FINAL Annual Sustainability Survey 2014 Annual Report - draft 4.8

Understanding Transportation and Sustainability Initiatives at Dalhousie University 2014 Annual Sustainability and Transportation Survey Report Prepared as part of MGMT 5000: Management without Borders

Authors:

Emily Colford

Erik Paige

Grace Okpala

Sean Tait

Takafumi Osawa

Group 11

December 5, 2014

2014 Dalhousie Office of Sustainability Annual Sustainability Survey Report 1

1. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Rochelle Owen, the director of the Office of Sustainability, whose guidance throughout the creation of the annual survey and report was invaluable. Poh Chua’s instruction and training for the Opinio software was crucial and his help with survey troubleshooting is greatly appreciated. The authors would also like to thank Jenny Beachler, Sandra Toze, and Jessica MacIntosh who created the foundation on which this project could be manifested through their dedication to the Management Without Borders course. Thank you to Dr. Ahsan Habib for his additions to the transportation section of the survey.

Finally, it goes without saying that our team is indebted to all of the groups and individuals who supported the survey. In particular, Steven Cushing, whose work was indispensable during the recruitment process, not to mention, the countless secretaries and promotional contacts throughout the faculties, department, libraries, and offices.

We are also very grateful to The Wooden Monkey and Just Us! Coffee Roasters Co-‐op for their generous survey prize donations. Last but not least, we would like to thank all Dalhousie faculty, staff, and students who took the time to participate in our survey.


2. Executive Summary Working to integrate campus sustainability through operations and engagement, the

Office of Sustainability conducts an annual sustainability survey. The survey is released to students, staff, and faculty to collect data on sustainability indicators including: sustainable transportation, waste management, energy and water consumption, natural and built environment. The survey gathers sustainability perceptions of student and employees. In tandem with the Office of Sustainability the goal of the 2014 Annual Sustainability Survey is to improve sustainability outcomes on Dalhousie campuses.

The objective of the 2014 Annual Sustainability Survey is to: collect opinions of student, staff, and faculty on sustainability initiatives; determine support levels for cycling infrastructure (segregated bike lanes); and ascertain opportunities for improvement as provided by respondents. These objectives are achieved through quantitative and qualitative analysis. The discussion, conclusions, and recommendations of the paper are informative for new and ongoing sustainability initiatives at Dalhousie.

Key updates in 2014 survey included a section regarding segregated bike lanes, the addition of new questions related to sustainability reporting and green infrastructure, and updates to the transportation section. The survey was administered through Opinio survey software for a period of two weeks. 1,949 respondents accessed the survey, while 1,508 respondents completed it.

Key findings from the survey include:

• High percentage of the Dalhousie community support sustainability as a campus wide-‐goal. Similar to last year’s results, students, staff, and faculty support sustainability as well as STARS reporting and Dalhousie’s Green Buildings Policy even though there was low awareness levels of these initiatives.

• Increased cycling infrastructure, reduction of paper waste and recycling, local food purchasing, fossil fuel divestment, and solar power projects are areas that respondents wants to see progress on

• There was support for the installation of segregated bike lanes on Dalhousie Campuses with safety as the largest opportunity and the concerns of the community were gathered.

• Local food sourcing is the most supported of all the sustainable food operations options • Most respondents are unaware of the formal carpooling programs such as RideShare

and CarShare • There was a drop-‐off in respondents at the first open-‐ended question (Question 6),

suggesting either respondents do not know enough about the question to answer it, or do not feel comfortable answering open-‐ended questions

• Direct email was the most effective means of recruiting respondents for the survey

In light of these findings, key recommendations are as follows. The Office of Sustainability should continue advocacy efforts for sustainable transportation, particularly accommodations for cyclists, and also either re-‐examine the structure of the current formal carpooling programs (and investigate possible reasons for their lack of use) or direct efforts


elsewhere. In terms of awareness, new communication strategies should be considered as awareness of the work of the Office of Sustainability is, overall, moderate to low. A key recommendation for future survey facilitators will be to consider putting more of the open-‐ended question nearest to the end instead of near the beginning, where you might lose respondents interest. Initiating the survey a week earlier, or in a time where the survey may not overlap with any holidays could be advantageous as more people will be available to recruit during regular school hours. Finally, the authors recommend to make the survey shorter. This will make it easier for more people to start and complete the survey in a smaller amount of time without the respondent losing interest part way through.


3. Table of Contents

1. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3. Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

4. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1 Office of Sustainability Background ................................................................................................. 6 4.2 Project Aim & Objectives ................................................................................................................... 7 4.3 Report Format ..................................................................................................................................... 7 4.4 Omissions & Exclusions .................................................................................................................... 7

5. Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1 Segregated Cycle Lanes and Increased Cycle Ridership ............................................................ 8 5.2 Policy Development ........................................................................................................................... 8 5.3 Political Support .................................................................................................................................. 8 5.4 Local Business .................................................................................................................................... 8 5.5 Installation Cost vs. Financial Benefit .............................................................................................. 9 5.6 Safety ................................................................................................................................................... 9 5.7 Health ................................................................................................................................................. 10 5.8 Social Perceptions ............................................................................................................................ 10 5.9 Ease of traffic .................................................................................................................................... 10 5.10 Connectivity and Directedness ..................................................................................................... 11 5.11 Physical Conditions (Weather, Topography, Vegetation) ........................................................ 11 5.12 Research Key Points ..................................................................................................................... 11

6. Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.1 Planning ............................................................................................................................................. 12 6.2 Research Ethics ................................................................................................................................ 12 6.3 Recruitment Strategy and Survey Launch .................................................................................... 13 6.4 Data Collection & Analysis .............................................................................................................. 13

7. Results & Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.1 Demographics ................................................................................................................................... 15 7.3 Cycling Questions ............................................................................................................................. 23 7.5 Other Questions ................................................................................................................................ 36

8. Discussion & Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 8.1 Summary and Implications of Results ........................................................................................... 37

8.1.1. Comparison to previous surveys ........................................................................................... 37 8.1.2. Campus Wide Sustainability and Key Initiatives .................................................................. 37 8.1.3. Cycling infrastructure ............................................................................................................... 38 8.1.4. Transportation ........................................................................................................................... 39 8.1.5. Mode of Transportation (Q 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 30) ...................................................... 39 8.1.6. Timing of travel to and from campus (Q 18, 19, and 20) .................................................... 39 8.1.7. Carpooling (Q 12, 21, and 22) ................................................................................................ 39


8.1.8. Travel between campuses (Q 23, 24, 25, and 26) .............................................................. 40 8.2 Limitations and Recommendations ................................................................................................ 40

8.2.1 Limitations .................................................................................................................................. 40 8.2.2 Recommendations for Future Survey Facilitators ................................................................ 41 8.2.3 Recommendations for the Office of Sustainability ................................................................ 42

9. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

11. Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Appendix A: Project Description ........................................................................................................... 47 Appendix B: PESTE Analysis ................................................................................................................ 48 Appendix C: Ethics / Informed Consent ............................................................................................... 55 Appendix D: Recruitment Strategies .................................................................................................... 56 Appendix E: Example Promotional Script ............................................................................................ 57 Appendix F: Survey ................................................................................................................................ 58 Appendix G: Full Results Section ......................................................................................................... 71


4. Introduction Dalhousie University has been pursuing campus sustainability for over twenty

years. Originally, the concept of sustainability, in terms of environment, was defined as the maintenance of natural capital, which has source and sink functions for human beings (Goodland, 1995). In other words, to maintain such capital, we should reduce waste emissions (e.g., garbage and greenhouse gas), and slow down the speed of harvest/depletion of resource input (e.g., water and food) (Goodland, 1995). The Office of Sustainability attempts to improve Dalhousie campuses in environmental, economic and social aspects.

4.1 Office of Sustainability Background

Universities are often large and influential on global as well as local environments, and as a result a growing number of universities have prioritized the issue of campus sustainability. Alshuwaikhat & Abubakar (2008) proposed that sustainability activities in university campuses could be composed of the following three approaches: (i) environmental management (systems) in university, (ii) public participation and social responsibility, and (iii) sustainability teaching and research. The Office of Sustainability is the focal point of the first two of the three approaches having made many sustainability plans and implemented them with the aid of various collaborators. More specifically, the office released the Dalhousie University Sustainability Operational Plan (DUOS, 2010), suggesting 11 sustainability indicators (e.g., reduction of greenhouse gas emission) and quantitative/qualitative targets of these indicators by 2020.

The released plan of DUOS (2010) also proposed mainstreaming bikes as a traffic tool as one of its key strategies. To achieve this goal, the Office of Sustainability has conducted a survey about travel behavior of commuters at Dalhousie (DUOS, 2012), and implemented cycling-‐supportive programs, such as establishing a campus bike centre and installing new bike racks, between 2010 and 2013 (DUOS, 2014). Furthermore, Dalhousie released a bikeways plan for the urban Halifax institutional district in combination with Capital Health, IWK Health Centre and Saint Mary’s University in 2012 (CEU, 2012). This plan suggested establishing new bike lanes, bike parking stations and other bike-‐related infrastructure in specific places in Halifax (e.g., University Avenue). In particular, bike lanes are acknowledged as an effective way to make biking mainstream (Parker et al., 2013).

Furthermore, the growing interest in sustainability efforts at other universities has initiated a couple of sustainability-‐related reporting and ranking systems catering to higher education institutes in North America (Fonseca et al., 2011). In line with such movements, sustainability offices at some universities have taken initiatives in such reporting and self-‐assessments about their efforts for sustainability (Fonseca et al., 2011). Dalhousie is one of the registered participants of the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS), which enables universities in North America to report and clarify their sustainability performance. This system is characterized by its extensive scope, positive rating of environmentally “good practices”, and high transparency of rating process (Wigmore & Ruiz, 2010). Our client is in charge of submitting reports of Dalhousie to STARS as well, and the university was awarded silver rating in 2011 (DUOS, n.d.). The STARS evaluation is supposed to be conducted once in every three years, the last one being conducted in August of 2011.


The Office of Sustainability regards the perceptions, opinions and ideas of students, staff, and faculty as of utmost importance, and has conducted an annual questionnaire survey for the past four years. This report outlines the objectives, methods, and results of the 2014 Annual Sustainability Survey. Both quantitative and qualitative analysis of results are presented together with discussion of key themes as identified in the survey results and recommendations.

4.2 Project Aim & Objectives

The main purpose of this report is to present the results of the 2014 survey and give our partner organization not only survey results, but also useful recommendations from quantitative and qualitative data analysis. The survey consists of four different sections. The first part questions respondents on initiatives at Dalhousie, including their understanding of STARS and LEED. The second section questions respondents on their perception of cycling infrastructure, while the third questions respondents on their transportation habits to and from the university, as well as between campuses. The final section of the survey collects demographic information about respondents, including age, gender, and faculty, etc.

Results and trends of the qualitative and quantitative data analysis, provided in the final paper, will help guide major concepts to be incorporated into policy creation, project planning, and campus operations in the Office of Sustainability. As such, our objective is to gather a wide range of participants, while also leaving enough time at the end of term to fully examine and understand the results of the survey.

4.3 Report Format

This report follows a consistent format, similar to the precedence set from previous years. The following sections provide a literature review, methodology, research design, recruitment strategy, survey launch, and data analysis. In the conclusions of this report, the implications of the survey results are outlined, trends are identified and comparison made with previous survey results. Recommendations are made for the proceeding years of the facilitators of the annual survey and the Office of Sustainability. 4.4 Omissions & Exclusions

This report will omit the questions in the survey regarding the bridge (Questions 33 -‐ 37). These questions were an addition from an external group working at Dalhousie University, who simply wanted to use the 2014 Annual Sustainability Survey platform in order to gather information regarding the renovation and construction of the bridges from Dartmouth to Halifax.

Other exclusions from this report include analysis on questions whereby the results were skewed or unrealistic. For example, Question 32 (How much on average do you spend out-‐of-‐pocket on a monthly basis for transportation purposes?) had some abnormal answers, and will be further discussed in section 8.2.1. Limitations.


5. Literature Review 5.1 Segregated Cycle Lanes and Increased Cycle Ridership

This year’s survey included questions about segregated cycle tracks in accordance with the bicycle lane being implemented on University Avenue. The Office of Sustainability has spearheaded the lane project with the hope that it would increase cycle ridership at Dalhousie. 5.2 Policy Development

Policy development is an effective way to increase cycle ridership. Pucher and Buehler (2007) synthesize a number of case studies about policy development to draw conclusions about increasing cycle ridership in urban areas. The study concludes that the key to increased ridership is the provision of facilities and infrastructure, notably, segregated cycle tracks. In addition to the pro-‐bike facilities, policies, and programs being put in place, the governments examined in the paper (the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany) not only made driving expensive, but also inconvenient through tax policies and restrictions on car ownership, use, and parking. The study concludes that increasing cycle ridership is the result of a multifaceted approach that supports cycling, ranging from strict land-‐use policies in support of cycling, to taxes and restrictions on car use, all in addition to the provision of segregated cycle tracks. 5.3 Political Support

Political support from HRM is significant to the discussion surrounding segregated cycle tracks and increasing cycle ridership in Halifax. After revising the Active Transportation Plan of 2006, the Regional Council approved the “Making Connection: 2014-‐19 Halifax Active Transportation Priorities Plan” in September 2014 (Halifax Regional Municipality, 2014a). One of the recommendations of this plan is to consider segregated cycle tracks where suitable, and aim to implement at least one segregated bicycle lane pilot project in the next five years (Halifax Regional Municipality, 2014b). The plan acknowledges the nuances of segregated cycle tracks, especially in Halifax, but also identified the opportunity available, as evidenced by other Canadian municipalities. In 2013 Regional Council approved a report emanating from the “Mayor’s Conversation on a Healthy Liveable Community.” This report recommends that Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM) liaise with other municipalities in Canada that have implemented segregated cycle tracks with the goal of including protected bicycle lanes as a part of HRM’s revised Active Transportation Strategy (Halifax Regional Municipality, 2014b). In 2014, the Nova Scotia Department of Energy is starting a segregated bike lane pilot project along University Avenue by investing $150,000 (McNutt, 2014). 5.4 Local Business

Urban businesses are reported to experience increased retail success due to the implementation of cycle tracks. It was found that bicycle infrastructure can elicit positive economic effects to business communities, as urban cyclists are a desired demographic for local businesses. “Bicycle lanes and bicycle parking can increase the capacity of roads and the ability of people to shop simultaneously,” (Arancibia et al., 2013). Critical findings of this study are that the percentage of customers who arrive by walking, cycling, or public transit, into urban neighborhoods is immensely higher than those people who arrive by car; and that cyclists are responsible for greater monthly per capita spending than drivers as 1) they have more


disposable income (not spent on car expenses) and 2) cyclists in Toronto earn a higher income than the city’s average (Arancibia et al., 2013).

