No more than 1
per 5000 CCMs.
Zero per 5000
CCMs.
At least 75%
Approach
100%
At least 0.05
trees per square
metre
At least 0.25
trees per
square metre
76
A-14
Monitoring of
Exterior Vents
E-1
Renewable
Energy:
Buildings
E-2
Renewable
Energy: Fleet
and Grounds
Vehicles
E-3
Local Energy
Sources
E-4
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions:
Buildings
E-5
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions:
Commuting
Transport
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Fleet
and Grounds
Vehicles
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions:
Campus Travel
E-6
E-7
Total number of exterior vents with CO2, other GHG, and
particulate monitors, divided by the total number of exterior
HVAC&R vents; multiply by 100. A vent should be
counted only if it has all three monitors in place.
Total GJ of energy consumed annually by buildings for
heating, ventilation, air conditioning, refrigeration and
electrical systems from renewable sources, divided by the
total GJ of energy consumed annually for the uses listed in
the indicator; multiply by 100. Building energy should
include energy used for exterior lighting and signage.
“Renewable sources” means clean, non-nuclear, and
perpetual renewable energy. Large-scale hydroelectricity is
not considered renewable, although small-scale or microhydro is.
Total GJ of energy consumed annually for fleet and grounds
vehicles and equipment from renewable sources, divided by
the total energy consumed annually by those listed uses;
multiply by 100. Definition of “renewable sources” is the
same as E-1.
Total GJ of energy (for all uses as E-1 and E-2) consumed
annually by the campus produced within 500 kilometres of
the campus, divided by the total energy (for same uses) in
GJ consumed annually; multiply by 100.
Total energy (of all types) consumed (in GJ) each year for
heating, cooling, ventilation, and electrical systems,
converted into GHG equivalent (tonnes), and divided by
total square metres of interior built space. Note: energy
used for outdoor uses (lighting, signage, etc.) should be
included in the energy use calculation, but will still be
assessed relative to square metres of interior space.
Total energy (of all types) consumed in GJ each year for
commuting transportation, converted into GHG equivalent
(tonnes), and divided by total number of CCMs in that year.
Total energy (of all types) consumed in GJ for all fleet and
grounds vehicle/equipment use, converted into GHG
equivalent (tonnes), and divided by total number of CCMs
in that year.
Total energy (of all types) consumed in GJ for all work
related travel (air, land, water, excluding fleet vehicle use)
for FTE staff and faculty, converted into GHG equivalent
(tonnes), an divided by total number of FTE staff and
faculty in that year.
Total change in energy consumption (of all types) in GJ for
building, commuting and fleet/grounds vehicle uses in
current year over previous year.
* Note: use calculator provided in Appendix.
E-8
Reduction in
Energy
Consumption
E-9
Energy
Metering
Total square metres of interior space divided by the total
number of energy meters.
E-10
Energy Efficient
Equipment
Total value (in dollars) of energy consuming equipment,
fixtures, appliances, etc. installed over the previous year
that was of highest energy efficiency ratings available,
divided by the total dollars spent on all new energy
At least 50%
100%
At least 20%v
100%
At least 20%
100%
At least 20%
100%
Tonnes
GHG/square
metre
Tonnes
GHG/square
metre
Tonnes
GHG/CCM
Tonnes
GHG/CCM
Tonnes
GHG/CCM
Tonnes
GHG/CCM
Tonnes
GHG/CCM
Tonnes
GHG/CCM
0% to –5%
change.
(i.e. no more
than 5%
increase)
X square metres
per energy
meter.
At least 50%
Positive
percent change
(i.e. reduction
made)
77
X square
metres per
energy meter.
100%
E-11
HVAC&R
System Control
E-12
Automatic
Lighting
Sensors
L-1
Managed
Greenspace
L-2
Inorganic
Fertilizers
L-3
Pesticides
L-4
Native Plants
L-5
Healthy Natural
Areas
L-6
Restoration of
Degraded Areas
L-7
Protection of
Natural Areas
L-8
Unresolved
Land Claims
L-9
Impermeable
Surface
Coverage
L-10
Parking Density
L-11
Building
consuming equipment installed over the previous year;
multiply by 100.
Total amount of HVAC&R system (measured by the built
square metres serviced) operating with direct digital control
with digital hardware, divided by total amount of built
square metres serviced by HVAC&R systems; multiply by
100.
