Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Many universities have started to measure sustainability, and many tools have been developed to assist
Received 24 December 2012 them in this process. For universities at an early stage of sustainability implementation, choosing a tool
Received in revised form that ts their specic context is an important step in their assessment process. The goal of this paper is to
24 May 2014
introduce an Adaptable Model for Assessing Sustainability into higher education institutions that enable
Accepted 20 July 2014
the assessment of sustainability within different implementation stages and data availability scenarios.
Available online xxx
The model's design was based on previous experiences in the eld of sustainability in higher education,
and takes into account international declarations and other assessment models. The result is a model
Keywords:
Assessment
based on a four tiered hierarchy, with three main criteria: institutional commitment, example setting,
Sustainability in HEIs and advancing sustainability. In order to establish the weight assigned to each tier of the proposed hi-
Flexible model erarchy, the analytic hierarchy process was applied. The results of this process showed a preference for
AMAS institutional commitment and example setting/leadership criteria, with weights of 36.1%and 38.2%
Universities respectively, and less preference for the advancing sustainability criterion, with a weight of 25.7%. The
Comparison of sustainability tools in resulting model enables the assessment of sustainability within different contexts while maintaining a
universities universal methodological approach; this allows for comparison within a cluster of institutions with
similar contexts. The assessment model could be used to improve other assessment tools by following
the same process used to build the model, facilitating the participation of stakeholders and experts.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047
0959-6526/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
mez, F., et al., Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education, Journal of Cleaner
Please cite this article in press as: Urquiza Go
Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047
2 mez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e11
F. Urquiza Go
mez, F., et al., Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education, Journal of Cleaner
Please cite this article in press as: Urquiza Go
Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047
mez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e11
F. Urquiza Go 3
6. Stake holders
2. Educating- 3. Encouragement 7. Fostering university engagement and
the- educators of SD research collaboration outreach
1. Inclusion of SD
throughout the 9. Assessment
curricula EDUCATION & RESEARCH PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT and reporting
8. Transdisciplinarity
ADMINISTRATION
10. Including SD
in the
OPERATIONS institutional
framework
HEIs, they are represented as linked to their respective dimensions Given that we are aiming to build an indicator-based model, AISHE
in Fig. 1. 2.0 was not as relevant for the present study. The Sustainability
It is important to highlight that these dimensions are interre- Tool for Assessing Universities Curricula Holistically (STAUNCH)
lated (Cortese, 2003; Lozano, 2006b), and that the sustainability (Lozano and Peattie, 2011, 2009; Lozano and Young, 2012) focuses
effort requires an incremental integration of functions in a HEI's on auditing sustainability in university curricula, which, although it
system. is not useful for our purposes, seems appropriate as a complement
to an internal auditing process, as it is particularly difcult to cover
1.2. Comparing new assessment approaches curricular aspects of the sustainability implementation process.
The tools were analyzed considering the attributes proposed by
As indicated by Lozano there are three main approaches for Shriberg (2002), and were compared as to their complexity,
assessing and reporting sustainability in organizations: accounts, weighing method, major weaknesses and strengths, and potential
narrative assessments and indicator-based. Each of them has eld or scope of application (Table 1). According to Shriberg the
strengths and weaknesses, but in general, indicator-based as- ideal cross-institutional sustainability assessment tools have the
sessments have an overall higher performance and are more easily following attributes:
measurable and comparable than the other two approaches
because they tend to be more objective (Lozano, 2006a). - They identify important issues: They address contextually
In the development of the assessment model, an indicator-based appropriate issues related to campus sustainability.
approach was used that took into account several tools aiming to - They are calculable and comparable: They must be based on
assess sustainability in higher education. To understand the measurement methods that are exible enough to capture
different tools mentioned in previous research, a comparison was organizational complexities and differences, but that are also
made between tools considering ve criteria: complexity, weight- specic and comparable.
ing method, major strengths, major weakness and potential use - They move beyond eco-efciency: A focus on eco-efciency is
(Table 1). In 2002, Shriberg analyzed eleven tools then in existence. more narrow and deals with the use of resources. Assessing
Important among these were the Auditing Instrument for Sus- sustainability requires a broader approach that covers envi-
tainability in Higher Education tool (AISHE 1.0) (Roorda, 2001) and ronmental, educational and social issues.