Evidence from a New York City example states that segregated cycle tracks in the city on 9th Avenue contributed to a drastic increase in retail sales in businesses and fewer store closures (Arancibia et al., 2013). Merchants respond positively to questions that review the general impact of bicycle lanes on businesses, but the extent of these benefits will vary depending on factors such as the quality of infrastructure available, types of businesses, the demand for cycling infrastructure, and space constraints for lanes and on-‐street parking (Arancibia et al., 2013). 5.5 Installation Cost vs. Financial Benefit

The installation cost of segregated cycle tracks is high. Compared with non-‐segregated cycle tracks, segregated lanes are recognized as expensive facilities (Larsen and El-‐Geneidy, 2012). Approximately, non-‐segregated cycle tracks cost $100,000 per km to install, while segregated lanes cost $1 million per km (Robb, 2014). Macmillan et al. (2014) compared the financial benefits and the cost of increasing bike commuting in Auckland, New Zealand, over the next 40 years, by assuming introduction of segregated cycle tracks and some other scenarios.

In terms of injury risk, physical activity, fuel costs, greenhouse gas emission, as well as air pollution, the total benefits were estimated as 10-‐25 times larger than the costs (Macmillan et al., 2014). In particular, the combination between segregated bike lanes and self-‐explaining roads (designed to make cars run at low speeds) was the most effective increase for the benefit-‐cost ratio (Macmillan et al., 2014). A general supervisor with sustainable transportation in Edmonton stated that the benefits of segregated cycle tracks are significant, despite their relatively expensive cost (Robb, 2014).

5.6 Safety

The largest social factor influencing segregated cycle tracks is safety. Many individuals are not willing to ride bikes due to concerns about danger with automobiles driving beside cyclists (Geller, 2009). In Portland, United States, 60% of citizens were likely to be concerned about safety but remained interested in cycling all the same (Geller, 2009). In other words, these individuals are potential cyclists.

A global review based on 21 observational studies reported that separation of cycling from other traffic, high population density, as well as “programs of safe routes to school” could contribute to increasing ridership significantly (Fraser and Lock, 2010). Herein, the safety programs include, the California Safe routes to school, for instance, which provides budget allocations for constructing bike-‐related facilities around schools. In Iowa, segregated cycle tracks could reduce accidental risk of bike-‐related crashes by as much as 60% (Hamnn and Peek-‐Asa, 2013). According to a Canadian questionnaire conducted in the Metro Vancouver, segregated cycle tracks are generally safe, and people prefer them to other pathway types (e.g., non-‐segregated cycle tracks or regular roads) (Winters and Teschke, 2010).

Sanders (2014) reported that potential cyclists felt uncomfortable about bike lanes without separation from motorized traffic. A GIS analysis to quantify the association between bike facilities and distance traveled by cyclists in Montreal (Larsen and El-‐Geneidy 2012) found that many cyclists would travel farther than non-‐segregated lane users by as much as 2.0 km.


Furthermore, those who used painted lanes traveled more than cyclists who used no lanes by 1.6 km. Cyclists were willing to travel farther in order to use cycling facilities. 5.7 Health

A study conducted in Montreal showed that the use of segregated cycle tracks reduced the personal exposure of cyclists to air pollutants (Hatzopoulou et al., 2013). The impacts of segregated cycling tracks on personal exposure may vary between regions. De Hartog et al. (2010) conducted a quantitative comparison between benefits and risks of bikes on human health in terms of traffic accidents, air pollutions and physical exercises in the Netherlands. Note, however, that their comparison did not consider separation/non-‐separation of cycling tracks. They concluded that the benefits outweigh the risks remarkably, also finding large benefits on society, such as reduction of air pollution and greenhouse gas emission. It is also noteworthy that young people (15-‐30 years old) have equal or lower traffic mortality with bikes than that with cars (De Hartog et al., 2010). Given that the mortality of cyclists is generally 5.5 times higher to that of car riders across all ages, traffic risk of bikes on young people is extremely low.

5.8 Social Perceptions

There is a perception that segregated cycle tracks are more dangerous than multi-‐use paths (wherein, cyclists share with pedestrians) likely because they are not familiar with cycle tracks (Winters et al., 2012). The perception is partly true, however, and cyclists should be prepared to deal with other cyclists in the same lane. As such, teaching cyclists how to interact with other bikes is important (Cohen, 2013). Some factors, such as cyclist age or phone use, could lead to an increased risk of bike accidents (Asadi-‐Shekari et al., 2014). Such risk factors may be persistent, irrespective of whether tracks are segregated or not. Perceived risk from crime also discourage people to ride bikes (Fraser and Lock, 2010), and this may be the case, regardless of separation of cycle tracks.

5.9 Ease of traffic

Based on observation in Delhi, India, Mohan and Tiwari (1999), argued that bike lanes should be segregated in roads that consist of two or more lanes to make use of limited space and enable efficient traffic flow. In other words, segregated cycle tracks could be beneficial to improve traffic in wide roads. A study conducted in Montreal (Larsen, et al., 2011) showed that when such cycling infrastructure is implemented, it has a significant effect on the street routes taken by cyclists. Larsen et al. (2011) used ArcGIS (Geographic Information System) to analyze the routes taken by cyclists and determine that cyclists will travel farther to use segregated cycle tracks than for all other infrastructure type. Similarly, cyclists travel farther to use segregated on-‐street infrastructure, as opposed to those “delineated by road paint alone” (Larson et al., 2011). According to a study in Portland, car drivers who have never ridden bikes were likely to ascribe traffic delay to new segregated cycle tracks, and also walkers were worried about accident risks when crossing the bike lanes.


5.10 Connectivity and Directedness Furthermore, even if cycle tracks are segregated from roads, something more may be

needed to increase cycle ridership significantly. By analyzing network structures in 74 cities in the United States, Schoner and Levinson (2014) indicated that density, connectivity and directness of bike lanes are important factors to increase ridership. In other words, fragmentation and complexity of lane networks could possibly impede positive effects of segregated cycle tracks. Also, densifying bike lane networks was recommended in specific routes between universities and the most popular residential areas of students (Schoner and Levinson, 2014). 5.11 Physical Conditions (Weather, Topography, Vegetation)

Steep slopes and bad weather are factors that negatively affect cycle ridership (Fraser and Lock, 2010). Riding bikes on slopes takes time, and also exhausts cyclist commuters before they arrived at schools or offices (Rodríguez and Joo, 2004). According to a study on 53 Canadian cities, the numbers of rainy days, as well as freezing-‐temperature days, were associated with lower level of cycling (Winters et al., 2007). Presence of snow is another factor that could affect bike lanes and ridership. For instance, in South Burlington in the United States, snow plowing operations could make green thermoplastic pavement markings less visible than before in non-‐segregated cycle tracks, resulting in a drop in the percentage of cyclists who use green bike lanes (Sadek et al., 2007). Segregated cycle tracks are unlikely to have such a problem; however, snow plowing in the segregated lanes may be expensive. As argued by Winters et al. (2007), students riding bikes are insensitive to difference in climate in Canada, likely because students have limited transportation choice due to financial constraints. Also, Titzre et al. (2008) found an inconsistent result with the aforementioned negative effect of slopes or the positive effect of vegetation on bike ridership in Graz in Austria, proposing that further studies would be necessary to make substantial claims.

5.12 Research Key Points

Though many of the above case studies and research papers are not focused on Halifax specifically, the challenges and opportunities that have been encountered by other municipalities are highly relevant to the implementation of cycle infrastructure in the city. The most pressing force is safety, municipal budgets, and conflict with traditional modes of transportation. As previously noted, concerns over safety are significant amongst potential cyclists and need to be prioritized when considering implementing any expansion of cycle infrastructure in the city. This is an opportunity to promote the use of segregated cycle tracks as it has been shown to improve the perception of safety and reduce accident risks.

To implement any new infrastructure in the city, funds need to be obtained. These funds are likely to be gathered from government sources and how these bodies will be engaged for buy-‐in support is a necessary considerations. Finally, one of the largest barriers to the implementation of additional cycle infrastructure in Halifax is the conflict inevitable with other modes of transportation. Addressing the concern that roads will be narrowed, parking lost, or access decreased, should be considered a threat and therefore a pressing concern. Many of the forces considered are inter-‐connected, and, as many of the case studies address, the most effective approach is one that is multi-‐faceted.


6. Methods 6.1 Planning

The introductory meeting with Rochelle Owen, the director of the Office of Sustainability, guided the research design of the project. A project work plan was decided upon following that meeting, including project objectives, timeline, deadlines, and roles. The major phases of the project include survey design and review, research ethics submission, recruitment strategies, survey launch, data analysis and recommendations.

To generate an accurate work plan, a meeting with the partner organization was held to outline the timeline of the project. From this meeting, the Project Team was able to understand the short and long-‐term expectations of survey implementation, as our partner organization has created and employed this same survey in previous years. Moreover, the Project Team understands the complexities behind drafting, reviewing, submitting ethics reviews, editing survey questions, effectively delegating, and other specific tasks that come with the responsibility of launching this annual survey.

There was a new section added this year that included questions regarding segregated bike lanes. In the general section, new questions related to Sustainability reporting and green infrastructure were also added. At the request of the Office of Sustainability and personnel in charge of the Macdonald Bridge construction, survey participates were asked about the on-‐going construction project on the Macdonald Bridge. This was a separate add-‐on to the survey. In addition, Dr. Ahsan Habib, who is responsible for the transportation section of the survey, incorporated new changes.

6.2 Research Ethics

Submission to the ethics review board is a necessary step in initiating the survey activation process. This ethics review process required a full submission of the survey questions for review, as well as a document outlining the study parameters, including: methods of achieving confidentiality and anonymity, the software we plan on using to gather people’s opinions, the recruitment email, the plan to evaluate the information, who will have access to the information (external parties), as well as information management plans once the project is completed. Once we obtained ethics approval, after a review by our faculty member and teaching assistant, the project team carried out the survey under the boundaries set in the ethics review.

Portions of the ethics review document can be seen in the appendix. Appendix C is the “informed consent” document that resulted from the ethics review. Although the authors generated the “informed consent” document, due to the nature of the survey, it was an implied consent to the conditions outlined in the form once the participant clicked “start survey”. An abbreviated version of the informed consent document was provided on the “Start Survey” page on Opinio and can be seen at the beginning of Appendix E (The Survey). There was no exchange of signatures or any interaction of the participant with the survey team. Appendix D and E outline the recruitment email sent to department secretaries, DSU Executives, etc., and the full survey questions, respectively.


6.3 Recruitment Strategy and Survey Launch The goal of recruitment is to create survey awareness within the Dalhousie

community in order to increase the number of respondents and strengthen the results. Past recruitment methods formed the foundation upon which this year’s survey recruitment strategies were built. The Office of Sustainability and the Project Team mapped out key strategies for promoting the survey to the Dalhousie community. Prizes were offered to survey respondents to serve as an added motivation for filling out the survey. The prizes included a $100 Superstore gift card, a Sobeys gift card, Just Us! Coffee and gift basket, and gift certificates for local restaurants.

The survey was promoted predominantly through online means. A recruitment email (Appendix F) was developed. It contained the purpose of the survey, gifts to be won, confidentiality clause, and link to the survey. The recruitment email was distributed to various news channels such as “Today@Dal” and “StudentLife” prior to the launch of the survey. On the day of the survey launch, the recruitment email was sent to all Dalhousie employees via the Office of Sustainability email address; Facebook pages of Dalhousie student societies; Administrative Secretaries of departments for distribution to their student (see Appendix D); Dalhousie societies through the Dalhousie Student Union (DSU); campus LCD screens; and Office of Sustainability social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, and sustainability blog). A Facebook event was also created by the Project Team to invite Dalhousie students and friends to fill out the survey.

The survey was launched on November 3rd at 9.00am and closed two weeks later on November 18 at 7.00pm. The survey had 1949 responses with 1508 completed responses. During the duration of the survey, reminders were sent to Administrative Secretaries to re-‐distribute the recruitment emails, social media platforms were updated as well as the Facebook event page. To garner more response, the project team had a recruitment event in the Student Union Building (SUB) during the survey. The survey was advertised during the event with posters, and banner. Laptops were made available for students to give out their email addresses. This year’s recruitment event was a bit different as we only requested for email addresses of students at the event. The survey link was thereafter sent to students who gave out their email address and agreed to fill out the survey.

6.4 Data Collection & Analysis

Data collection was conducted entirely through the online survey software Opinio, provided by Dalhousie University. The Project Team worked closely with Dr. Poh Chua to input the survey questions and create the survey. The survey was open for over two weeks with respondents sought from all campuses and from all Dalhousie community members, including students, administrators, and professors. The breadth of scope regarding who could complete the survey ensured a significant volume of data.