Total floor area (in square metres) of classrooms, office
spaces, laboratories, washrooms, and other non-emergency
and non-critical (i.e. hallways and walkways) spaces
controlled by automatic lighting occupancy sensors, divided
by total lit floor area (in square metres and excluding
emergency and critical areas); multiply by 100.
Total hectares of managed greenspaces, divided by the total
on-campus greenspace (both managed and natural,
including everything that is not built, or that is permeable);
multiply by 100.
Note: the percent of total on-campus greenspace that is
‘natural’ can also be found here by subtracting the result of
this indicator from 100.
Total volume of solid and liquid inorganic fertilizers used
annually (in kilograms), divided by the total hectares of
managed greenspace.
Total volume of solid and liquid pesticides (including both
plant and animal poisons of all types) used annually (in
litres), divided by the total hectares of managed greenspace.
Total number of native plants installed (number of
individual plants) annually in managed greenspaces, divided
by the total number of plants installed in that year; multiply
by 100.
Total area (in hectares) of healthy natural areas, divided by
the total area (in hectares) of all natural areas (including
healthy and degraded systems); multiply by 100.
Total area (in hectares) of degraded natural areas that have
been fully restored over the previous three years, divided by
the total area (in hectares) of degraded natural areas;
multiply by 100. Note: if all natural areas or healthy, or
there are no natural areas on campus, “n/a” should be
marked.
Total area (in hectares) of natural areas protected for the
long-term through policy, covenant, or other non-alterable
protection strategy, divided by the total area (in hectares) of
natural areas; multiply by 100.
Total hectares of campus land with historic, unresolved land
claims by Indigenous Peoples, divided by the total hectares
of campus land in assessment year; multiply by 100.
Total area of impermeable surfaces (in hectares), divided by
the total campus land area (excluding natural areas as
described in L-5, and if your campus has agricultural lands
these should also be excluded); multiply by 100.
Total number of parking stalls, divided by the total footprint
of parking lot areas (in hectares). Note: only measure the
footprint of the parking structure. If it is four stories tall,
only measure the footprint on the ground.
Total square metres of building space (all floors of all
At least 50%
100%
At least 25%
100%
Zero
Zero
At least 50%
100%
At least 75%
100%
At least 25%
100%
At least 50%
100%
25% or less
Zero.
30% or less
10%
78
Density
L-12
L-13
Occupancy
Rates: Oncampus
Residences
Occupancy
Rates:
Classrooms
buildings) divided by the total footprint of all buildings on
campus in square metres (the ground space used by all
buildings).
Percent of on-campus residences (of all types) managed by
the university that are at full occupancy year round.
*Note: use excel spreadsheet calculator provided in
Appendix.
Percent of classrooms at full occupancy year round, from 8
am – 8 pm weekdays.
*Note: use excel spreadsheet calculator provided in
Appendix.
At least 75%
100%
At least 75%
100%
Appendix B: Indicators and their Contact Departments
The following lists the relevant departments on campus and contact people that the
indicators fall under. Each indicator has a corresponding contact person, an indication
of whether data is available, and any additional notes that may be helpful in collecting
the data on campus. One special note to consider is that before any indicator is
collected, it has to be defined so that both the collector of information and those you are
collecting information from know what is meant by the indicator.
The degree of data collection difficulty is indicated by its color.
Legend
Blank (Black): easy to obtain information
Blue: medium difficulty – the information is not yet available, but can be found either by
doing an audit or a survey.
Red: very difficult – the information is not available, and may be not be available because
it does not pertain to UW, or UW does not have the capacity to hold such
information available due to financial and other constraints.