the Sustainable Assessment Questionnaire for Colleges and Uni- - They measure processes and motivations: Considering that
versities tool (SAQ) (ULSF, 2001) as they are still used today and sustainability is a process of continual improvement, sustain-
cover a wide spectrum of themes. Although Shriberg (2002) ability assessment tools should cover dynamic processes and
recognized that the tools provide a valuable contribution to un- motivationsdincluding direction, strategy, intent and
derstanding the essential aspects of sustainability in higher edu- comprehensivenessdas well as present impacts.
cation, he did not recommend any of them. Furthermore, Lukman - They stress comprehensibility: They must be comprehensive
et al. (2010) state that these tools do not allow for comparison to a broad audience. It is important that methods and results are
between campuses. This is debatable in the case of AISHE 1.0, and presented in a clear manner, enabling both the verication and
especially its most recent version, as it claims that it can be used for effective communication of results.
benchmarking so long as the auditing process is conducted by a
certied external AISHE consultant (Roorda et al., 2009). The Graphical Assessment of Sustainability in Uni-
Since 2002, new tools or new versions of tools, like AISHE 2.0, versities(GASU) model is based on an adaptation of the Global
have been developed. These tools and innovations present inter- Report Initiative (GRI) methodology. It adds education to its list of
esting approaches that contribute to sustainability assessment as social, economic and environmental dimensions, followed by 8
well as support the development of sustainability strategies among categories, 43 sub-categories (aspects) and 126 indicators. The
higher education institutions around the world. This paper includes model allows for a complete image of the institution's performance
a short revision of some of the new approaches presented in these covering all important issues, but the numerous indicators mean
new tools that we considered valuable in the development of our that it requires large amounts of data. This makes implementing
assessment model. GASU difcult and also complicates longitudinal comparisons and
In the case of AISHE 2.0, although it seems an excellent instru- benchmarking (Lozano, 2006a). GASU is a useful method for
ment for self-assessment, it nonetheless is a narrative assessment. facilitating the understanding and communication of information
mez, F., et al., Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education, Journal of Cleaner
Please cite this article in press as: Urquiza Go
Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047
4 mez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e11
F. Urquiza Go
Table 1
Comparison between assessment tools.
Tool Complexity Weighting method Major strengths Major weakness Potential use
GASU 5 levels - Author proposal - Covers all important issues - Requires large amounts of data. - Internal, facilitating comprehension
126 indicators - Fully explained - Uses AMOEBA graph to - Hard to apply in HEIs without and communication of data presented
facilitate understanding. GRI reports on sustainability in GRI reports on sustainability.
TUR 3 levels - Expert driven - Simplicity and complements - Oversimplies and limits - International. Rapid assessment of
15 indicators - Based on the AHP university ranking tools. sustainability issues to just university.
- Use of triangle graph to ve indicators
facilitate understanding
STARS 4 levels - Author proposal - Detailed rationale - Functions in contexts in which - For comparison of HEIs with
67 indicators - Partially explained methodology for calculating SD is already advanced. advanced SD.
indicators. - Guideline for beginners.
- Active support from AASHE
GM 3 levels - Author proposal - Active support from - Narrowed to eco-efciency - International benchmarking of
34 indicators - Not explained Universitas Indonesia measures environmental efforts in HEIs
AUSP 3 levels - Author proposal - Active support from CADEP - It requires a big effort on the - Internal, facilitating a comprehensive
176 indicators - Not explained - Has state funding. part of institutions and the self-auditing process.
- Covers all important issues assessment group to compile
results.
BIQ (AUA) 4 levels - Author proposal - Active support from ProSPER - Does not cover social - Internal, for institutions intending
16 indicators - Not explained members responsibility issues. to develop sustainability strategies.
50 questions - It is used alongside a - It does not cover environmental
qualitative assessment. management indicators.
USAT 4 levels - No weighting - Active support from UNEP - Does not cover social - Internal, facilitating a comprehensive
75 indicators method and MESA responsibility issues. self-auditing process.