As in the past, data collection for this year’s project was bounded by the requirements Dalhousie has set out regarding the use of surveys. As noted previously, this involved an extensive exchange with the research ethics department to enable the survey to be approved and launched. Fortunately, as much of the questions in this year’s survey mirrored those present in the 2013 survey, the ethics review process only focused on questions which were new to the survey this year.


Qualitative data analysis was required on a number of survey questions as the questions were open-‐ended and relied on text boxes for the collection of responses. In the case of these questions, responses were read and then grouped by the key points and/or themes presented. Having filtered the written responses in this way, a standard analysis of the frequency of certain themes or concerns was conducted.

Quantitative analysis made up the bulk of the data analysis conducted. The majority of questions was multiple-‐choice, and was visualized using Microsoft Excel. Having done this visualization of the data an analysis and discussion of the results was completed for each question.


7. Results & Analysis Exactly 1949 members of the Dalhousie Community accessed the 2014 Annual

Sustainability Survey. Of these, 1508 completed all (compulsory) questions. The graph below illustrates the drop-‐off in completed questions over the course of the survey. The most notable drop-‐off in respondents occurred early in the survey, at approximately Question 6 (Fig 1). If respondents continued from this point they were highly likely to complete the entire survey.

7.1 Demographics Around 58% of the respondents were under 35 years old (Fig. 2), most likely because

47% of the sample were students (Fig. 6). However, another 40% of the respondents were staff (which does not include faculty). Around 71% of the respondents were females (Fig. 3). We do not know the proportion of females at Dalhousie, though the proportion of females among students is 55%. Thus, assuming that people who are interested in sustainability responded to our survey, our results may indicate that females are more interested in sustainability than males (see section 8.2.1).

1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450 1,500 1,550 1,600 1,650 1,700 1,750

Respondent Frequency vs. Ques3on

Figure 1: Respondent frequency vs. question number

6.70%

27.28% 24.20%

15.35% 15.15%

9.79%

1.54%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

15-‐19 20-‐24 25-‐34 35-‐44 45-‐54 55-‐64 65 and above

Q1 Demographics -‐ Age

Figure 2: What is your age?


21.32%

11.66% 12.25%

8.61% 8.08%

19.60%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Less than $19,999

$20,000-‐39,999 $40,000-‐59,999 $60,000-‐79,999 $80,000-‐99,999 Above 100,000

Q40 -‐ Annual Household Income

Annual household income varied from less than $20,000 (21% of all respondents) to above than $100,000 (20%) (Fig. 4), suggesting that there was minimal deviation in the income among the respondents. In other words, people are interested in sustainability regardless of their income. Of all respondents, 64% work or study mainly in the Studley campus (Fig. 5). In terms of affiliation, 18% and 12% of the respondents were people belonging to the department of Science and Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences respectively (Fig. 7). As well, 9% of them were people of the department of Medicine.

70.82%

27.08%

0.13% 0.07% 0.33% 1.58% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Female Male Intersex Trans Other Prefer not to say

Q39 -‐Gender

Figure 4: What is your Annual Income?

Figure 3: What is your gender?

Figure 4: What is your annual household income?


47.46%

12.20%

40.34%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Students Faculty Staff

Q43 -‐ Community Group Demographics

64.12%

16.49% 13.13%

6.27%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Studley Carleton Sexton Agricultural

Q42 -‐ Primary Campus of Respondents

Figure 5: What is your primary campus?

Figure 6: Which of these community groups do you belong to?


0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Business Process and Integraron Office Office of Industry Liaison & Innovaron

Trace Analysis Research Centre Bookstores

Environmental Health and Safety Presidents Office

Dalhousie Arts Centre College of Conrnuing Educaron

Human Resources Faculty of Computer Science

Faculty of Denrstry Student Services

Dalhousie Libraries Informaron Technology Services

Faculty of Agriculture Faculty of Architecture and Planning

Faculty of Engineering Faculty of Management

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

Q44 -‐ Department Affilia3on

Figure 7: What is your Faculty and/or department?

Figure 8: Geographical distribution of respondents by postal code


7.2 General Questions Results from this year’s survey show that support for sustainability initiatives on

campus remains strong (Fig. 9). Responses favoring environmental sustainability on campus are highly skewed toward positive (either somewhat agree or strongly agree). 9% of respondents strongly disagreed or somewhat disagreed with the statement that sustainability should be a priority for Dalhousie.

81% of respondents believe that Dalhousie’s involvement in the STARS rating system is

either ‘important’ or ‘very important’ (Fig. 10). Qualitative analysis reveals that many of the respondents believes that participation in STARS is important as it can serve as a tool for: tracking and measuring progress; comparison and accountability; and also provides some form of international recognition. A few respondents were however skeptical of the intentions of participating in rating systems, highlighting that participation is only relevant for promotional purposes. Also, a few respondents pointed out the flaws associated with international rating

3.77%

15.54%

44.58%

36.12%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

not important somewhat important important very important

Q2 -‐ Importance of STARS

6.94% 1.56% 1.27%

18.81%

71.41%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

strongly disagree somewhat disagree

unsure somewhat agree strongly agree

Q1 -‐ Environmental Sustainability as a Campus-‐Wide Goal

Figure 9: Environmental sustainability should be a campus-wide goal.

Figure 10: How important is Dalhousie’s participation in an international rating system like STARS?


systems such as the possibility of not capturing local factors or determinants in the rating process. Some of the respondents do not know about the rating system, but still thinks that it is important

In addition, 92% of respondents believe that Dalhousie’s goal for new buildings being

rated LEED Gold or above is either ‘important’ or ‘very important’ (Fig. 11). Many of the respondents believed that been an innovator in green buildings is important as Dalhousie is a leader in sustainability and innovation. Some of the respondents; however, are of the opinion that LEED certification is expensive and LEED certified buildings has some complications, and are also skeptical about the need to build new buildings when old buildings needs upgrading. Apart from been a leader in sustainability, other reasons given by some respondents on why it is important for Dalhousie to be an innovator in green buildings are: it attracts students and employees; cuts costs and resource use in the long-‐term; and it is the right the thing to do.

Dalhousie community members had a range of differing opinions relating to food choices

on campus. Locally sourcing (50%), animal welfare (46%), food freshness (70%), energy and water kitchen efficiency (47%), and the reduction of food waste (61%) all had strong support (Fig. 12). Organic food had the lowest level of support, with only 17% of respondents rating this as a strong priority for food operations at Dalhousie.

Survey respondents provided context for their choices in an open text comment box. That organic food garnered the lowest level of support is supported by respondents’ comments, such as “all super important except organic food.” Further information about the perception of organic food is suggested by comments like “Organic is a money-‐making scam. It is not important. Local is king.”

As is manifested in the comment “local is king” most respondents who added comments were very supportive of local food sources. Of 141 comments left by respondents, only one individual commented negatively, saying that: “Local can sometimes have a bigger eco-‐

1.28% 6.67%

28.83%

63.23%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

not important somewhat important important very important

Q3 -‐ (LEED) Gold Standard or Higher at Dalhousie

Figure 11: How important is it that Dalhousie is an innovator in the field of green building?


footprint.” With this exception, all other mention of local food was very supportive. One respondent commented, “above all I believe local food sources are the most important”, while another added that Dalhousie should “do its part in supporting local food sources.”

Of the individual environmentally sustainable efforts taken by Dalhousie Community members, the most prevalent was turning off water taps followed by sorting materials into recycling and compost bins (Fig. 13). In contrast, choosing the stairs rather than elevators and focusing on reducing paper were relatively uncommon actions. It means that these actions have room to be improved and spread among community members at Dalhousie.

In the open text comment box, survey participants provided context to their quantitative responses. Many respondents indicated that the options provided by the question are “common sense.” Others added further efforts that they make, including: limiting driving and air travel, walking or biking, limiting use of washer and dryers, bringing food in tupperware, never purchasing bottled water, and using rags instead of paper towel. Of all the options provided in this question, “turning down the heat” was most commented upon. In almost all cases where heat is mentioned respondents made it clear that they have no control over the heat at Dal. Furthermore, many of these individuals indicated dissatisfaction with the temperatures of offices and classrooms and that something needs to be done.

Some respondents commented on the educational aspect of this question, indicating that the people around them are not doing enough and more education is required. Only a few respondents indicated that they themselves should be making more efforts. Though it was not

Organic Food

Local Sources

Animal Welfare

Food Freshness

Eco-‐footprint (Resources Consumed)

Energy and Water Kitchen Efficiency

Reducron of Food Waste

1 12% 2% 3% 1% 2% 1% 1%

2 13% 4% 6% 1% 3% 3% 2%

3 31% 13% 19% 5% 17% 15% 9%

4 26% 31% 27% 24% 37% 34% 27%

5 17% 50% 46% 70% 41% 47% 61%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Q4 -‐ Priori3es for Food Opera3ons at Dalhousie

Figure 12: How important is the following criteria to you regarding food operations at Dalhousie? (rate where 1 is not important and 5 is very important)


an option on this question, many respondents indicated that their own efforts could be improved by more education on the proper sorting of wastes products.

A qualitative analysis of participant responses to Q6, “What sustainability projects

would you most like to see progress on?” elicited a wide range of responses. The major themes from the responses include (in decreasing number of frequency): energy efficiency, sustainable transport, waste management, sustainable food, divestment, water management, outreach, policy enforcement, and uncertainty about current projects. Within the larger themes, there were a number of recurring sub themes. The only exception to this general rule is divestment, which was unambiguous. In regards to other themes, however, there was a high degree of ambiguity of terms used, such as the salient differences between local and sustainable food, and recycling and waste management. For this reason, major sub-‐themes are also identified to differentiate recurrent themes from the responses.

Open text survey responses indicated that green building and green roofs are desired by a high percentage of respondents, in addition to solar power and heat. Under the main theme

Turning down the

heat

Turning off lights

Turning off computers

Choosing the stairs

Turning off water taps

Reducing paper

Using a reusable mug

Not Important 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1%

Hardly Ever 4% 1% 7% 3% 0% 1% 3%

Occasionally 4% 1% 6% 5% 0% 4% 4%

Somermes 10% 3% 17% 16% 2% 19% 12%

Frequently 23% 22% 23% 35% 12% 39% 29%

Always 32% 68% 41% 38% 82% 35% 49%

N/A 26% 4% 5% 2% 3% 1% 2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Q5 -‐ Efforts Taken to Reduce Energy, Water Use, and Waste on Campus

Figure 13: What efforts do you make to reduce energy, water use, and waste on campus?


of sustainable transport, bike lanes and increased cycle ridership was the most commonly desired sub theme. Respondents also identified a need for covered bike shelters, and improvement to the public transit system (though to a lesser degree). Under waste management, recycling and paper waste were the most common concerns, however, improved signage and more outdoor bins was also common. Respondents identified local food as being a high priority as it was suggested most frequently in comparison to organic food and food gardens, which were less frequently identified. Concerns about water management included topics such as increasing water fountains and decreasing the use and/or sale of bottled water on campus. The most frequent sub-‐theme under outreach is sustainable education, followed to a lesser degree by student initiatives and workshops. The final theme, policy enforcement, was the least frequently identified throughout the results. A need was identified to enforce the on-‐campus smoking ban, as well as the idle free policy. 7.3 Cycling Questions

Around 27% of the respondents answered that they use bicycles, and most of them (85% of cyclists) use bike rack facilities (Fig. 13). Studley campus is the most frequently used place to park bicycles (60%) (Fig. 14). In comparison, 17% and 12% of the respondents indicated that they park their bikes at the Sexton and Carleton campuses. These results are largely affected by the number of people who study or work in each campus. If we compare the results of Question 16 (number of people who park bikes in each campus) and that of Question 42 (number of people who study or work in each campus), Sexton campus has the highest ratio of cyclists to campus users.

22.62%

3.88%

73.50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Yes No Do not use a bicycle

Q15 -‐ Use of Bike Rack Facili3es

Figure 14: If you bike to campus, do you use bike rack facilities provided by the university?


With regard to concern about implementation of segregated cycle tracks, around 39% of

respondents had no concern (Fig. 15). On the other hand, all choices of concern, except accessibility to buildings, were chosen by more than 10% of the respondents respectively. In other words, when implementing the tracks, these choices need to be considered as common concerns among Dalhousie community members.

Comments by respondents addressed the fact that the greatest need for cycle tracks is not on the Dalhousie campus, but throughout the city. Other concerns related to cycle tracks were emphasized. On the topic of accessibility, respondents were concerned about accessibility for the elderly and medical response teams. Though it was not provided as an option in the question, some respondents indicated concern for snow removal. Overall, respondents were generally positive about segregated cycle tracks. One respondent indicated “this is a fantastic project.”

60.39%

12.47% 16.90%

5.26% 4.99%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Stud

ley

Campu

s (ie. the

prim

ary

campu

s,

betw

een Ro

bie

and Oxford St.)

Carle

ton

Campu

s (ie. the

he

alth

professio

ns

campu

s,

betw

een Ro

bie

and Summer

Sexton

Cam

pus

(ie. the

en

gine

ering,

archite

cture,

and planning

campu

s)

Agriculture

Campu

s (ie. the

Truro campu

s)

Other (p

lease

specify):

Q16 -‐ Where Do You Park Your Bike?

17.46% 14.93% 13.09%

4.17%

10.94%

39.41%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Loss of Parking Narrower Vehicle Lanes

Connecron to Other Cycle

Lanes

Accessibility to Buildings

Obstrucron to Pedestrian Movement

No Concern

Q7 -‐ Concerns Regarding Segregated Cycle Tracks

Figure 15: If yes (to Q15), where do you park your bike?

Figure 16: What is your greatest concern regarding the implementation of segregated cycle tracks?


Many of the respondents (44% of all) felt as though the greatest opportunity of the segregated cycle tracks would have been an increase in safety (Fig. 16). In addition, 23% of participants felt as though segregated cycle tracks would reduce stress for drivers and cyclists alike, as well as help to increase cycling ridership.