Health and Safety
Main Contact: Ian Fraser, Safety and
Environmental Health
P: 888-4567 Ext 6268
Email:
[email protected]
79
Code
Number
HW-7
HW-9
HW-10
M-14
M-15
M-16
A-1
Indicator
Contact
Name
Phone /
Extension
Email
(.uwaterloo.ca)
Availability of
Information
(Y/N)
Workplace Incidents
Kevin Stewart
5814
kastewar@admmail
Yes
Ruth Kroft
David Dietrich
3267
3911
rmkroph@admmail
dietrich@admmail
Yes
Yes
Ian Fraser
6268
igfraser@admmail
Yes
Ian Fraser
6268
igfraser@admmail
Ian Fraser
6268
igfraser@admmail
Yes
May not be
documented
Ian Fraser
6268
igfraser@admmail
Yes
Ian Fraser
6268
igfraser@admmail
No
Ian Fraser
6268
igfraser@admmail
Yes
Ian Fraser
6268
igfraser@admmail
Yes
6268
6268
igfraser@admmail
igfraser@admmail
Yes
Yes
Plant Operations
6264
lbrogden@admmail
Yes
Health Services
5814
Kastewar@admmail
Yes
Health and Safety
Physical Health Care
Practitioners
Sick Days
Reuse of Hazardous
Waste
Recycling of
Hazardous Waste
Reduction of
Hazardous Waste
A-14
HW-19
Asbestos and Mould
Scent-free Indoor
Spaces
Smoke-free Indoor
Spaces
Indoor Air Quality
Complaints
Monitoring of
Exterior Vents
Light Pollution
HW-15
Mental Illness
Ian Fraser
Ian Fraser
Linda
Brodened
HW-11
Smoking
Kevin Stewart
A-2
A-5
A-11
Other Information
Check Purchasing
Office: Steve Cook
Police and Parking Services
Main Contact: Al Mackenzie,
Director
P: 888-4567 Ext 2828
Email: [email protected]
Code
Number
HW-6
HW-8
HW-16
L-10
Indicator
Motor Vehicle
Accidents
Incidents of Assault
Student Suicide Rate
Parking Density
Contact
Name
Phone /
Extension
Email
(.uwaterloo.ca)
Availability of
Information
(Y/N)
Al Mackenzie
2828
almacken@
Yes
Al Mackenzie
Al Mackenzie
Elaine
Carpenter
2828
2828
almacken@
almacken@
Yes
Yes
3510
acarpen@admmail
Other Information
Yes
Persons With Disabilities
Main Contact: Rose Padacz,
Director
P: 888-4567 Ext 5231
80
Email: [email protected]
Code
Number
C-7
C-8
C-9
Indicator
Faculty With
Disabilities
Staff With
Disabilities
Students With
Disabilities
Contact
Name
Phone /
Extension
Email
(.uwaterloo.ca)
Availability of
Information
(Y/N)
Rose Padacz
5231
rmpadacz@
Yes
Rose Padacz
5231
rmpadacz@
Yes
Rose Padacz
5231
rmpadacz@
Yes
Other Information
Registrars Office
Main Contact: Ken Lavigne
P: 888-4567 Ext 2263
Email: [email protected]
Code
Number
Indicator
Contact
Name
Phone /
Extension
Email
(.uwaterloo.ca)
Availability of
Information
(Y/N)
Other Information
K-17
Students Taking
Sustainability
Courses
Academic
Advisors
Yes
Contact academic
advisors for each dept.
K-18
Faculty Teaching
Sustainability
Courses
Academic
Advisors
Yes
Contact academic
advisors for each dept.
Students With Loans
Student
Awards
Yes
Call the extension
number to find out who
to speak with
Student Debt Load
Student
Awards
Yes
Call the extension
number to find out who
to speak with
UW Calendar
Yes
Look Up Fee Schedule.
Also refer to Finance
Website
UW Calendar
Yes
Refer to UW Calendar
Yes
Call the extension
number to find out who
to speak with
EW-1
EW-2
EW-3
EW-4
Student Fees
Number of Financial
Awards
3583
3583
EW-5
Value of Financial
Awards
Student
Awards
EW-6
Allocation of
Financial Awards
Student
Awards
3583
Yes
Call the extension
number to find out who
to speak with
Occupancy Rates:
Classrooms
Staff of Ethnic
Minorities
Student of Ethnic
Sharleen
Schumm
2711
Yes
Scheduling Office
Ken Lavigne
Ken Lavigne
2263
2263
No
Yes
No Data
L-13
C-11
C-12
3583
klavigne@
klavigne@
81
Minorities
C-18
Equity of Indigenous
Peoples: Students
Ken Lavigne
2263
klavigne@
Have not asked Ken
about this one yet
K-15
Courses With
Applied Learning
Ken Lavigne
2263
klavigne@
No
Big Project! Will have
to do an audit
K-16
Courses With
Sustainability
Content
Ken Lavigne
2263
klavigne@
No
Big Project! Will have
to do an audit
Federation of Students
Main Contact: Current FedS
President
P: 888-4567 Ext 2478
Email:
[email protected]
Code
Number
C-1
Indicator
Contact
Name
Phone /
Extension
Email
(.uwaterloo.ca)
Availability of
Information
(Y/N)
Volunteerism
Financing Volunteer
Groups
VP Internal
VP Internal /
VP Finance
3780
vpin@feds
No
3780
vpin@feds
Yes
Imprint
Heather
FitzGerald
888.4048
president@imprint
Yes
K-3
Voter Turnout
New Student
Orientation
6876
hafitzge@admmail
Yes
G-2
Student Government
Policy
President
2478
pres@feds
Yes
G-9
Student Government
Working Groups
President
2478
pres@feds
Yes
G-10
Diversity of Student
Government
Working Groups
President
2478
pres@feds
No
G-11
Reporting of Student
Government
Working Groups
President
2478
pres@feds
Yes
G-12
Student Government
Staffing for
Sustainability
President
2478
pres@feds
No
G-13
Student Government
Financing of
Sustainability
VP Finance
3880
vpaf@feds.