(expansive) - Use of triangle graph to - Guideline for beginners.
facilitate understanding
- Allows for exible self-
assessment by individual
units/faculties; also capable
of evaluating the institution
as a whole.
The Green 3 levels - Authors proposal - Active support from ESDS - The 2010 framework is different - For comparison of HEIs with
Plan 44 indicators - Fully explained - Covers all important issues to the 2012 framework, making advanced SD.
it difcult to compare or show - Guideline for beginners.
progress in HEIs
compiled by a sustainability report. It provides a visual represen- tool: rst, it was initially designed for a context in which there is
tation of HEI performance, relying on the use of AMOEBA graphs greater development, such as the United States or Canada (Garca,
(Ten Brinks et al., 1991). 2010), where sustainability efforts are more widespread and are
The Three dimensional University Ranking (TUR, 2010) model supported by the institutions. Second, it requires active participa-
proposed by Lukmann, seeks to improve the methodology and tion and payment on the part of institutions in order to acquire all
indicators of the existing ranking tables for Universities, incorpo- the necessary information. STARS is useful for supporting the sus-
rating an environmental dimension (Lukman et al., 2010). The tainability journey of HEIs, working as a road map where the ex-
model is divided into three dimensions, and takes into account a periences of more advanced institutions are presented through the
total of 15 indicators. The proposal introduces the use of the proposed indicators, rationale and criteria.
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Saaty, 1987) as a means to The GreenMetric (GM) ranking system is an initiative of the
establish the weights of selected indicators in a participative and Univesitas Indonesia and was launched in 2010. The aim of this tool is
expert driven manner. This tool is relatively simple to apply and to generate an alternative international ranking system that enables
might be tting for use in international benchmarking of sustain- the assessment of Green Campus and Sustainability in the Univer-
ability in HEIs, as it uses the same logic as other international sities all over the world (Universitas Indonesia, 2012). The tool is
university ranking systems, such as the Academic Ranking of World divided into 5 dimensions and considers a total of 34 indicators. It has
Universities (ARWU, 2012) and QS (QS World University Rankings, a clear eco-efciency focus, failing to consider other key aspects of
2012). TUR also makes use of the triangle method, in which results sustainability such as diversity and equity performance.
are depicted in a simple, graphical representation. By our own The Assessment of University Sustainability Policies and their
analysis, this helps to visualize multi-dimensional comparisons relation to the International Campus of Excellence program
amongst institutions. On the other hand, since it simplies the (AUSP), is a project funded by the Ministry of Education of Spain
sustainability dimension down to a set of ve indicators, TUR might and is coordinated by the sustainability assessment group. Its' main
not be appropriate if a more comprehensive sustainability assess- purpose is to contribute to strengthening sustainability policies in
ment is needed. Spanish universities (CADEP, 2010)The tool was rst put into use in
The Sustainability Tracking and Assessment Rating System 2010 when a survey was sent out inviting institutions to self-assess
(STARS) is an initiative of the Association for the Advancement of their progress. A consultant visited each institution to review and
Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE). It has become one of correct, if necessary, the answers so as to compute a nal score. The
the most comprehensive and popular tools used today (Saadatian tool is divided into three main categories, 12 sub-categories and
and Salleh, 2011). STARS is divided into three main categories, 17 considers 176 indicators. Although the tool covers all important
sub-categories and covers a total of 67 indicators (AASHE, 2011). issues related to sustainability in higher education, it is highly
The model is continually being improved, given its open consul- dependent on the institutions' commitment to self-asses and re-
tation process. There are two main impediments to applying this quires the support of a third part to review the process.
mez, F., et al., Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education, Journal of Cleaner
Please cite this article in press as: Urquiza Go
Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047
mez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e11
F. Urquiza Go 5
The Alternative University Appraisal project (AUA), was Access to information/institutional disposition is a factor: any
created by the ProSPER network (Promotion of Sustainability in assessment approach will be limited by the accessibility of insti-
Postgraduate Education and Research Network), which is an tutional sustainability information, and in the case of self-
AsiaePacic academic alliance. The project aims to create a system assessment approaches, institutional disposition to self-
capable of acknowledging diversity, innovation and change to- assessment is also a factor.
wards sustainable development (AUA, 2012). It has three compo- Given the considerations described above, all of the tools thus
nents: Self-Awareness questions, Dialogue and BIQ (Benchmark far compared have advantages, but we believe that at the moment,
Indicator Questions). We only focus on this last component which is none of them seems to be appropriate to compare implementation
indicator-based and allows for comparisons among institutions. stages of sustainability in HEIs within the South American context.