In the comment box, respondents addressed the choices they made. Opinions expressed on the topic of connectivity were polarized. Some respondents questioned whether the track will increase cycle ridership, saying “I don’t see this as a significant enough change (only a few blocks) to create behavioural (sic) change in those who want to ride their bikes but won’t.” Contrarily, other respondents reflected positively saying “I think the track would increase cycling awareness and encourage people to ride the bicycles.” Another respondent wrote: “more bikers= less drivers= less carbon emissions= healthier people and planet.”

Approximately 74% of respondents perceived cycling infrastructure to be very valuable or of some value (Fig. 17). This question correlates well with the 90% response rate in favour of sustainability as a campus wide goal. Many people find that campus sustainability is important and also see the value in cycling infrastructure at Dalhousie University. The other 26% of respondents indicated that they were unsure about the value of segregated cycle tracks (21%), that is was not valuable (3%) and that it was detrimental (2%).

Text responses from the survey comment box further corroborate the quantitative answers of respondents. Many respondents indicated a positive opinion concerning the value of cycle tracks, and further explained that connectivity throughout the city is a critical component of their potential value in Halifax. A further condition was put forth in the comments, with some survey respondents indicating that lanes would be most useful “if used correctly.” Other reasons provided by respondents who answered negatively to the value of cycle infrastructure addressed the issue of already narrow streets as well as the loss of parking in Halifax.

44.24%

15.06%

3.42%

22.85%

8.04% 6.39%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Increased Cycling Safety

Increased Cycling Ridership

Reduced Traffic Congesron

Reduced Stress for Drivers and

Cyclists

Bever Flow of Traffic For All

No Opportunity

Q8 -‐ Greatest Opportunity of Segregated Cycle Tracks

Figure 17: What do you think is the greatest opportunity provided by the implementation of segregated cycle tracks?


7.4 Transportation Most respondents (76% of all) did not use a different primary commute mode in

comparison to each commute mode in 2013-‐2014. An average time to commute was 24 minutes, but this result may be skewed by a few exceptional answers (e.g., the maximum time to commute was 240 minutes). Around 8 and 9 am were the most common times to arrive at Dalhousie among the respondents (Fig. 18). In contrast, there were two peaks regarding the time to leave Dalhousie; one was around 4-‐5 am and another was 4-‐5 pm (Fig. 19). However, the latter peak (45% of all) was larger than the former one (14%).

1.95% 3.15%

20.93%

34.36%

39.60%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Detrimental Not Valuable Not Sure Valuable Very Valuable

Q9 -‐ Perceived Value of Cycle Infrastructure

Figure 18: In regards to infrastructure, do you think cycle tracks segregated (from traffic) and connected (through intersections) on core routes would be valuable?


More than half (56%) of the respondents owned their cars, while a few people (3%) were involved in car sharing service (Fig. 20). 23% of them did not have any access to a car. As well, around half (48%) of them possessed their bikes, whereas 41% of them did not have any access to a bike (Fig. 21).

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Q19 -‐Average 3me of arrival

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

23:00

24:00:00

Q20 -‐Average 3me of departure

Figure 19: At what time, on average, do you arrive at Dalhousie? Identify the time in four digit 24 hour cycle

Figure 20: At what time, on average, do you leave Dalhousie? Identify the time in four digit 24 hour cycle


Primary mode of transportation of the respondents was occupied by walking (34% of all), automobiles – driving alone (21%), public transit (21%), and automobiles – as passengers (13%) (Fig. 22). People using bicycles as primary transportation were only 8% of the respondents. In contrast, as a second mode of transportation, public transit (27% of all) and walking (19%) were the most common among others. Again, bicycles were used as second mode of transportation by only 8% of the respondents.

Only seven respondents responded to the question with “other.” In addition, one respondent indicated that their primary mode of transport is an electric scooter (not one of the options provided by the question), while another indicated that they were participating in distance education.

56.44%

3.40%

16.14% 22.68%

5.06%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

I own a car I am a member of a car sharing

service

I can borrow a car or get a ride most rmes I need it

I do not own or have access to a

car

Not Applicable

Q30 -‐ Access to a car

47.54%

8.05%

40.51%

6.96%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

I own a bicycle I can use or borrow a bicycle most rmes I

need it

I do not own or have access to a bicycle

Not Applicable

Q31 -‐ Access to a bicycle

Figure 21: Do you own or have access to a car? (Choose all that apply).

Figure 22: Do you own or have access to a bicycle (Choose all that apply)


Carpooling was supported by 17% of all the respondents (43% of the respondents who drive cars alone) (Fig. 24). On the other hand, 14% of all (35% of those who drive cars alone) were unwilling to carpool, whether it was with their co-‐worker or with their friends.

21.47%

13.23%

21.35%

0.25%

8.99%

34.14%

0.12% 0.44% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Q10 -‐ Primary Mode of Transporta3on

22.28%

10.05% 10.80%

26.84%

0.19%

8.43%

19.60%

0.62% 1.19% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Q11 -‐ Secondary mode of transporta3on

Figure 23: What is your primary mode of transportation (70% of the time or more) for your daily commute to campus throughout the year?

Figure 24: What is your secondary mode of transportation (less than 70% of the time) for your daily commute to campus?


The number of respondents who carpool to Dalhousie on a regular basis constituted approximately half of those who do not use carpooling as a mode of transport (Fig. 25). People parking their cars in Dalhousie lots constituted 25% of all the respondents, whereas those in on-‐street free parking constituted only 6% (Fig. 26). These proportions become 64% and 16% respectively, when removing the responses from people who don’t use cars as a primary transit tool. People who did not purchase any parking permits constituted 73% of the respondents. In contrast, 27% of respondents had purchased annual parking permits (Fig. 27). However, because the project team did not have an option of “Not applicable” in the Question 14, the respondents who chose “did not purchase any tickets” may include a large number of people who just don’t use cars.

8.26% 2.46%

6.05% 13.68%

8.39%

61.16%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Yes-‐-‐With My Friends

Yes-‐-‐With My Co-‐worker

Yes-‐-‐With Anyone

No Not Sure Not Applicable

Q21 -‐ If you drive alone, would you be interested in a carpooling ini3a3ve?

Figure 25: If you drive alone, would you be interested in a carpooling initiative?


9.90%

21.27%

68.83%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Yes No Not Applicable (i.e. automobile passenger is not my primary

mode for commute)

Q12 -‐ Carpool distribu3on

25.19%

2.31% 6.25%

0.50%

60.44%

5.31%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Parking in Dalhousie Lots

Using Metered Parking

Using On-‐Street Free Parking

Parking in Halifax Regional Municipality Carpool Locarons

Not Applicable (i.e. automobile

is not my primary mode for commute)

Other:

Q13 -‐ Car parking loca3ons

Figure 26: If your primary mode is "automobile - passenger," do you carpool?

Figure 27: If your primary mode is automobile (drive alone or passenger), where do you generally park your car?


Among the three campuses in Halifax, around 23% of the respondents traveled at least once a week (Fig. 28). However, this number is small, compared to the number of people who never or rarely travel between these campuses (51% of all). The travel between these campuses were done mostly by walking (Fig. 29), probably due to short distance between campuses. Furthermore, only 1% of all the respondents traveled weekly between the Halifax and Truro campuses (Fig. 30), and most of them traveled by driving alone or carpooling. Bus or taxi were used by only a few respondents.

8.94%

17.62%

0.56% 0.19%

72.69%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Reserved annual permit

General annual permit

Term permit Temporary (daily or weekly) permit

Did not purchase any permit

Q14 -‐ Type of parking permit

Figure 28: What kind of Dalhousie parking permit did you purchase this year?


50.83%

5.82% 6.84% 4.92% 0.96% 0.13%

29.67%

0.83% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Walking Bicycle Bus Private Car Taxi Dal Tiger patrol Van

Not Applicable

Other (please specify):

Q24 -‐ Primary means of travel between Halifax campuses?

6.26% 6.64% 10.41% 11.30%

4.98%

9.20%

25.80% 25.42%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Daily 3-‐4 Times a Week

1-‐2 Times a Week

A Few Times a Month

Once a Month

A Few Times a Year

Rarely Never

Q23 -‐ Travel between the Halifax campuses (Carleton, Sexton, and Studley)

Figure 29: How often do you travel between Halifax campuses? (Carleton, Sexton, and Studley)

Figure 30: What is your primary means of travel between Halifax campuses?


The Share the Road Thumbs Up campaign at Dalhousie was known by 21% of the respondents, suggesting limited popularity of this program (Fig. 32). However, 82% of them thought that sharing the road is important, and therefore potentially most people would support the Share the Road Thumbs Up campaign (Fig. 33). Such support for sharing the road has increased in comparison with six months ago as well (Fig. 34).

Respondents to Question 22 were unaware of some other transportation initiatives (CarShare, BikeShare, etc.) at Dalhousie, and stated that more marketing for these programs would be helpful in raising awareness. Other respondents found that a specific Dalhousie shuttle or bus would be helpful in transporting them to and from school to major locations. Other opinions stated that the use of Tiger Patrol would be helpful as well. Some respondents found that parking was sparse, that permit pricing should be lower for those who carpool, and

0.32% 0.19% 0.64% 1.28% 1.34% 6.40% 9.02%

80.81%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Daily 3-‐4 Times a Week

1-‐2 Times a Week

A few Times a Month

Once a Month

A few Times a Year

Rarely Never

Q25 -‐ Travel between the Halifax and Truro campuses

1.85% 6.58% 8.75%

0.06%

82.76%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Bus Carpool Drive Alone Taxi Not Applicable

Q26 -‐ Primary means of travel between the Halifax and Truro Campuses

Figure 31: How often do you travel between the Halifax and Truro campuses?

Figure 32: What is your primary means of travel between the Halifax and Truro campuses?


there should be specific parking lots reserved for those who carpool to increase appeal. Lastly, other initiatives that would be helpful, from the respondents’ point of view, would be BikeShare programs, coverings for bike parking infrastructure and safe cycling routes in the Halifax region.

3.58% 9.32%

25.61%

46.62%

14.88%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Not Important Somewhat Important

Important Very Important Not Sure

Q28 -‐ How important is sharing the road to you?

20.99%

67.18%

11.84%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Yes No Not Sure

Q27 -‐ Awareness of Share the Road – Thumbs Up campaign

Figure 33: Are you aware of the Share the Road Thumbs Up campaign, which is running at Dalhousie?

Figure 34: How important is sharing the road to you?


7.5 Other Questions

More than 70% of our respondents knew of the survey due to direct emails (Fig. 35). As well, faculty/departmental administrators, "Today at Dal" and Facebook contributed to recruiting our respondents relatively. However, some respondents might have confused between two options, Faculty/Departmental administrators and Direct email, because recruiting emails from the administrators to each respondent could be regarded as “direct email”. Thus, we suspect that the role of the administrators may have recruited larger proportions of respondents than the number shown in Fig. 35 (7%).

6.07%

11.24%

26.76%

38.63%

17.31%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Not Important Somewhat Important

Important Very Important Not Sure

Q29 -‐ Importance of sharing the road six months ago

Figure 35: How important was sharing the road to you six moths ago?

7.46% 0.86% 0.33% 1.78%

70.41%

7.27% 0.99% 0.79% 1.39% 6.08% 0.92% 1.72%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Q45 -‐ Recruitment strategy

Figure 36: How did you hear about this survey?


8. Discussion & Recommendations 8.1 Summary and Implications of Results In this section, results will be discussed and summarized with regard to how they relate to the project objectives. The objectives are as follows:

• Collect opinions of student, staff, and faculty on ongoing sustainability initiatives, • Determine support levels for cycling infrastructure (segregated bike lanes), and • Ascertain opportunities for improvement as provided by respondents.

8.1.1. Comparison to previous surveys

Comparing to past survey years results, 2014 represents the lowest support (somewhat agree and strongly agree combined) of any of the past four years (Fig. 36). Despite this, the 90% support for sustainability on campus is just 1% lower than 2013, 2% lower than 2011, and 6% lower than the all-‐time high level of support seen in 2012.

8.1.2. Campus Wide Sustainability and Key Initiatives

Consistent approval ratings of sustainability as a campus wide goal and qualitative results of support for sustainability initiatives (LEED, STARS) indicates that respondents places high value on sustainability projects on campus. Increased cycling infrastructure, reduction of paper waste, local food purchasing, and fossil fuel divestment were some of the key areas suggested by respondents for improvement. For example, there was some criticism on the continued request of submitting assignments in hard copies by course instructors. These areas identified provide improvement opportunities for the Office of Sustainability and the University as a whole. Reduction of paper waste as an area that needs more attention was also consistent with sustainability behaviors of respondents, as reducing paper was the least of all sustainability efforts carried out by respondents. Similar to 2013 survey results, some respondents lack awareness of sustainability initiatives/projects/strategies/ on campus. This lack of knowledge among other things reduces the number of respondents to the survey.

92% 96% 91% 90%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014

Percen

tage who

agree

(eith

er strongly or som

ewhat

strongly)

Campus-‐Wide Support for Sustainability Ini3a3ves 2011–2014

Figure 37: Comparison of proportion of respondents who support sustainability initiatives between 2011 and 2014


8.1.3. Cycling infrastructure Approximately 8% of survey respondents indicated that they use a bicycle as their

primary and/or secondary mode of transport. In contrast, 27% of respondents indicated that they bike to campus and use the facilities provided. The disparity between these results can be explained through further interpretation of the questions. Though only 8% of the Dal community uses cycling as their primary or secondary mode of transport, a much larger 27% has used cycling as a mode of transport but does not do so regularly.