Yes
C-2
C-6
Other Information
Can say how many
volunteers. But not
exact.
Imprint and
uwstudent.org
Environment
Commission
82
G-14
Reporting of Student
Government
Sustainability Staff
President
2478
pres@feds
Yes
G-18
Student
Government:
Implementation
Planning
President
2478
pres@feds
No
G-19
Student
Government:
Reporting
President
2478
pres@feds
No
G-20
Student
Government:
Information
Management
President
2478
pres@feds
No
All staff must report.
Office of Research
Main Contact: Mary Ellen Acorn, Manager, Research and
Finance
P: 888-4567 Ext 5102
Email: [email protected]
Contact
Name
Phone /
Extension
Email
(.uwaterloo.ca)
Availability of
Information
(Y/N)
K-8
Research
Collaboration - Nonprofit
Mary Ellen
Acorn
5102
meacorn@
Yes
K-9
Research
Collaboration - For
Profit
Mary Ellen
Acorn
5102
meacorn@
Yes
Code
Number
Indicator
K-10
Sustainability
Research
Expenditures
Mary Ellen
Acorn
5102
meacorn@
Yes
K-11
For-profit Research
Contributions
Mary Ellen
Acorn
5102
meacorn@
Yes
K-12
Faculty
Sustainability
Research
Mary Ellen
Acorn
5102
meacorn@
Yes
Other Information
May obtain information
from Patti Cook.
Hence she is the person
that does this type of
research.
May have to do an audit
of individual faculties
Co-operative Services
Main Contact: Cathie Jenkins, Associate Director
P: 888-4567 Ext 2997
Email: [email protected]
83
Contact
Name
Phone /
Extension
Email
(.uwaterloo.ca)
Availability of
Information
(Y/N)
C-22
On-campus
Employment
Services
Dave Thomas
2272
dthomas@admail
Yes
May be confidential
K-6
On-campus Student
Sustainability Jobs
Dave Thomas
2272
dthomas@admail
Yes
May be confidential
Code
Number
Indicator
Other Information
Residence / Housing
Main Contact: Peter Jordan
P: 888-4567 Ext 5178
Email: [email protected]
Code
Number
Indicator
Contact
Name
Phone /
Extension
Email
(.uwaterloo.ca)
Availability of
Information
(Y/N)
C-20
On-campus Housing
Jennifer
Ferguson
5090
jferguson@admmail
Yes
C-21
On-campus Housing
Affordability
Jennifer
Ferguson
5090
jferguson@admmail
Yes
L-12
Occupancy Rates:
On-campus
Residences
Jennifer
Ferguson
5090
jferguson@admmail
Yes
Other Information
Plant Operations
Main Contact: Tom Galloway, Director of Plant
Operations
P: 888-4567 Ext 5676
Email:
[email protected]
Code
Number
HW-1
Indicator
W-2
Recreation Space
Accessible Green
space
Potable Water
Consumed
Storm- and Grey
Water Reuse
W-3
Leaking Fixtures
HW-17
W-1
Contact
Name
Phone /
Extension
Email
(.uwaterloo.ca)
Availability of
Information
(Y/N)
Tom Galloway
5676
tgallow@admmail
Yes
Tom Galloway
Rick
Zalagenas
Rick
Zalagenas
Rick
Zalagenas
5676
tgallow@admmail
Yes
3932
rszalage@admmail
Yes
3932
rszalage@admmail
Yes
3932
rszalage@admmail
Yes
Other Information
This can be found in the
UW Master Plan
84
W-4
Water Metering:
Potable
Water Metering:
Wastewater
Pressure Testing for
Leaks
Efficiency of
Fixtures
Motion Detectors
Installed
Wastewater
Produced
Wastewater
Treatment
Rick
Zalagenas
Rick
Zalagenas
Rick
Zalagenas
Rick
Zalagenas
Rick
Zalagenas
Rick
Zalagenas
Rick
Zalagenas
3932
rszalage@admmail
Yes
3932
rszalage@admmail