The BIQ tool is divided into four main categories, 15 sub-categories, Furthermore, they are not exible enough to be able to adapt them
and includes 16 indicators and 50 questions. The tool has a without losing common ground criteria.
maximum score of 100 points which are equally distributed among
categories. 2. Constructing the assessment model
The Unit-Based Sustainability Assessment Tool (USAT) is a
Swedish/African International Training initiative. USAT is an initia- In order to create an assessment model that is both adaptable
tive supported by the United Nations Environment Programme to different contexts but also capable of establishing common
(UNEP) and Mainstreaming Environment and Sustainability into ground criteria, a methodology based on a four-step process
African Universities (MESA). It is used for the development and use (Fig. 2) was used, that went from the general to the context-
of educational tools that aim towards SD in African universities specic. This process was developed after reviewing different
(Togo and Lotz-Sisitka, 2009). This tool can be used (independently) assessment methodologies, where we found certain common
by different units/faculties at a given university. It also provides the stages of development. In spite of this, the tools are not easily
option to integrate or compare all the assessed units, thus giving a adaptable, so we decided to explain how we performed each step
total score for the institution. USAT is divided into four main cate- in a simplied and transparent manner. Hopefully, this allows
gories, six sub-categories and covers 75 indicators. The four main others to improve their models by reworking the process from any
categories attempt to integrate the various units of the university a given step, thus making the model far more adaptable. The
(faculties, departments, research and administrative units) and thus process goes as follows:
promote SD in education, research, community service, manage-
ment and public initiatives engagement. 1) Structure the problem in a four tiered hierarchy, starting with
The Green Plan is an initiative supported by the Environmental the goal being assessed, followed by assessment criteria, sub-
Association for Universities and Colleges from UK, the UK Higher criteria, and, at the bottom level, a set of potentially useful in-
Education Funding Councils for England, the Scottish Funding dicators conceived to cover all sub-criteria.
Council, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, the 2) Build weighing criteria based on international consultation
Department for Employment and Learning Northern Ireland and in order to integrate a wide spectrum of experiences and
the Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability. This tool is opinions, using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) (Saaty,
divided into ve main categories, 18 sub-categories and uses 44 1987). Although some authors are not in favor of using
indicators. The Green Plan helps universities develop their weights to combine indicators, we believe that this helps in
administration, SD measurement, SD improvements and promotes two different ways. First, it allows for simplied communi-
social responsibility and sustainability performance (The Green cation using an index to show the overall ranking of an
Plan, 2012). The system meets the needs of institutions (univer- institution with respect to others. This has the potential to
sities) that are working on their own sustainability initiatives. Thus, attract the attention of institutions and other stakeholders,
each institution can demonstrate the impact of their current ac- which, hopefully, would analyze the results in detail. Second,
tivities, practices or measures. we believe that weighing will inevitably take place and, given
The following conclusions can be extracted after having that, it is preferable to set weights in a participative and
reviewed and compared the above tools: systematic manner.
Impact of weighing methods/importance of justication: the 3) Calibrate according to context so as to have a viable selection
weighing method can have a signicant impact on the nal ranking of indicators that correspond with available information, and so
obtained by an HEI after using any of the aforementioned tools that indicator's weights are determined by local consultation
(Lukman et al., 2010; Mayer, 2008), so it is important for the user to using the AHP.
understand its' rationale and justication. Although most tools do 4) Calculate and show results by normalizing and aggregating
explain their weighing system, they do not present any justication data so as to obtain a nal ranking. Select appropriate graphic
for it. In the case of the TUR tool, they use an expert driven support so as to permit visual evaluation of the institutions.
approach based on the AHP method. This has the advantage of
allowing for continual improvement of the assessment tool by
repeating the consultation process.