Concerns that prevent the use of cycling as a primary mode of transport were captured in the comments made by respondents in the cycling section. As is indicated by the literature, a recurring concern is safety. One respondent aptly summarized this point, stating that “there are lots of cyclists who would like to ride to work but will not because it is not safe.” Corroborating this point is the fact that 44% of respondents felt as though safety is the greatest opportunity provided by segregated cycle tracks. Though it was not addressed through quantitative measurement, participants indicated that a further concern influencing cycle commuting is the weather. Many respondents not only felt that cycle lanes will not be given snow removal priority but that, for a large portion of the academic semester, the weather is not amenable to comfortable cycling. It would be interesting to compare the percentage of cyclists during the summer term to that of the fall and winter.

Regarding the implementation of segregated cycle tracks, there are a number of concerns due to loss of parking (17%), narrower vehicle lanes (14%), connection to other cycle lanes (13%), obstruction to pedestrian movement (10%), and accessibility to buildings (4%). When presented with these issues, 39% of respondents indicated that they had no concerns regarding cycle track implementation. Positive responses from the Dal community are reiterated in text comments, where many respondents indicated their support for cycling initiatives. Respondents indicated that safety (44%), reduced stress for drivers and cyclists (22%), increased cycle ridership (15%), and better flow of traffic (8%) are all welcome opportunities provided by segregated cycle tracks.

Moving forward, the concerns addressed by respondents will be integrated into the future plans of the Office of Sustainability. Support for cycling initiatives is gaining momentum; however, the 39% of respondents who indicated that they have no concerns regarding segregated cycle tracks is not a majority. When presented with five benefits of segregated cycle tracks, 6% of respondents indicated that they felt there was no opportunity. Addressing the pressing issues concerning segregated cycle tracks and participating in an ongoing dialogue with the community will be necessary to maintain momentum of cycle ridership at Dalhousie and in Halifax.

The results of question nine indicate that changing public perceptions of cycling infrastructure is an important for increasing cycle ridership as 21% of respondents indicated that they were unsure about the benefit that can be provided by segregated cycle tracks. This is an indication that more information about segregated cycle infrastructure and their implementation in other municipalities could be beneficial for those who are uncertain. It is useful for the Office of Sustainability to fully understand why 3% of respondents felt infrastructure is not valuable and the 2% who felt it was detrimental. Comments about the decision to put the cycle track on University Avenue were present throughout the text comments, as many respondents felt that the infrastructure is not necessary on campus


due to already low traffic, and that there is very little utility of a cycle track that does not continue throughout the city. There were also comments made that cyclists and drivers need to learn how to use the lanes correctly. This perception was widespread throughout the results and is an indication that education is necessary, for cyclists and drivers alike. 8.1.4. Transportation

A number of questions posed within this year’s survey related to business travel, commuting, and transportation more generally. These included Question 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 30. Of these transportation related questions, there are four sub-‐groupings of questions that asked about:

• mode of transportation, • timing of travel to and from campus, • carpooling, and • travel between campuses

8.1.5. Mode of Transportation (Q 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 30)

Over 34% of respondents walk as their primary mode of transportation. 21% drive alone and 21% rely on public transportation. 27% of respondent’s secondary mode of transport was public transportation such as busses and ferry’s. 22% of respondents only relied on their primary mode of transport for their commute. 20% of respondent’s secondary mode of transport was walking. This indicates that there is a heavily reliance on travel by foot and publicly provided transportation in the Dalhousie Community.

Of those people who drive as their primary mode of transportation, the majority park in Dalhousie Parking lots. Using on-‐street parking is the second more common form of parking employed by this group, followed by the use of metered parking. For those respondents who purchase a Dalhousie Parking permit, the majority (65%) purchase a general annual permit while 33% purchase reserved annual permits. That metered parking is behind on-‐street parking in frequency may indicate that people are willing to park at a distance from Dalhousie to gain free parking and walk to the school rather than pay for a meter.

The vast majority of respondents did not change their primary mode of transportation from the prior year (84%) while 16% did change. This indicates little momentum in switching transport modes. 56% of respondents own a car, while an additional 19% can access a car either through a car share program or borrowing a car. Increasing access to alternative transport modes likely an opportunity for improvement. 8.1.6. Timing of travel to and from campus (Q 18, 19, and 20)

On average, respondents take 24.47 minutes to commute to campus. 70.55% of respondents arrive on campus between 8:00am and 9:00am. 44.83% of respondents leave campus between 4:00pm and 5:00pm.

8.1.7. Carpooling (Q 12, 21, and 22)

Of those respondents who do drive as their primary mode of transportation, only 32% carpool. For those who drive to campus alone, only 35% expressed interest in a carpool initiative. 22% were unsure whether they would be interested. 21% expressed direct interest


while another 22% expressed interest with some caveats (only with a friend, or only with coworkers). As in prior years, carpooling has low levels of support by car owners, indicating a challenging mindset to overcome if a greater emphasis on carpooling is desired.

Respondents to this question found that they were unaware of certain transportation initiatives (CarShare, BikeShare, etc.) at Dalhousie, and stated that more marketing for these programs would be helpful in raising awareness. Other respondents found that a specific Dalhousie shuttle or bus would be helpful in transporting them to and from school to major locations. Other respondents stated that the use of Tiger Patrol would be helpful as well. Some respondents found that parking was sparse, that permit pricing should be lower for those who carpool, and there should be specific parking lots reserved for those who carpool to increase appeal. Lastly, other initiatives that would be helpful, from the respondent’s point of view, would be BikeShare programs, coverings for bike parking infrastructure and safe cycling routes in Halifax region.

8.1.8. Travel between campuses (Q 23, 24, 25, and 26)

26% of respondents rarely travel between campuses and 25% never travel between campuses. 23% of respondents travel between campuses at least once per week. 16% travel between campuses at least once per month. 9% travel between campuses a few times a year. This indicates that there is a great deal of variance in the frequency of travel between campuses. As a result, initiatives to increase the connectivity of campuses may only benefit a select few who frequently move between them. 72% of respondents who do travel between campuses walk as their primary means of transport between campuses. 10% use the bus, 7% drive, and 8% cycle.

For the agriculture campus in particular, 80.81% of respondents never travel to the campus from the main Halifax campuses. 9.02% rarely do, 6.4% do a few times a year, 1.34% do so once a month, 1.28% a few times a month. A total of 1.15% do so at least once per week. Of those who travel between the Halifax and Truro campuses, 50.75% travel by car alone. 38.17% carpool. 10.73% use the bus, and just 0.35% use a taxi. As the integration of the agricultural campus in to the broader Dalhousie community is quite new, this data can be used to guide policy regarding the connectivity of the two campuses moving forward. 8.2 Limitations and Recommendations 8.2.1 Limitations

There are some limitations in the results. Firstly, the data does not proportionally represent opinions of the entire Dalhousie community. Community members who are not interested in sustainability are less likely to have participated in our survey than those who are more interested in this topic. Though it is beneficial to gather responses from those who are interested in the topic, it is equally important to gather information about those who are not and why. A further limitation regarding proportional representation is the question of gender bias. Approximately 71% of survey respondents identified as female. This bias raises questions about survey respondents in general, and should be taken into account as a limitation when addressing the results.

Secondly, some of our questions that were asked could have been crafted with more tact. For instance, Question 32 (How much on average do you spend out-‐of-‐pocket on a


monthly basis for transportation purposes?) had some strange answers. A respondent answered $1,000,000,000,000,000,000, and consequently averaged the cost among all the respondents to $684,931,506,849,431 -‐ an unrealistic number. Unfortunately, we were not able to take this outlier out of the data sample. This is why we did not include this result in our result and discussion sections. We should have designed such questions with multiple choices but not open-‐ended styles to avoid some respondents who answer in not serious ways. Furthermore, we could not give substantial discussion based on the result of Question 29 (How important was sharing the road to you six months ago?). As such, we had trouble understanding what results of some questions mean. In other words, some of our questions were not meaningful.

With regard to recruitment strategy, we sent each department recruitment emails the weekend that was followed by sequential holidays (Study Day on November 10th, and Remembrance Day on November 11th). Consequently, our emails might have been disregarded by some potential respondents, because of the long weekend. Although we had no other choice at that time, a larger number of respondents would have answered to our survey if we had sent the emails earlier. Also, as aforementioned, we lost some respondents early in the survey, at approximately Question 6. This led to reduction in respondent numbers for our survey.

8.2.2 Recommendations for Future Survey Facilitators

In response to the above limitations, as well as other general observations of the survey approach, we have generated a list of recommendations for future surveys: • In terms of recruitment, all contacts were very useful. We would especially recommend

that future years continue to distribute the survey through faculty and department secretaries (as noted in 6.3 Recruitment Strategy and 7.5 Other Questions), as this method allowed our survey to have a wide distribution.

• Consider putting more of the open-‐ended question nearest to the end instead of near the beginning, where you might lose respondents interest, like what happened with Question 6 (as seen in Figure 1, the Respondent Frequency vs Question graph).

• Consider including more pathways of questions in order for respondents to skip particular lines of questioning that do not apply to them.

• Consider including alumni and parents as survey respondents • If time permits, do a more extensive comparison of the results to past survey years. • Consider removing some questions that do not provide clear results, for example; the

question regarding the extra expenses of the respondent incurs with regards to transportation, or the question regarding people opinions in the past.

• Consider lowering the number of questions of the survey, as some respondents became upset about how long it was

• Consider initiating the survey a week earlier, or in a time where the survey may not overlap with any holidays. This will allow you to send emails and recruit during more days when the school is open.

• Consider asking questions to determine the perceptions of people, followed by questions that ask about their behaviours. The divergence or adherence of what people think with how they behave would result in interesting conclusions as well as potential useful information for the Office of Sustainability.


8.2.3 Recommendations for the Office of Sustainability In addition to recommendations above, the authors also have recommendations for

the Office of Sustainability with regard to responding to the survey findings: • Continue advocacy efforts for sustainable transportation, particularly for accommodations

for cyclists (such as better bike storage and lanes) and expanded transit services. A strong relationship with Halifax Regional Municipality was seen as essential to these efforts. Promotional efforts for sustainable transportation might be more appropriately focused on employees, as student respondents demonstrated a higher usage of active and sustainable transportation than faculty or staff.

• As awareness of the work of the Office of Sustainability is generally moderate to low, consider new communication strategies. New strategies should focus on the use of electronic distribution, such as email and the Office’s website, as non-‐print media was generally favoured by respondents.

• Office of Sustainability initiatives that were shown to have the highest amount of interest include: continue working toward a continued employee bus program and, especially, a summer student bus pass program for the Halifax campuses. Moreover, a university shuttle was also highly rated, but the results suggest that between-‐campus travel is generally infrequent.

• Either re-‐examine the structure of the current formal carpooling programs (and investigate possible reasons for their lack of use) or direct efforts elsewhere. The open responses do indicate that perhaps the problem is also related to awareness of the program: several respondents noted the low awareness, on indicating that a staff member told the individual no Dalhousie Ride Share existed. Perhaps ensuring that staff and faculty are aware of the program will have trickle-‐down effect in promoting it to students.


9. Conclusion This year’s Annual Sustainability survey delved in to a number of areas new to the

survey this year. The main focus was on cycle ridership and infrastructure, and a wealth of information has been collected on these topics thanks to the survey’s high response rates from a breadth of Dalhousie Community members. Additional value has been added through the exploration of travel behavior between the Halifax campuses and the newly added agricultural campus. Further exploration of this, as the linkages between these far-‐flung campuses grows stronger in the coming years is likely valuable. In addition information about green building and the adherence to various rating systems for sustainability initiatives on campus were asked and the responses to these question areas will help support initiatives on campus going forward. In sum, the information gathered and analyzed in this year’s survey, which builds on the results of past years, present numerous opportunities for the advancement of sustainability initiatives on campus.


10. References Arancibia, D., Savan, B., Bennington, M., Ledsham, T. (2013) Cyclists, Bike Lanes and On-‐Street

Parking: Economic Impacts. Toronto Cycling Think & Do Tank, School of the Environment, University of Toronto. Retrieved from: http://www.torontocycling.org/uploads/1/3/1/3/13138411/daniel_arancibia_ce_report_bike_lanes_december_10.pdf

Asadi-‐Shekari, Z., Moeinaddini, M., & Zaly Shah, M. (2014). A bicycle safety index for evaluating urban street facilities. Traffic Injury Prevention, (just-‐accepted), 00-‐00.

CEU (Cities & Environment Unit, Faculty of Architecture & Planning, Dalhousie University) (2012). Bikeways Plan Urban Halifax Institutional District. https://www.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/sustainability/BikewaysPlan_20July2012.pdf

Cohen, E. (2013). Separated bike lanes are safest for cyclists. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association journal= journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 185(10), E443-‐4.

De Hartog, J. J., Boogaard, H., Nijland, H., & Hoek, G. (2010). Do the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks?. Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(8), 1109-‐1116.

DUOS (Dalhousie University Office of Sustainability). (2010). The University Sustainability Operational Plan. https://www.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/sustainability/Dalhousie_University_Sustainability_Plan_June_2010%20(389%20KB).pdf

DUOS (Dalhousie University Office of Sustainability). (2012). Travel behavior of Dalhousie University Commuters: A comparative analysis using Dalhousie Sustainability survey 2009, 2010 and 2011. https://www.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/sustainability/Transportation/DalhousieTravelBehaviour2011_FinalReport_DalTRAC_September2012.pdf

DUOS (Dalhousie University Office of Sustainability). (2014). Sustainability progress report for campus operations 2010-‐2013. https://www.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/sustainability/Sustainability%20Progress%20Report%202014-‐1.pdf

Fraser, S. D., & Lock, K. (2010). Cycling for transport and public health: a systematic review of the effect of the environment on cycling. The European Journal of Public Health, ckq145.

Garrard, J., Rose, G., & Lo, S. K. (2008). Promoting transportation cycling for women: the role of bicycle infrastructure. Preventive Medicine, 46(1), 55-‐59.

Geller, R. (2009). Four types of cyclists. PortlandOnline. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/264746

Halifax Regional Municipality (2014a). Active transportation. Retrieved from http://www.halifax.ca/activetransportation/.