Yes
3932
rszalage@admmail
Yes
3932
rszalage@admmail
Yes
3932
rszalage@admmail
Yes
3932
rszalage@admmail
Yes
3932
rszalage@admmail
Yes
Rick
Zalagenas
3932
rszalage@admmail
Yes
Dan Parent
6726
dparent@admmail
Yes
6726
dparent@admmail
Yes
Opening Windows
Air Change
Effectiveness
Chemical Free
Cleaning
Dan Parent
Rick
Zalagenas
Rick
Zalagenas
3932
rszalage@admmail
Yes
3932
rszalage@admmail
Yes
Tom Galloway
5676
tgallow@admmail
Yes
Tom Galloway
Rick
Zalagenas
Rick
Zalagenas
5676
tgallow@admmail
Yes
3932
rszalage@admmail
Yes
A-10
Pesticides Used
Indoors
Cleaning of Air
Handling Units
Carbon Dioxide
Monitoring Indoors
3932
rszalage@admmail
Yes
A-13
Living Trees
Outdoors
Tom Galloway
5676
tgallow@admmail
Yes
W-5
W-6
W-7
W-8
W-9
W-10
W-11
M-1
M-2
A-3
A-4
A-7
A-8
A-9
Storm water
Contaminant
Separation/Collectio
n
LEED Certified
Base Buildings
LEED Certified
Interiors
Indoor Community
Space
Renewable Energy:
Buildings
Tom Galloway
Rick
Zalagenas
5676
tgallow@admmail
Yes
3932
rszalage@admmail
Yes
Tom Galloway
Rick
Zalagenas
5676
tgallow@admmail
Yes
E-3
Renewable Energy:
Fleet and Grounds
Vehicles
Local Energy
Sources
3932
rszalage@admmail
Yes
E-4
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions:
Buildings
Rick
Zalagenas
3932
rszalage@admmail
Yes
C-19
E-1
E-2
Check with City of
Waterloo
Also Contact Food
Services and FedS
May have to double
check on whether this
information is available
85
E-6
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Fleet and
Grounds Vehicles
Tom Galloway
5676
tgallow@admmail
No
Some Faculties may
keep track of this
E-7
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Campus
Travel
Tom Galloway
5676
tgallow@admmail
No
Some Faculties may
keep track of this
E-8
Reduction in Energy
Consumption
3932
rszalage@admmail
Yes
3932
rszalage@admmail
Yes
3932
rszalage@admmail
Yes
3932
rszalage@admmail
Yes
3932
rszalage@admmail
Yes
Tom Galloway
5676
tgallow@admmail
Yes
Tom Galloway
Tom Galloway
Tom Galloway
5676
5676
5676
tgallow@admmail
tgallow@admmail
tgallow@admmail
Yes
Yes
Yes
Tom Galloway
5676
tgallow@admmail
Yes
Tom Galloway
5676
tgallow@admmail
Yes
Tom Galloway
5676
tgallow@admmail
Yes
Tom Galloway
Tom Galloway
5676
5676
tgallow@admmail
tgallow@admmail
Yes
Gene Starchuk
3364
gstarch@admmail
Yes
Tom Galloway
5676
tgallow@admmail
Yes
E-9
E-10
E-11
E-12
L-1
L-2
L-3
L-4
Energy Metering
Energy Efficient
Equipment
HVAC&R System
Control
Automatic Lighting
Sensors
Managed Green
space
Rick
Zalagenas
Rick
Zalagenas
Rick
Zalagenas
Rick
Zalagenas
Rick
Zalagenas
C-19
Inorganic Fertilizers
Pesticides
Native Plants
Healthy Natural
Areas
Restoration of
Degraded Areas
Protection of Natural
Areas
Impermeable
Surface Coverage
Building Density
Deferred
Maintenance
Indoor Community
Space
E-5
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions:
Commuting
Transport
Tom Galloway
5676
tgallow@admmail
Yes
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Fleet and
Grounds Vehicles
Living Plants
Indoors
Tom Galloway
Individual
Faculties
5676
tgallow@admmail
Yes
L-5
L-6
L-7
L-9
L-11
EW-16
E-6
A-6