Flexibility/need for adaptability to different contexts: When the The four step process
various assessment tools are compared with respect to their
International scope Local scope
adaptability to different contexts, the GM, STARS, BIQ and AUSP Local adjustment
tools are more rigid. This is because without a guide for assigning Calibrate
Structuring the Build weighing Calculate and
weights, it is just not possible to add or remove indicators. As for according to
problem criteria show results
GASU, given that it is based on GRI methodology, it allows for the 1 2 3
context 4
incorporation of new indicators based on how relevant they are to
the institution being assessed. The TUR tool is explicitly described Restructuring International
as exible (Lukman et al., 2010), and enables the inclusion of the hierarchy calibration
mez, F., et al., Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education, Journal of Cleaner
Please cite this article in press as: Urquiza Go
Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047
6 mez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e11
F. Urquiza Go
Table 2
Sustainability elements and dimension of HEI in connection with level two criteria.
Level two of the four tiered hierarchy HEI dimension Sustainability element
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2.1. Structuring the problem: assessment hierarchy - Strategies (C2), which aims at recognizing the incorporation of
sustainability in institutional planning and evaluation.
The assessment model was designed in order to take into ac- - Coordination (C3), which recognizes the existence of entities in
count all the elements highlighted by the aforementioned HEI's charge of coordinating and promoting the sustainability efforts.
declarations on sustainability (Table 2), and their relationship to
various dimensions of the university system, as shown in Fig. 2. b) Example Setting/Leadership Criterion (B2)
As a result, a four tiered hierarchy was proposed (Fig. 3), with
the overall goal of implementing sustainability in HEIs on the rst Although the main activities of HEIs are research and education,
level (A), followed by three criteria at level two: Institutional it is important to consider that if students hear about global re-
commitment (B1), example setting/leadership (B2) and advancing sponsibility while being educated in institutions that often invest
sustainability (B3).At level three, there are nine sub-criteria (Cj), and their nancial weight in the most irresponsible things the les-
at the fourth level there is a list of 25 indicators that could be sons being taught are those of hypocrisy and ultimately despair
applied to the Chilean context, given available data (Ik). (Orr, 1991). Therefore, internal institutional practices should be a
key element of an institution's sustainability efforts; these should
a) The Institutional Commitment Criterion (B1) cover social and environmental components as well as cross-
functional initiatives that integrate teaching, research and opera-
Stronger assessment tools consider systemic changes, which tion activities (Cortese, 2003; Shriberg, 2002).The B2 criterion
include incentive and reward structures, mission and goals state- corresponds to a HEI's system as shown in Fig. 1.
ments, procedures, annual reports and other organizational To assess this criterion, the present study considers three sub-
decision-making processes (Shriberg, 2002). The institutional criteria:
commitment criterion covers these aspects, and attempts to assess
the existence of symbolic, political and management platforms - Diversity and equity (C4), which aims to assess the diversity and
aimed at implementing sustainability in a HEI's context. It corre- inclusiveness of the institution, covering issues such as wage
sponds to a central part a HEI's system, as shown in Fig. 1. schemes, equal gender opportunities and access for students
To assess this criterion, three sub-criteria are proposed: from low socioeconomic backgrounds.
- Resource consumption (C5), which aims to assess the environ-
- Statement (C1), which recognizes the existence of formal dec- mental performance of campuses and measures being taken to
larations and public statements made by the institution in re- improve this performance, covering issues such as energy and
gard to sustainability in higher education. water consumption and waste management.
mez, F., et al., Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education, Journal of Cleaner
Please cite this article in press as: Urquiza Go
Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047
mez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e11
F. Urquiza Go 7
- Experience on campus (C6), covers the efforts being taken to Finally, in accordance with the Relevance and Democratic Inclusion
increase the perception and participation with the sustainability principles (Hezri, 2004), a fundamental part of the process selecting
effort in day to day activities on campus, covering issues such as a set of indicators that takes into account local priorities and data
internal communications, community training programs and availability constraints.