Halifax Regional Municipality (2014b). Making Connections: 2014-‐19 Halifax Active Transportation Priorities Plan. Retrieved from http://www.halifax.ca/ActiveTransportation/documents/AT_Plan_Final_July222014.pdf

Hamann, C., & Peek-‐Asa, C. (2013). On-‐road bicycle facilities and bicycle crashes in Iowa, 2007–2010. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 56, 103-‐109.

Hatzopoulou, M., Weichenthal, S., Dugum, H., Pickett, G., Miranda-‐Moreno, L., Kulka, R.,Andersen, R., Goldberg, M. (2013). The impact of traffic volume, composition, and road geometry on personal air pollution exposures among cyclists in Montreal, Canada. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, 23, 46-‐51.

Larsen, J., & El-‐Geneidy, A. (2011). A travel behavior analysis of urban cycling facilities in Montréal, Canada. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 16(2), 172-‐177.

Macmillan, A., Connor, J., Witten, K., Kearns, R., Rees, D., & Woodward, A. (2014). The societal costs and benefits of commuter bicycling: simulating the effects of specific policies using system dynamics modeling. Environmental Health Perspectives, 122(4), 335-‐344.

McNutt, R. (2014). Bike lane project gets provincial support. Cycle track would be the first of its kind in NS. Dal News, Sep 17th 2014. http://www.dal.ca/news/2014/09/17/bike-‐lane-‐project-‐gets-‐provincial-‐support.html

Mohan, D., & Tiwari, G. (1999). Sustainable transport systems: linkages between environmental issues, public transport, non-‐motorised transport and safety. Economic and Political Weekly, 1589-‐1596.

Monsere, C. M., McNeil, N., & Dill, J. (2012). Multiuser perspectives on separated, on-‐street bicycle infrastructure. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2314(1), 22-‐30.

Parker, K. M., Gustat, J., & Rice, J. C. (2011). Installation of bicycle lanes and increased ridership in an urban, mixed-‐income setting in New Orleans, Louisiana. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 8(1), S98.

Parker, K. M., Rice, J., Gustat, J., Ruley, J., Spriggs, A., & Johnson, C. (2013). Effect of bike lane infrastructure improvements on ridership in one New Orleans neighborhood. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 45(1), 101-‐107.

Pucher, J., Buehler, R. (2007). Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from The Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany. Transportation Reviews.

Robb, T. (2014). News Edmonton: Edmonton bike lanes could cost up to $1 million per kilometre. http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/09/19/edmonton-‐bike-‐lanes-‐could-‐cost-‐up-‐to-‐1-‐million-‐per-‐kilometre


Rodrıguez, D. A., & Joo, J. (2004). The relationship between non-‐motorized mode choice and the local physical environment. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 9(2), 151-‐173.

Sadek, A. W., Dickason, A., & Kaplan, J. (2007). Effectiveness of a green, high visibility bike lane and crossing treatment. Transportation Research Board 86th Annual Meeing Compendium of Papers CD-‐ROM.

Schoner, J. E., & Levinson, D. (2014). The Missing Link: Bicycle Infrastructure Networks and Ridership in 74 US Cities (No. 000118).

Titze, S., Stronegger, W. J., Janschitz, S., & Oja, P. (2008). Association of built-‐environment, social-‐environment and personal factors with bicycling as a mode of transportation among Austrian city dwellers. Preventive Medicine, 47(3), 252-‐259.

Winters, M., Babul, S., Becker, H. J., Brubacher, J. R., Chipman, M., Cripton, P., Cusimano, M. D., Friedman, S. M., Harris, A., Hunte, G., Monro, M., Reynolds, C. C. O., Shen, H., & Teschke, K. (2012). Safe cycling: how do risk perceptions compare with observed risk?. Can J Public Health, 103(9), eS42-‐eS47.

Winters, M., Friesen, M. C., Koehoorn, M., & Teschke, K. (2007). Utilitarian bicycling: a multilevel analysis of climate and personal influences. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32(1), 52-‐58.

Winters, M., & Teschke, K. (2010). Route preferences among adults in the near market for bicycling: findings of the Cycling in Cities study. American Journal of Health Promotion, 25(1), 40-‐47.

Zhao, P. (2014). The impact of the built environment on bicycle commuting: evidence from Beijing. Urban studies, 51(5), 1019-‐1037.


11. Appendices Appendix A: Project Description Background of Partner Organization: Dalhousie University has been in involved in environment and sustainability issues in its operations and curriculum for over 20 years. Global and local environmental and sustainability challenges such as energy security and efficiency remain, and are compounding. The Office of Sustainability focuses on supporting solutions that create positive social, ecological and economic change in university operations. The Dalhousie Office of Sustainability works to incorporate sustainability concepts and criteria into policy and planning, building and retrofit projects, and operations. The Office also strives to engage and encourage student, staff, and faculty in practicing sustainable behavior. Project Description & Purpose: The Office of Sustainability released the University Sustainability Operational Plan approved by the President:

http://office.sustainability.dal.ca/Publications_and_Pol/Reports.php As part of this plan the Office of Sustainability tracks 11 indicators. Each year the Office of Sustainability releases an annual survey to the campus to collect data on: commuting, business travel, importance of natural and green built environment, and positive student and employee sustainability experiences. This project asks MWB students to implement the 2014 Annual Survey, analyze the data and make recommendations based on the results. The overarching goal of this project is to improve environmental, economic, and social outcomes within the university community.

Project Steps:

1. Review other campus sustainability surveys and existing Office of Sustainability annual survey.

2. Develop draft survey and meet with Office of Sustainability and affiliates to revise 3. Put survey in Opinio, promote survey with the Office of Sustainability channels and

others 4. Analyze survey data and prepare report/power point


Appendix B: PESTE Analysis Executive Summary This report examines cycling infrastructure (separated cycle tracks) and its effect on bicycle ridership. It analyzes the political, economic, social, technological, and environmental forces at play with regards to separated cycle tracks. These forces are analyzed in the context of Dalhousie University, and in general, Halifax, with supporting examples, perspectives, and views from other locations that bears relevance to Halifax

Findings show political support of bicycle infrastructure is increasing, as community groups have voiced their concerns over the lack of appropriate support for cyclists. Politicians, notably mayors, have begun to collaborate and put plans in place with the aim of supporting the construction of separated cycle tracks in Halifax. One notable factor that impacts ridership is the development of policies and legal framework that promotes cycling ahead of owning a car.

Positive economic impacts associated with separated cycle tracks include: increased consumer spending along bike routes by affluent cyclists; increased sales at local buildings; and decreased business failure. However, municipal and provincial budgets were discovered as a key challenge for the implementation of cycle infrastructure, particularly separated paths, due to their high cost.

Social forces influencing separated cycle tracks are significant, including safety concerns by both cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers; the impact of increased ridership on crime rates, the demographic effects of introducing such infrastructure, challenges related to land required for projects, and the influence of density and employment on the utilization of separated bike paths. Some of these forces are positive for separated cycle tracks as they will increase ridership, while others are social challenges that have negative outcomes.

Connectivity of routes was a key technological factor influencing separated cycle tracks. This could be a challenge for some municipalities; however, there are technological advances that have helped to address this problem, with proven ability to design bike paths that effectively and directly links key departure and arrival points. Increased connectivity of separated bike paths was found to increase ridership, as new cyclists consider this as a criterion before taking up cycling.

The environmental factors impacting cycle infrastructure include: the presence and effect of vegetation surrounding cycling routes; the topography (slope) of the routes themselves; and the significant influence that climate and weather have on ridership.

In summary, increasing political support, traffic safety, connectivity, conflict with cars, climate and weather, monetary benefits of biking, municipal budgets, and population demographics were found to be the most relevant factor. Furthermore, safety, municipal budget, and conflict with traditional modes of transport where found to be the most pressing forces surrounding bicycle infrastructure effect on ridership. The commonalities between these factors have created opportunities and threats for creating segregated cycle tracks. Synergies were discerned between connectivity of separated bike lanes and safety, increased political support and policy development, as well as connectivity of separated bike lanes and budgetary considerations. Introduction


The Office of Sustainability at Dalhousie University, in 2010, proposed mainstream cycling as one of the campus’ sustainability strategies (DUOS, 2010). The Office of Sustainability conducted a survey on the travel behavior of commuters at Dalhousie (DUOS, 2012), and, based on this data, they implemented new cycling-‐supportive programs. Between 2010 and 2013 (DUOS, 2014), the campus saw the addition of a campus Bike Centre and new bike racks. Furthermore, Dalhousie released a bikeways plan for the urban Halifax institutional district in combination with Capital Health, IWK Health Centre and Saint Mary’s University in 2012 (CEU, 2012).

Bikes are recognized as an important traffic tool, especially in college/university cities. In the United States, a 1% increase of college enrollment leads to a 1.76% increase in the number of cyclists for the average city (Schoner and Levinson, 2014). Furthermore, cycle lanes were acknowledged as an effective way to make biking mainstream (among females and potential cyclists in particular) (Parker et al., 2011; Parker et al., 2013; Sanders, 2014).

In contrast, the number of studies on separated bike lanes are still limited, and there have been no review article on the issue yet. In the current PESTE analysis, we focus on the effects of separated cycle tracks on increasing ridership, especially in the light of developing an initial project in Halifax. More specifically, we collated information, including previous case studies, from five perspectives; political, economic, social, technological, and environmental. By doing so, we attempted to clarify what factors are limiting and what factors are contributing to similar separated bike lane projects.

Analysis of Forces

PESTE Framework

• Increased support from polircians • Trend towards collaboraron and informaron sharing between mayors Polircal

• Monetary benefit of biking vs other modes of transport • Impact of bike lanes on neighborhood businesses • Provincial/municipal budget for retrofi~ng bike lanes

Economical

• Traffic Safety • Crime rate • Popularon demographics • Land use

Social

• Connecrvity • Directedness • Conflicts with cars (e.g., congesron, parking)

Technological

• Presence of vegetaron • Topography (slopes) • Climate and weather

Environmental


Political Forces Policy Development

A study published in Transport Reviews titled “Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany” (Pucher, Buehler, 2007) synthesizes a number of case studies to draw conclusions about achieving increased cycle ridership in urban areas. The study concludes that the key to increased ridership is the provision of facilities and infrastructure, notably, separated cycle tracks. In addition to the pro-‐bike facilities, policies, and programs being put in place, the governments of The Netherlands, Denmark and Germany, have not only made driving expensive, but also inconvenient through tax policies and restrictions on car ownership, use, and parking. The overall conclusion of the study shows that increasing cycle ridership is the result of a multifaceted approach that supports cycling, ranging from strict land-‐use policies in support of cycling, to taxes and restrictions on car use, all in addition to the provision of separated cycle tracks. Increased political support

After revising the Active Transportation Plan of 2006, the Regional Council approved the “Making Connection: 2014-‐19 Halifax Active Transportation Priorities Plan” in September 2014 (Halifax Regional Municipality, 2014a). One of the recommendations of this plan is to consider separated cycle tracks where suitable, and aim to implement at least one separated bicycle lane pilot project in the next five years (Halifax Regional Municipality, 2014b). The plan acknowledges the nuances of separated cycle tracks, especially in Halifax, but also identified its possibility as evidenced by other Canadian municipalities. Earlier on, Regional Council approved a report emanating from the “Mayor’s Conversation on a Healthy Liveable Community” in fall of 2013. This report recommends that Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM) liaise with other municipalities in Canada that have implemented separated cycle tracks with the goal of including protected bicycle lanes as a part of HRM’s revised Active Transportation Strategy (Halifax Regional Municipality, 2014b). From 2014, the Nova Scotia Department of Energy is starting a separated bike lane pilot project along University Avenue by investing $150,000 (McNutt, 2014). Economic Forces Economic Boost of Surrounding Businesses

A study completed in Toronto, titled “Cyclists, Bike Lanes and On-‐Street Parking: Economic Impacts”, attempted to understand: how transportation infrastructure best served urban businesses; how cyclists are good for business; how does bicycle infrastructure affect business; how does the removal of on-‐street parking affect business; and how can bike lanes and on-‐street parking co-‐exist (Arancibia et al., 2013). It was found within this study that bicycle infrastructure can bring very positive economic impacts to business communities as urban cyclists are a desired demographic for local businesses. “Bicycle lanes and bicycle parking can increase the capacity of roads and the ability of people to shop simultaneously,” as well as help improve environmental effects such as greenhouse gas emissions (Arancibia et al., 2013).

Findings of this study include: showing that the percentage of customers who arrive by walking, cycling or public transit, into urban neighborhoods is immensely higher than those people who arrive by car; and that cyclists are responsible for greater monthly per capita spending than drivers as 1) they have more disposable income (not spent on car expenses) and 2) cyclists in Toronto earn a higher income than the city’s average (Arancibia et al., 2013). Furthermore, evidence from a New York City


example, states that separated cycle tracks in the city on 9th Avenue contributed to a drastic increase in retail sales in businesses and fewer store closures then borough wide statistics (Arancibia et al., 2013). Merchants respond positively to questions that review the general impact of bicycle lanes on businesses, but the extent of these benefits will vary depending on factors such as the quality of infrastructure available, types of businesses, the demand for cycling infrastructure, and space constraints for lanes and on-‐street parking (Arancibia et al., 2013). High Cost of Installation

Compared with non-‐separated cycle tracks, separated lanes are recognized as expensive facilities by people who are in charge of public transportation (Larsen and El-‐Geneidy, 2012). Approximately, non-‐separated cycle tracks takes $100,000 per km to install, while separated lanes cost $1 million per km (Robb, 2014). Financial Benefits

Macmillan et al. (2014) calculated financial benefits and costs of increasing bike commuting in Auckland, New Zealand, for the next 40 years, by assuming introduction of separated cycle tracks and some other scenarios. In terms of injury risk, physical activity, fuel costs, greenhouse gas emission as well as air pollution, the total benefits were estimated then as 10-‐25 times larger than costs (Macmillan et al., 2014). In particular, the combination between separated bike lanes and self-‐explaining roads, which are designed to make cars run at low speeds in local streets, was the most effective to increase the benefit-‐cost ratio (Macmillan et al., 2014). Further, a general supervisor with sustainable transportation in Edmonton stated that benefits of separated cycle tracks are significant, in spite of the aforementioned expensive costs (Robb, 2014). Social Forces Traffic Safety and Health

The largest factor influencing separated cycle tracks in terms of social perspective is the issue of safety. In support of this, people in North America as well as Europe are not willing to ride bikes due to concerns about danger with automobiles driving beside bikers (Geller, 2009). However, in Portland, United States, for instance, around 60% of citizens were likely to be concerned about the safety but still interested in biking (Geller, 2009). In other words, the majority of citizens in such cities are potential cyclists.