No
Found in the UW
Master Plan
Have to do an audit
Dennis Huber
Main Contact: Dennis Huber, VP Administration and Finance
86
P: 888-4567 Ext 6828
Email:
[email protected]
Code
Number
Indicator
Contact
Name
Phone /
Extension
Email
(.uwaterloo.ca)
Availability of
Information
(Y/N)
Dennis Huber
6828
dhuber@admmail
Yes
Dennis Huber
6828
dhuber@admmail
Yes
Other Information
EW-13
Income From
Government
Income from Private
Sources
EW-14
Departmental
Expenditures per
FTE Students
Dennis Huber
6828
dhuber@admmail
Yes
Found on Web
(Financial Statements
EW-17
Ethically and
Environmentally
Sound Investments
Dennis Huber
6828
dhuber@admmail
No
Very difficult to find
Very difficult to find
EW-12
EW-18
Dennis Huber
6828
dhuber@admmail
No
L-8
Local Investments
Unresolved Land
Claims
Dennis Huber
6828
dhuber@admmail
Yes
G-7
University
Financing of
Sustainability
Dennis Huber
6828
dhuber@admmail
Yes
Reporting of
University
Sustainability Staff
For-profit Course
Development
Dennis Huber
6828
dhuber@admmail
Yes
Dennis Huber
6828
dhuber@admmail
No
Have not approach
Dennis on this yet
Have not approach
Dennis on this yet
Noise Pollution
Dennis Huber
6828
dhuber@admmail
Yes
Found in Occupational
Health and Safety Act
G-8
K-21
HW-18
Have not approach
Dennis on this yet
Alumni Office
Main Contact: Gwen Graper
P: 888-4567 Ext 2969
Email: [email protected]
Code
Number
Indicator
C-3
Alumni
Volunteerism
C-4
Graduates in the
Community
Contact
Name
Gwen Graper
Gwen Graper
Phone /
Extension
2969
2969
Email
(.uwaterloo.ca)
graper@
graper@
Availability of
Information
(Y/N)
Other Information
Yes
Alumni Office
http://alumni.uwaterloo.
ca/alumni/
Yes
Alumni Office
http://alumni.uwaterloo.
ca/alumni/
University of Waterloo Sustainability Project
87
Main Contact: Office Manager
P: 888-4567 Ext 2182
Email: [email protected]
Code
Number
C-25
Indicator
Affordability of
Public Transit
Contact
Name
Phone /
Extension
Email
(.uwaterloo.ca)
Availability of
Information
(Y/N)
Alternative
Transportation
Group
2182
[email protected]
Yes
Other Information
Patti Cook
Main Contact: Patti Cook, Waste Management
Coordinator
P: 888-4567 Ext 3245
Email:
[email protected]
Code
Number
Indicator
Contact
Name
Phone /
Extension
Email
(.uwaterloo.ca)
Availability of
Information
(Y/N)
Other Information
See Patti Cook
for Details
3245
plcook@admmail
Yes
See Patti Cook
for Details
3245
plcook@admmail
Yes
There are a number of
sub indicators in this
group
There are a number of
sub indicators in this
group
Steve Cook
2515
scook@admmail
Yes
Purchasing Dept
Patti Cook
3245
plcook@admmail
Yes
Patti Cook
3245
plcook@admmail
Yes
Patti Cook
Patti Cook
3245
3245
plcook@admmail
plcook@admmail
Yes
Yes
Patti Cook
3245
plcook@admmail
Yes
Patti Cook
3245
plcook@admmail
Yes
Patti Cook
3245
plcook@admmail
Yes
M-4
Paper Consumption
Post-Consumer
Content of Paper
Patti Cook
3245
plcook@admmail
Yes
M-5
Tree-free Paper
Patti Cook
3245
plcook@admmail
Yes
M-6
Chlorine-free Paper
Patti Cook
3245
plcook@admmail
Yes
G-3
University
Government Policy
University
Government
Working Groups
M-8
