AN EVALUATION OF EFFECTIVE STRUCTURES FOR CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAMS AT INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Lauren Edmonds

Dr. John Swaddle

Sustainability in Higher Education Increasing number of campus

sustainability “programs” of every shape & size

Number of Sustainability Officer Positions Created, data from AASHE

Goal

To identify the institutional structures most strongly associated with positive campus sustainability outcomes in order to recommend feasible, sustainable solutions to The College of William and Mary

Research Approach

Comparative case study Case selection

Brandeis University

Clemson University

Rutgers University

University of California – Irvine

University of California – Santa Barbara

University of Georgia

University of New Hampshire

Wake Forest University

Virginia Military Institute

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University

Research Approach

Data collection Interviews Further research

Data Analysis

Variable Identification Institutional make-up Programmatic characteristics Involvement and initiation Funding Participation in sector-wide

organizations/commitments Variable Measurement

Data Analysis

Measuring Outcomes Recalculated SEI Green Score

For the College of William and Mary

Year

Climate Change & Energy

Food & Recycling

Green Building

Student Involvement Transportation

Modified Score

New Grade

2007 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

2008 0.0 2.0 2.0 n/a 0.0 1.0 D

2009 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.6 C+

2010 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 B

2011 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.4 B+

Results

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Comparison of Recalculated SEI Green Scores,

2007 through 2011

Brandeis ClemsonRutgers U. of New

HampshireVirginia Tech VMIWake Forest William and Mary

Recalc

ula

ted

Gre

en

Score

Principal Component AnalysisComponent Matrix

Component1 2 3 4 5 6

2010 Endowment .394 -.620 -.266 .450 .424 .071Public/Private .484 -.532 .272 .505 .211 -.327Enrollment -.101 .402 -.810 -.140 .189 -.028Involvement, Staff .564 -.528 -.156 -.572 -.165 -.112Involvement, Faculty .294 .826 .085 -.154 -.126 .403

Involvement, Students .830 -.182 .459 .213 -.049 .080

Funding, Relative Amount .939 .122 .278 .019 .108 -.113

Funding, Reliability .971 .090 -.076 -.083 -.082 .147Student Fee .270 -.326 -.001 .438 -.754 .058Top-down Initiation -.565 .219 .713 -.075 .338 .044Bottom-up Initiation .755 .086 -.570 .099 -.261 .100

Physical Space .765 -.257 .229 -.438 .272 .151Scope .018 .069 .286 .475 .244 .785Program Size .806 .305 -.233 -.296 .296 .007Age .500 .550 .362 -.516 -.141 .104AASHE .555 .284 -.452 .555 .070 .250STARS .843 .121 .108 .049 .298 -.385PCC .192 .594 .452 .424 -.262 -.218Climate Action Plan .268 .793 .072 .298 -.083 -.439Sustainability Action Plan -.335 .654 -.303 .306 .322 -.178

Quantitative Analysis

Principal Component 3 + enrollment - top-down initiation + bottom-up initiation

Principal Component 2 + faculty involvement + existence of planning

documents

Principal Component 1 + student involvement

+ relative funding + reliability of funding + bottom-up initiation + physical space + program size + participation in STARS

Principal Component

Percent of Original Variation Explained

1 35.0%

2 19.9%

3 14.0%

4 12.7%

5 7.94%

6 7.38%

Qualitative Analysis

Brandeis University Clemson University University of New Hampshire Rutgers University Virginia Military Institute Virginia Tech Wake Forest University The College of William and Mary

The College of William & Mary

President

Committee on Sustainability

Sustainability Fellow

The College of William & Mary

Green Fee instituted

Committee on Sustainability created

Sustainability Fellowship created

Qualitative Support of Principal Component 1

School Funding Amount

Funding Reliability

Size Space Bottom-up Initiation

Brandeis + 0 0 0 +Clemson + + + 0 -New Hampshire

+ + + + +

Rutgers + + + + 0VMI + + + + +Virginia Tech + + + + +

Wake Forest + + + + 0

William and Mary

- - - - +

Qualitative Support of Principal Component 2

School Faculty Involvement Planning DocumentsBrandeis 0 0Clemson + +New Hampshire + 0Rutgers 0 0VMI + +Virginia Tech 0 +Wake Forest 0 0William and Mary + +

Qualitative Support of Principal Component 3

School Enrollment Bottom-up Initiation

Top-down Initiation

Brandeis 0 + 0Clemson 0 + +New Hampshire

0 + 0

Rutgers 0 0 0VMI 0 + +Virginia Tech + + 0Wake Forest 0 0 0William and Mary

0 + 0

Qualitative Support of Variables Not in Principal Components

School Scope Age Participation in PCC

Brandeis - 0 -Clemson 0 0 -New Hampshire - 0 0Rutgers 0 0 0VMI 0 0 0Virginia Tech 0 0 0Wake Forest 0 0 0William and Mary

0 0 0

Discussion

Characteristics of Most Effective Institutional Structures High levels of funding Reliable funding Large program size Dedicated physical space Bottom-up initiation

Discussion

Unrelated characteristics: Scope Age

Broader Implications

Application to develop recommendations for institutions of higher education

Potential for future research

Acknowledgments

My interview participants My advisor, Dr. John Swaddle My thesis committee, Dr. David Feldman

and Dr. Randy Chambers The Committee on Sustainability and the

Student Environmental Action Coalition at William & Mary

My friends and family

FOR QUESTIONS ON MY RESEARCH:LAUREN EDMONDS, LCEDMONDS11@GMAIL.COM

FOR QUESTIONS ON THE WM SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM:WWW.WM.EDU/SUSTAINABILITY SARAH HANKE, SMHANKE@EMAIL.WM.EDU

QUESTIONS?