A global review study based on 21 observational studies reported that separation of cycling from other traffic, high population density, as well as “programs of safe routes to school” could contribute to increasing ridership significantly (Fraser and Lock, 2010). Herein, the safety programs include, the California Safe routes to school, for instance, which provided budget for constructing bike-‐related facilities around schools. In Iowa, United States, separated cycle tracks could reduce accidental risk of bike-‐related crashes by as much as 60% (Hamnn and Peek-‐Asa, 2013). In Canada, according to a questionnaire survey conducted in the Metro Vancouver, separated cycle tracks are generally safe, and people prefer such lanes to other pathway types (e.g., non-‐separated cycle tracks or regular roads) (Winters and Teschke, 2010). Larsen and El-‐Geneidy (2012), conducted GIS analysis to quantify associations between bike facilities and trip distance of cyclists in Montreal. They then found that cyclists who used separated cycle tracks traveled farther than non-‐separated lane users by 2.0 km, and also that those who used on-‐street striped lanes traveled more than cyclists who used no lanes by 1.6 km. Such a preference about separated cycle tracks is pronounced among women in particular (Garrad


et al., 2008; Sanders, 2014). As well, Sanders (2014) reported that potential cyclists felt uncomfortable about bike lanes without separation from motorized traffic.

Further, in terms of health, a study conducted in Montreal, showed that the use of separated cycle tracks reduced the personal exposure of cyclists to some air pollutants (Hatzopoulou et al., 2013). The impacts of separated cycling tracks on personal exposure may vary between regions.

De Hartog et al. (2010) conducted a quantitative comparison between benefits and risks of bikes on human health in terms of traffic accidents, air pollutions and physical exercises in the Netherlands. Note, however, that their comparison did not consider separation/non-‐separation of cycling tracks. They then concluded that the benefits outweigh the risks remarkably, also finding large benefits on society, such as reduction of air pollution and greenhouse gas emission. It is also noteworthy that young people (15-‐30 years old) have equal or lower traffic mortality with bikes than that with cars (De Hartog et al., 2010). Given that the mortality of cyclists is generally 5.5 times high to that of car riders across all ages, traffic risk of bikes on young people is extremely low.

Perception and Crime Rates

In contrast to popular belief, some cyclists perceive that separated cycle tracks are more dangerous than multi-‐use paths where cyclists share with pedestrians, likely because they are not familiar with cycle tracks (Winters, et al., 2012). However, their perception is partly true, and cyclists should be prepared to deal with other cyclists in the same lane. In this regard, teaching people how to interact with other bikes is important (Cohen, 2013). As well, some factors, such as cyclist age or phone use, could lead to risk of bike accidents (Asadi-‐Shekari, et al., 2014). Such risk factors may be persistent, irrespective of whether tracks are separated or not. Perceived risk from crime also discourage people to ride bikes (Fraser and Lock, 2010), and this may be the case, regardless of separation of cycle tracks. Technological Forces Ease of traffic

Based on observation in Delhi, India, Mohan and Tiwari (1999), argued that bike lanes should be separated in roads that consist of two or more lanes to make use of limited space and enable efficient traffic flow. In other words, separated cycle tracks could be beneficial to improve traffic in such wide roads. A study conducted in Montreal (Larsen, et al., 2011) showed that when such cycling infrastructure is implemented, it has a significant effect on the street routes taken by cyclists. Larsen et al. (2011) used ArcGIS (Geographic Information System) to analyze the routes taken by cyclists and determine that cyclists will travel farther to use separated cycle tracks than for all other infrastructure type. Similarly, cyclists travel farther to use separated on-‐street infrastructure, as opposed to those “delineated by road paint alone” (Larson et al., 2011). Conflict with Cars

According to a study in Portland, car drivers who have never ridden bikes were likely to ascribe traffic delay to new separated cycle tracks, and also walkers were worried about accident risks when crossing the bike lanes. Some businesses also raised concerns, such as increased difficulties of parking for customers and deliveries (Monsere et al., 2012).

Connectivity and Directedness

Furthermore, even if cycle tracks are separated from roads, something more may be needed to increase bike ridership significantly. By analyzing network structures in 74 cities in the United States,


Schoner and Levinson (2014) indicated that density, connectivity and directness of bike lanes are important factors to increase ridership. In other words, fragmentation and complexity of lane networks could possibly impede positive effects of separated cycle tracks. Also, densifying bike lane networks was recommended in specific routes between universities and the most popular residential areas of students (Schoner and Levinson, 2014). Environmental Forces Physical Conditions (weather, topography, vegetation)

Steep slopes and bad weather are factors that negatively influences bike ridership (Fraser and Lock, 2010), and these effects may be valid for separated cycle tracks. Riding bikes on slopes takes time, and also such cycling exhausts bike commuters before they get to schools or offices (Rodríguez and Joo, 2004). According to a study focused on 53 Canadian cities, the numbers of rainy days, as well as freezing-‐temperature days, were associated with lower level of cycling (Winters et al., 2007). Presence of snow is another factor that could affect bike lanes and ridership. For instance, in South Burlington in the United States, snow plowing operations could make green thermoplastic pavement markings less visible than before in non-‐separated cycle track, resulting in a drop in the percentage of cyclists who use green bike lanes (Sadek et al., 2007). Separated cycle tracks are unlikely to have such a problem; however, snow plowing in the separated lanes may be expensive. As argued by Winters et al. (2007), students riding bikes are insensitive to difference in climate in Canada, likely because students have limited transportation choice due to financial constraints. Also, Titzre et al. (2008) found an inconsistent result with the aforementioned negative effect of slopes or the positive effect of vegetation on bike ridership in Graz in Austria, proposing that further studies would be necessary. Synthesis

Though many of the above case studies and research papers are not focused on Halifax specifically, the challenges and opportunities that have been encountered by other municipalities are highly relevant to the implementation of cycle infrastructure in the city. For the situation in Halifax, eight of the factors identified in this analysis were deemed particularly relevant, including: increasing support from political representatives in Halifax; monetary benefits of biking versus other modes of transportation; availability of municipal (HRM) funds for development as it goes a long way in determining what gets built; cycling safety; and population demographics which suggests that students are more likely to commute, which given Halifax context. Other relevant factors include: connectivity of separated cycle tracks as studies show that it is an important factor irrespective of location, and can be an opportunity to increase ridership, or a threat when there are no connecting routes; conflict with cars, as implementation of separated cycle tracks creates issues with traditional mode of transportation as already evidence in the separated cycle track pilot project along University Avenue, Halifax; and the impacts of climate and weather given Halifax weather where it rains frequently and snows during the winter.

The most pressing of the forces examined was the issue of safety, municipal budgets, and conflict with traditional modes of transportation. As previously noted, concerns over safety are significant amongst potential cyclists and needs to be prioritized when considering implementing any expansion of cycle infrastructure in the city. This is an opportunity to promote the use of separated cycle tracks as it has been shown to improve the perception of safety and reduce accident risks. To implement any new infrastructure in the city, funds need to be obtained. As these funds are likely to be gathered from government sources, how these bodies will be engaged to get their buy–in and financial support,


needs to be prioritized. Finally, one of the largest barriers to the implementation of additional cycle infrastructure in Halifax is the conflict inevitable with other modes of transportation. Addressing the concern that roads will be narrowed, loss of parking, or access decreased, should be considered a threat and therefore a pressing concern.

Many of the forces considered have synergies between them. Connectivity of infrastructure relates to safety, conflict with traditional transportation modes, and budgetary considerations. Political support is highly related to policy development and support for increased ridership. As a result of these commonalities between factors, addressing one often also affect others. As many of the case studies address, the most effective approach is one that is multi-‐faceted.


Appendix C: Ethics / Informed Consent Informed Consent

Office of Sustainability Annual Survey 2014/2015

We invite you to participate in an annual online survey for the Office of Sustainability. This study is being conducted by Emily Colford, Erik Paige, Grace Okpala, Sean Tait and Takafumi Osawa. We are master’s students in the Faculty of Management at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. We are conducting research for an independent project for Rochelle Owen, the Office of Sustainability Director. Our project is to be completed in partial fulfillment of Management Without Borders. The information below tells you what is involved in our research, what you will be asked to do, and about any benefits, risks, inconveniences or discomforts you might experience. You may participate in this study if you are a student, faculty or staff member at Dalhousie University. The Office of Sustainability released the University Sustainability Operational Plan approved by the President of the university. Each year the Office of Sustainability releases an annual survey to the campus to collect data on: commuting, business travel, importance of natural and green built environment, and positive student and employee sustainability experiences. This project asks MWB students to implement the 2014 Annual Survey, analyze the data and make recommendations based on the results. The overarching goal of this project is to improve environmental, economic, and social outcomes within the university community.

The target population of this survey is any student, staff or faculty at Dalhousie University. The level of risk in completing this survey is very low. This survey should only take approximately 10 minutes of your time.

It is your decision whether or not you want to participate in this research project, and you can remove yourself from the study at any time without any negative consequences to yourself. You may choose not to answer any questions you do not want to for any reason. All information you give to members of our research team will be kept private. When we share our project findings in a report and in a class poster presentation, we will only discuss group results so that it will not be possible for you, as an individual participant, to be identified

If you agree to participate in this research project, please begin the survey. We are happy to share the finished product with you on December 12th, please contact [email protected]. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns about your participation in this research project, please do not hesitate to contact, Rochelle Owen, [email protected], Director of the Office of Sustainability, or Sandra Toze, [email protected], School of Information Management, or Jenny Baechler, [email protected], ROWE School of Business.

[CHECK BOX] I have read the explanation about this study. I have been given the opportunity to discuss it and my questions have been answered. I agree to take part in this study. I realize that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to leave the study at any time.


Appendix D: Recruitment Strategies Hello, On behalf of the Office of Sustainability, could you please circulate this survey to all students and faculty. Thank you! ________________________ Chance to win one of five prizes! Annual Office of Sustainability and Transportation Survey 2014 The Office of Sustainability tracks progress made on campus sustainability action. The results of this survey and other collected information will assist the Office, and the University in general, in promoting and implementing sustainability projects on campus. Participation: This survey will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. We are seeking responses from all students, faculty, and staff at the Halifax and Truro campuses. All participants will have the opportunity to be entered into a draw for one of five prizes: $100 Superstore gift card, $75 Sobey's gift card, Just Us! coffee and tea gift basket, and two $25 gift certificates for a local restaurant in the winners community. Please click on the link to complete the survey: https://surveys.dal.ca/opinio/s?s=duos The survey is open from Monday, November 3, 2014 until Monday November 17, 2014. Confidentiality: Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and can be discontinued at any time. All responses will be kept anonymous and the confidentiality of each participant will be protected.


Appendix E: Example Promotional Script Hello,

The DSU has your email on record as the contact for Howe Hall Council. On behalf of the Office of Sustainability, could you please circulate this survey to the students in your group? Every year we struggle to get respondents from undergraduate students and hope that by contacting societies like yours we can change that this year.

Thank you!

________________________

Chance to win one of five prizes! Annual Office of Sustainability and Transportation Survey 2014

The Office of Sustainability tracks progress made on campus sustainability action. The results of this survey and other collected information will assist the Office, and the University in general, in promoting and implementing sustainability projects on campus.

Participation:

This survey will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. We are seeking responses from all students, faculty, and staff at the Halifax and Truro campuses. All participants will have the opportunity to be entered into a draw for one of five prizes: $100 Superstore gift card, $75 Sobey's gift card, Just Us! coffee and tea gift basket, and two $25 gift certificates for a local restaurant in the winners community.

Please click on the link to complete the survey: https://surveys.dal.ca/opinio/s?s=duos

The survey is open from Monday, November 3, 2014 until Monday November 17, 2014.

Confidentiality:

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and can be discontinued at any time. All responses will be kept anonymous and the confidentiality of each participant will be protected.


Appendix F: Survey

Annual Office of Sustainability and Transportation Survey 2014

Purpose: The Office of Sustainability keeps track of progress made on campus sustainability action. Information is collected from a variety of sources including this Annual Office of Sustainability and Transportation Survey. The results of this survey and other collected information will assist the Office, and the University in general, in promoting and implementing sustainability projects on campus. For more information visit: www.sustainability.dal.ca. Participation: This survey will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. We are seeking responses from all Halifax and Truro campuses from students, faculty, and staff. All participants will have the opportunity to be entered into a draw for one of five prizes: $100 Superstore gift card, $75 Sobey’s gift card, Just Us! coffee and tea gift basket, and two $25 gift certificates for The Wooden Monkey. Confidentiality: Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and can be discontinued at any time. All responses will be kept anonymous and the confidentiality of each participant will be protected. Please click on this link to start the survey. xxxxx Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Results will be published in early 2014. General 1) Please respond to the following statements using the provided scale:

5 – Strongly agree 4 – Somewhat agree 3 – Unsure 2 – Somewhat disagree 1 – Strongly disagree

1 2 3 4 5

Environmental sustainability should be a campus-‐wide goal


2) Are you satisfied with the level of information, facts, and useful tips provided by the Office of Sustainability? http://www.dal.ca/dept/sustainability.html

• Very satisfied • Somewhat satisfied • Unsure • Somewhat unsatisfied • Very unsatisfied

3) How would you prefer to receive information from the Office of Sustainability?