Life-cycle Cost
Assessment of
Equipment
G-1
M-9
M-10
M-11
M-12
M-13
A-12
M-3
Solid Waste and
Recyclables
Produced
Solid Waste
Reduction
Recyclables Being
Land filled
Compost
Hazardous Waste
Produced
Smoke-free Outdoor
Spaces
Purchasing and
Graphics
Purchasing and
Graphics
Purchasing and
Graphics
Purchasing and
Graphics
88
Food Services
Main Contact: Jeannie Watt, Manager, Marketing and
Development
P: 888-4567 Ext 2698
Email:
[email protected]
Code
Number
HW-3
Indicator
HW-4
Diet Types
Nutritional
Information
HW-5
Organic, Non-GMO,
Fair Trade Food
EW-15
M-7
Locally Purchased
Goods and Services
Local Food
Production
Contact
Name
Phone /
Extension
Email
(.uwaterloo.ca)
Availability of
Information
(Y/N)
Jeannie Watt
2698
jmwatt@admmail
No
Jeannie Watt
2698
jmwatt@admmail
Yes
Jeannie watt
2698
jmwatt@admmail
Yes
Jeannie Watt
2698
jmwatt@admmail
No
May want to do a life
cycle analysis
Jeannie Watt
2698
jmwatt@admmail
No
Good student project!
Other Information
Can conduct and audit
Athletics Department
Main Contact: Judy McCrae, Director, Athletics and Rec Services
P: 888-4567 Ext 3663
Email: [email protected]
Code
Number
HW-2
Indicator
Recreation
Participation
Contact
Name
Phone /
Extension
Email
(.uwaterloo.ca)
Availability of
Information
(Y/N)
Judy McCrae
3663
jamccrae@
Yes
Other Information
Information will not be
exact
Human Resources
Main Contact: Katrina Di Gravio, Staff Relations
P: 888-4567 Ext 5161
Email: [email protected]
Code
Number
Indicator
Contact
Name
Phone /
Extension
Email
(.uwaterloo.ca)
Availability of
Information
(Y/N)
C-14
Staff Gender
Alfrieda
Swainston
2950
jaswains@admmail
Yes
C-16
Equity of Indigenous
Peoples: Faculty
Alfrieda
Swainston
2950
jaswains@admmail
Yes
C-17
Equity of Indigenous
Peoples: Staff
Alfrieda
Swainston
2950
jaswains@admmail
Yes
Other Information
89
K-1
K-2
New Faculty
Orientation
New Staff
Orientation
Frances
Hannigan (VP
Academic &
Provost)
6332
fhanniga@admmail
Neil Murray
2829
ngmurray@admmail
Yes
2950
jaswains@admmail
Yes
2950
jaswains@admmail
Yes
May be found within
individual faculties
EW-7
Wage Gap
EW-8
Gender Pay Equity
Alfrieda
Swainston
Alfrieda
Swainston
Can also go to Mary
Thompson (IAP)
Can also go to Bruce
Mitchell
EW-9
Ethnic
Minority/Caucasian
Pay Equity
Alfrieda
Swainston
2950
jaswains@admmail
Yes
EW-10
Indigenous
Peoples/Caucasian
Pay Equity
Alfrieda
Swainston
2950
jaswains@admmail
Yes
K-4
Faculty
Sustainability
Training
Katrina Di
Gravio
5161
kadigrav@
Yes
Also consult Alfieda
Swainson
K-5
Staff Sustainability
Training
Katrina Di
Gravio
5161
kadigrav@
Yes
Also consult Alfieda
Swainson
Secretariat
Main Contact: Emily Barnes
P: 888-4567 Ext 2225
Email:
[email protected]
Code
Number
Indicator
Contact Name
G-4
Diversity of
University
Government
Working Groups
Secretariat
Office
www.adm.uwa
terloo.ca/infos
ec/index.html
G-5
Reporting of
University
Government
Working Groups
Secretariat
Office
www.adm.uwa
terloo.ca/infos
ec/index.html
G-15
University
Government:
Implementation
Planning
Emily Barnes
Phone /
Extension
2225
Email (.uwaterloo.ca)
ebarnes@admmail.