events. To illustrate this process, the Chilean context was considered
due to multiple reasons: there is lack of research on SD assess-
c) The Advancing Sustainability Criterion (B3) ment for HEIs in South America; Chilean organizations are at an
early stage of sustainability implementation; there was relative
Higher education institutions can contribute to sustainable easy access to this kind of information since the authors of the
development in many ways, but especially through the inuence of present study live in this country. Furthermore, Chile brings an
their graduate students, the innovations and discussions catalyzed by interesting case to study because sustainability is a growing topic
research activities, and the promotion of sustainability within the in different Chilean institutions (private and public), especially in
local and international community through engagement activities. B3 the university communities. The growing interest in sustainability
corresponds to the upper part of the HEI's system, as shown in Fig. 1, is reected in the active participation of the different proles
covering education, research and public engagement dimensions. (students, faculty and staff) involved in various university activ-
To assess this criterion, the study considers three sub-criteria: ities and how they relate to the care of the environment. Finally,
there are no studies or publications about sustainability in HEIs in
- Education (C7), which aims at recognizing the efforts made to Chile.
teach students the necessary skills to contribute to the con- In order to incorporate local priorities, a group of eight Chilean
struction of a more responsible, equitable and environmentally experts were asked to prioritize indicators within each sub-
concerned society. criterion in terms of how important they were for sustainability
- Research (C8), which aims at recognizing research that con- assessment in HEIs. Then, the list was compared to the available
tributes to the general comprehension of difculties regarding data of four Chilean HEIs with sustainability reports or equivalent.
sustainable development, as well as the development of new As a result, a nal list of 25 indicators that were viable for calcu-
technologies, strategies and approaches that enable people to lation was obtained. This process should be repeated in order to
confront these problems and create new opportunities. apply the model to a different context.
- Public engagement (C9), which aims at recognizing the efforts
being made to connect institutional activities with the chal-
lenges faced by SD outside of the HEI's campus. 2.3. Using the AHP method
mez, F., et al., Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education, Journal of Cleaner
Please cite this article in press as: Urquiza Go
Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047
8 mez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e11
F. Urquiza Go
Table 3 X
n X
n
Average consistencies of random matrices (RI values). Cj wIk Cj IN;k wIk Cj IN;k (6)
jk jk
Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RI 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.89 1.11 1.25 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.49
X
n
Bi w Cj B Cj (7)
i
ij
b) Weighted hierarchy
2.5. Normalization and aggregation of results
mez, F., et al., Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education, Journal of Cleaner
Please cite this article in press as: Urquiza Go
Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047
mez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e11
F. Urquiza Go 9
Table 5
The most valued indicators are recycling program coverage and sustainability related programs.
mez, F., et al., Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education, Journal of Cleaner
Please cite this article in press as: Urquiza Go
Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047
10 mez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e11
F. Urquiza Go
Table 6
List of indicators with description and type.
I1 Signed sustainability commitments Total number of commitments signed by the HEI Quantitative
I2 Authority's declarations related to sustainability Number of public declarations by the HEI's highest authority related to sustainability Quantitative
efforts being made by the HEI
I3 Sustainability in the HEI's vision and Presence of Sustainability in the HEI's vision and mission statement Qualitative
mission statement
I4 Sustainability in the institutional strategic plan Presence of sustainability in the institutional strategic plan Qualitative
I5 Sustainability plan Does the HEI have a sustainability plan? (Binary indicator yes/no) Quantitative
I6 Sustainability report Does the HEI have a sustainability report? Does this report cover all important issues? Qualitative
I7 Sustainability coordination Does the HEI engage in some kind of sustainability coordination? Quantitative
I8 Environmental management coordination Does the HEI engage in some kind of environmental management coordination? Quantitative
I9 Social responsibility coordination Does the HEI engage in some kind of social responsibility coordination? Quantitative
I10 Women in high-level governance positions Women in high-level governance committees/total amount of people in high level Quantitative
governance committees
I11 Students from low socioeconomic background Students from fully and partially public funded schools/total students Quantitative
I12 Average tuition fees Average tuition for one year for all programs offered by the institution Quantitative
I13 Minimum wage Lowest wage paid by the institution Quantitative
I14 Energy consumption Total direct energy consumption (Electric, gas, diesel)/gross oor area Quantitative
I15 Energy efciency measures What efforts are being made to reduce energy consumption? Qualitative
I16 Water consumption Total direct water consumption/(total students plus equivalent of the Quantitative
full-time person time load)
I17 Water efciency measures What efforts are being made to reduce water consumption? Qualitative
I18 Hazardous waste management What efforts are being made to minimize and safely dispose of all hazardous waste? Qualitative
I19 Recycling program coverage What efforts are being made to reduce waste and conserve resources Qualitative
by recycling and composting?