Availability of
Information
(Y/N)
Yes
Other Information
Information found on
Web Site:
www.adm.uwaterloo.ca
/infosect/Committees/c
ommittees.html
Yes
Information found on
Web Site:
www.adm.uwaterloo.ca
/infosect/Committees/c
ommittees.html
Yes
Check Secretariat Web
site above as well.
90
G-16
University
Government:
Reporting
Emily Barnes
2225
ebarnes@admmail.
Yes
Check Secretariat Web
site above as well.
G-17
University
Government:
Information
Management
Emily Barnes
2225
ebarnes@admmail.
Yes
Check Secretariat Web
site above as well.
Institutional Analysis and Planning
Main Contact: Mary Thompson
P: 888-4567 Ext 6607
Email:
[email protected]
Code
Number
Indicator
Contact
Name
Phone /
Extension
Email
(.uwaterloo.ca)
Availability of
Information
(Y/N)
6607
maryt@addmail
Yes
6607
maryt@addmail
Yes
Other Information
C-10
Faculty of Ethnic
Minorities
C-13
Faculty Gender
Mary
Thompson
Mary
Thompson
HW-13
Retention Rate
Mary
Thompson
6607
maryt@addmail
C-15
Student Gender
Ken Lavigne
2263
klavigne@
Yes
Institutional Analysis
and Planning
Income From
Student Fees
Ken Lavigne
2263
klavigne@
Yes
Institutional Analysis
and Planning
EW-11
Have not talk to Mary
about this one
Indicators that may cause difficulty
HW-12
Mental Health Care
Practitioners
HW-14
Spiritual Services
C-5
C-23
C-24
G-6
K-13
Sense of Community
Community Library
Cards
On-campus Media
Expenditures
University Staffing
for Sustainability
Sustainability
Pledge
Barbara
Schumacher
Church
Colleges
4068
bschumac@adm,mail
Yes
See Patti Cook
3245
plcook@admmail
No
Health Services
Each individual Church
College
May have to conduct an
audit
Library
Martin Van
Nierop
4881
vanierop@admmail
Yes
Communications
Department
Split among
departments and
faculties on campus.
Will have to conduct an
audit
See Patti Cook
3245
plcook@admmail
No
Ken Lavigne
2263
klavigne@
No
91
K-14
Sustainability
Literacy Survey
See Patti Cook
No
Big Project! Will have
to do an audit
K-19
Quality of
Sustainability
Courses
Environmental
Studies
Faculty
No
Subjective, will have to
define what "Quality"
means
K-20
Collaborative
Course
Development
Talk to people
in each faculty
No
Audit
3245
plcook@admmail
Appendix C: List of Key Contact People
Name
Barbara
Schumacher
Martin Van
Nierop
Linda
Brogden
Ian Fraser
Kevin Stewart
Al Mackenzie
Rose Padacz
Ken Lavigne
President
Mary Ellen
Acorn
Cathie Jenkins
Gail Clarke
Dennis Huber
Office
Manager
Patti Cook
Department
Health Services
Email
Extension
[email protected] 4068
Communications
[email protected]
4881
Health Services
[email protected]
6264
Safety Office
Safety Office
Police Services
Persons with
Disabilities
Registrars Office
Federation of
Students
Research Office
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
6268
5814
2828
5231
[email protected]
[email protected]
2263
2478
[email protected]
5102
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
2997
5634
6828
[email protected]
2182
[email protected]
3245
Co-op Services
Residence/Housing
VP Admin and
Finance
UWSP
Waste
Management
Coordinator
92
Jeannie Watt
Judy McCrae
Steve Cook
Barbara
BalmanFleming
Donna Schell
Dave
McDougall
Gwen Graper
Emily Barnes
Mary
Thompson
Katrina Di
Gravio
Alfrieda
Swainston
Rick
Zalagenas
Tom
Galloway
Food Services
Athletics
Department
Purchasing and
Graphics
TRACE Office
[email protected]
[email protected]
2698
3663
[email protected]
2515
[email protected]
2579
Room Bookings
Marketing
[email protected]
[email protected]
2207
6338
Alumni Affairs
Secretariat
Institutional
Analysis and
Planning
Human Resources
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
2969
2225
6607
[email protected]
5161
Human Resources
[email protected]
2950
Plant Operations
[email protected]
3932
Plant Operations
[email protected]
5676
93