I20 Sustainability web site Does it have a comprehensive and dynamic sustainability web site? Qualitative
I21 Sustainability outreach campaigns What efforts are being made to spread and promote sustainability principles within the Qualitative
institution's community through the use of outreach campaigns?
I22 Sustainability related programs Total sustainability related programs/total programs Quantitative
I23 Sustainability related research Total sustainability related research/total research Quantitative
I24 Sustainability related presence on the web Total sustainability related web presence of the HEI/total web presence of the institution Quantitative
I25 Inter-campus collaboration on sustainability What efforts are being made to collaborate with other HEIs on sustainability issues? Qualitative
context of advanced sustainability efforts, and is appropriate as a would be able to build off of previous experience. The process could
road map toward sustainability for beginners. The GASU tool is be facilitated with the aid of a web platform that would help
useful as a complement for a sustainability report based on GRI explain (or show) the hierarchical assessment model, and, if
guidelines. necessary, could serve to answer questions that experts might have
The four step process (Fig. 2), provides a proposal for the cre- related to the survey.
ation and improvement of assessment models. This paper deal
with the rst three steps of the process in order to create the 5. Conclusions
AMAS tool, which includes; a four tiered assessment hierarchy
with the corresponding criteria, sub-criteria and indicators (Fig. 3); The increasing interest of higher education institutions around
a complete set of weights for the criteria and sub-criteria level the world to improve their sustainability performance can be aided
(Table 4), applicable in any context; and a complete set of in- along with the use of assessment tools that allow for comparison
dicators with their respective weights (Table 5), applicable to the among institutions. Tools available today are difcult or even
Chilean context. impossible to apply in contexts where sustainability efforts are at
The weights obtained from the international consultation pro- an early stage of development. The AMAS tool delivers a trans-
cess showed a preference for institutional commitment and parent methodology, intentionally divided into four steps in such a
example setting/leadership criterion, with weights of 36.1% and way as to permit local calibration without discarding international
38.2% respectively, and less preference for advancing sustainability agreements concerning the relative importance of key issues
criterion with a weight of 25.7%. On the sub-criteria level (Fig. 4), related to sustainability in higher education. This process also could
criteria dealing with resource consumption were shown to be more be used to recalibrate existing tools in a more participative manner,
important, as in other tools such as STARS and GreenMetric, where resetting their weight at the indicator or criteria level.
the added points of indicators related to resource consumption are The AMAS tool could allow for the creation of national and
superior to 30% and 75% of their total points respectively, in both regional rankings, thus encouraging discussion and promotion of
cases the most valued issue. Also the weights obtained on the sub- sustainability in countries where these issues are still not a priority,
criteria level are more balanced that other tools such as STARS, to and giving institutions that have made an effort towards sustain-
illustrate this we can compare the standard deviation of the ability development a chance to show their results. The model can
weights for our results in was 0.05, signicantly lower that for the be applied by any person or organization interested in promote
STARS tool with a value of 0.1. The fact that our results are more sustainability in higher education, as long as they have access to
balanced could be evidence of a more integral understanding of some level data and the capability to show results to different au-
what it is sustainability in the higher education context. diences, is possible to use this models as a powerful communica-
The consultation process required formulating a survey and tion tool that could highlight sustainability attracting the attention
building a database of experts. Both of these processes were very of leaders and institutions.
time consuming to carry out for the rst time, but if the process is We must highlight that even though AMAS can give an overall
repeated, the work load would be signicantly less as researchers idea of the sustainability performance of a group of institutions, it
mez, F., et al., Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education, Journal of Cleaner
Please cite this article in press as: Urquiza Go
Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047
mez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e11
F. Urquiza Go 11
mez, F., et al., Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education, Journal of Cleaner
Please cite this article in press as: Urquiza Go
Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047