• Email • Pamphlets • Website • Sustainability @ Dal Blog: https://blogs.dal.ca/sustainabilitynews/ • Facebook • Twitter • Newsletter • I do not wish to receive information from the Office of Sustainability • Other (please specify): ____________________

4) Please specify your awareness level of Dalhousie University sustainability-‐related plans and policies using the following scale:

5 – Very aware 4 – Somewhat aware 3 – Unsure 2 – Somewhat unaware 1 – Very Unaware

(Hyperlink to sections on website)

Dalhousie University: 1 2 3 4 5

Sustainability Policy

Sustainability Plan

Climate Change Plan

Green Building Policy


Idle Free Guidelines

Active Transportation Guidelines

Transportation Demand Management Plan and programs

5) What sustainability projects would you most like to see progress on? [open-‐ended question] Campus Ridership 6) University Avenue will soon have a segregated cycle track along its length (this is cycle traffic which provides a physical buffer between vehicular traffic and bicycle lanes). Of the following challenges, what is most important to you:

• Loss of parking • Narrowing of vehicular lanes • Potential reduction of accessibility to buildings • Lack of connection to other cycle lanes in Halifax • I have no concerns • Other: COMMENT BOX

7) What do you think is the greatest opportunity provided by the implementation of segregated cycle tracks?

• Increased rider safety • Increased cycle ridership • Reducing traffic congestion. • Reduction of pollution due to reduced car use • no opportunities

COMMENT BOX 8) Do you think segregated (from traffic) connected (through intersections) cycle tracks throughout Halifax would be valuable?

• very valuable • valuable • not valuable • detrimental • not sure

Campus Sustainability Certifications


9) Since 2011, Dalhousie University has participated in the STARS (Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System, a reporting framework for campus sustainability) as well as LEED (Leadership in Energy & Efficiency Design, a rating system for green building). How important is Dalhousie’s participation in these rating systems?

• Very Important • Important • Somewhat Important • Not Important

10) Dalhousie’s current policy is that any new building be constructed to “LEED Gold” standard. How important is it that Dalhousie is an innovator in the field of green building (for example, pursuing LEED Gold certification or higher).

• Very Important • Important • Somewhat Important • Not Important

11) What are the criteria that are most important to you regarding food operations at Dalhousie? [can select multiple answers]

• Organic sources • Animal welfare • Food Freshness • Eco-‐footprint (resources consumed) • Food Preparation • Reduction of food waste • Local Purchasing

Comments: COMMENT BOX 12) Which efforts do you make to conserve energy?

Hardly Ever

Occasionally Sometimes Frequently Almost Always

NA (not applicable)

Turning down the heat during the heating season, in particular, at night, weekends, and while on vacation

Turning off lights



Choosing the stairs


Reducing paper

Using a reusable mug

Sorting materials into proper recycling and compost bins

Other efforts: COMMENT BOX Transportation 13) What is your primary mode (70% of the time or more) of transportation for your daily commute to campus throughout the year? [mandatory – no provision for multiple answers]

• Automobile -‐ drive alone • Automobile -‐ passenger (includes carpooling) • Public transit (Metro Transit including ferry services) • Bicycle • Walking • Skateboard and/or longboard • Other (e.g. motorcycle, electric scooter): _________________

14) What is your secondary mode of transportation (less than 70% of the time) for your daily commute to campus? [no provision for multiple answers]

• Not applicable -‐ always use the primary mode • Automobile -‐ drive alone • Automobile -‐ passenger (includes carpooling) • Public transit (Metro Transit including ferry services) • Bicycle • Walking • Skateboard and/or longboard • Other (e.g. motorcycle, electric scooter): _________________

15) If your primary mode is “automobile -‐ passenger,” do you carpool? Carpooling in this context means two or more people -‐ from different households -‐ in a car going to Dalhousie (any of the four campuses) and/or surrounding areas.


• Yes • No • Not applicable

16) If your primary mode is automobile (drive alone or passenger), where do you generally park your car? [mandatory]

• Parking in Dalhousie lots • Using metered parking • Using on-‐street free parking • Parking in Halifax Regional Municipality carpool locations • Other (please specify): _________________ • Not applicable

17) What kind of Dalhousie parking permit did you purchase this year?

• Reserved annual permit • General annual permit • Term permit • Temporary (daily or weekly) permit • Did not purchase any permit

18) If you bike to campus, do you use bike rack facilities provided by the university?

• Yes • No • Do not use a bicycle

If yes, where do you park your bike? [can select multiple answers] • Studley Campus (ie. the primary campus, between Robie and Oxford St.) • Carleton Campus (ie. the health professions campus, between Robie and Summer St.) • Sexton Campus (ie. the engineering, architecture, and planning campus) • Agriculture Campus (ie. the Truro campus) • Other (please specify): __________

19) Do you use a different primary commute mode this year (in comparison to your primary commute mode in 2012-‐2013)?

• Yes • No • Not applicable (first year on campus)

If so, what mode did you use a year ago for commuting to Dalhousie? • Automobile -‐ drive alone


• Automobile -‐ passenger (includes carpooling) • Public transit (Metro Transit including ferry services) • Bicycle • Walking • Skateboard and/or longboard • Other (e.g. motorcycle, electric scooter): _________________

20) How many minutes, on average, does it take to get from your home to Dalhousie when you use your primary mode of transportation?

_____ minutes

21) At what time, on average, do you arrive at Dalhousie? Please identify the time in four-‐digit 24-‐hour cycle (i.e. 7 am = 0700; 2 pm = 1400) [use drop-‐down menu]

_____ (in 0000 format)

22) At what time, on average, do you leave Dalhousie? Please identify the time in four-‐digit 24-‐hour cycle (i.e. 7 am = 0700; 2 pm = 1400) [use drop-‐down menu]

_____ (in 0000 format) Question 14, 15, every hour question 21 and 2 23) Please rate the likelihood you think the following NEW initiatives will motivate more

sustainable transportation activity on campus using the following scale: 4 -‐ Very likely 3 -‐ Somewhat likely 2 -‐ Unlikely 1 -‐ Not at all 0 – Unsure

*Click on program name to see hyperlink 0 1 2 3 4

Enhanced Ride Share program (Dalhousie currently has a Ride Share Program and promotes HRM’s ride matching system for Dalhousie students and employees on the Halifax campuses)

Enhanced Car Share program (Dalhousie currently has two car share cars on campus)

A new Bike Share program (Dalhousie currently has a Bike Loan program but not a Bike Share program. A Bike Share program would offer multiple bike docks/pay stations in different locations and bikes can be picked up at one


dock and dropped off at another.)

Summer student bus passes (does not exist currently)

Continue the employee bus pass program (a pilot program currently exists)

University shuttle service (Dalhousie does not have one right now)

Other (please specify): ____________________ 24) If you drive alone, would you be interested in a carpooling initiative?

• Yes-‐-‐with my family/friends • Yes-‐-‐with anyone • No • Not Sure • Not Applicable

If so, beyond the current Dalhousie Ride Share Program and Car Share program, what other transportation initiatives would you like to see at Dalhousie? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

25) How often do you travel between the Halifax campuses? • Daily • 3-‐4 times a week • 1-‐2 times a week • A few times a month • A few times a year • Rarely • Never

What is your primary means of travel between campuses? • Walking • Bicycle • Bus • Private car • Taxi • Dal Tiger patrol van • Other (please specify): _________________ • Not applicable

26) How often do you travel between the Halifax and Truro campuses?


• Daily • 3-‐4 times a week • 1-‐2 times a week • A few times a month • A few times a year • Rarely • Never

27) Would you be interested in an expanded Car Share program on campus?

• Yes-‐-‐with my family/friends • Yes-‐-‐with anyone • No • Not Sure • Not Applicable

(take out)

28) Would you use a Bike Share program on campus, if available? • Yes • No • Not Sure

• (TAKE OUT)

29) Do you own or have access to a car? [mandatory]

• I own a car • I am a member of a car sharing service • I can borrow a car or get a ride most times I need it • I do not own or have access to a car • No response

30) Do you own or have access to a bicycle?

• I own a bicycle • I can use or borrow a bicycle most times I need it • I do not own or have access to a bicycle • No response

31) How much on average do you spend out-‐of-‐pocket on a monthly basis for transportation purposes (for gas, parking, etc.)? Costs of ownership or vehicle maintenance should not be included.


_________________ (in Canadian dollars)

32) Please answer the following questions about LONG DISTANCE TRAVEL (where your destination was more than 100 kilometers away from the campus) over the past twelve months:

Airplane Car Train Bus Boat

How many ROUND TRIPS did you make using this form of transportation?

How many kilometers did you travel using this form of transportation for LONG distance travel?

Bridge

33) Questions for the College of Sustainability: Questions about the MacDonald Bridge Re-‐decking (DRAFT)

Beginning in early 2015, Halifax Harbour Bridges will begin an 18-‐month project to re-‐deck the suspended spans of the Macdonald Bridge. The work will be completed by closing the bridge on weeknights (Sunday – Thursday, 7 pm to 5:30 am) during the 18month project. The bridge will also be closed for 10 -‐ 12 full weekends during this period as well. The sidewalk and bike lane will be removed for the entire 18-‐month project. Please indicate your level of awareness about the bridge closures.

1 I didn’t know about the closures until now 2 I know somewhat about the closures 3 I know about the closures 4 I Know about the questions in great detail

34) Briefly describe how often you use the MacDonald Bridge on evenings and weekends and why. [open-‐ended question]

35) Please explain how the bridge closures will affect your work, study, and family / social life. Please mention any additional costs you might incur due to the bridge closures. [open-‐ended question] 36) Please rank how would you like to be kept informed about the bridge closures from the Halifax Harbour Bridges? (1-‐most preferred) Method of communication Ranking (1 = most preferred method of


communication)

Email Click here to rank 1 -‐ most preferred 2 3 4 5 6 7 -‐ least preferred

Text message Click here to rank 1 -‐ most preferred 2 3 4 5 6 7 -‐ least preferred

Newspaper notices Click here to rank 1 -‐ most preferred 2 3 4 5 6 7 -‐ least preferred

Social media (e.g. Facebook, Twitter)

Click here to rank 1 -‐ most preferred 2 3 4 5 6 7 -‐ least preferred

Local radio station Click here to rank 1 -‐ most preferred 2 3 4 5 6 7 -‐ least preferred

Local TV station Click here to rank 1 -‐ most preferred 2 3 4 5 6 7 -‐ least preferred

Other

Other 37) Are you aware that the Dalhousie Office of Sustainability has free information material such as posters and reminder stickers like ‘Turn off the Lights’ and also supports programs like Sustainability Teams with training and activities?

• Yes • No • Don’t Know

38) What transportation improvements would you like to see at Dal within the next five years? [open-‐ended question] ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Demographics 39) What is your age?

• 15-‐19 • 20-‐24 • 25-‐34 • 35-‐44


• 45-‐54 • 55-‐64 • 65 and above

40) What is your gender?

• Female • Male • Transgender • Prefer not to say

37) What is your annual household income? • Less than $20,000 • $20,000-‐40,000 • $40,000-‐60,000 • $60,000-‐80,000 • $80,000-‐100,000 • Above 100,000 • Prefer not to say

41) What is the postal code of your local residence (i.e. the Nova Scotia address from which you commute daily to Dalhousie)? Please provide it in six digit UPPERCASE format without a space (i.e. B3B1B9) [mandatory]

-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ (in XXXXXX)

42) What is your primary campus? [mandatory] • Studley • Carleton • Sexton • Agricultural

43) In which of these groups you currently belong to? [mandatory] • Students • Faculty • Staff

44) What is your degree(s) and/or program(s): [standardized dropdown box for faculties] ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


45) How did you hear about this survey?

• Faculty Administrator • Office of Sustainability website • LED Screen • Friend Referral • Other: _______ (Comment Bo


Appendix G: Full Results Section The following section is the raw data extracted from the Opinio final survey reports.

Question that were open-ended were not added into this full-results section, which include:

-‐ Question 6 -‐ Question 22 -‐ Questions 33- 37

Fig. Result of Question 1: Environmental Sustainability should be a campus-wide goal.

Frequency table

Levels Absolute frequency

Relative frequency

Adjusted relative frequency

strongly disagree 120 6.16% 6.94% somewhat disagree 27 1.39% 1.56% unsure 22 1.13% 1.27% somewhat agree 325 16.68% 18.81% strongly agree 1234 63.31% 71.41% Sum: 1728 88.66% 100% Not answered: 221 11.34% - Total answered: 1728


Fig. Result of Question 2: Dalhousie University participates in an international university reporting framework for campus sustainability; STARS (Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System). How important is Dalhousie’s participation in an international rating system like STARS?

Frequency table


Relative frequency


not important 65 3.34% 3.77% somewhat important 268 13.75% 15.54% important 769 39.46% 44.58% very important 623 31.97% 36.12% Sum: 1725 88.51% 100% Not answered: 224 11.49% - Total answered: 1725

Fig. Result of Question 3: Dalhousie’s current administrative policy is that any new building should be constructed to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold standard or higher. How important is it that Dalhousie is an innovator in the field of green building?


Frequency table


Relative frequency


not important 22 1.13% 1.28% somewhat important 115 5.9% 6.67% important 497 25.5% 28.83% very important 1090 55.93% 63.23% Sum: 1724 88.46% 100% Not answered: 225 11.54% - Total answered: 1724

Fig. Result of Question 4: How important is the following criteria to you regarding food operations at Dalhousie? (please rate where 1 is not important and 5 is very important)

Levels


1 2 3 4 5 Sum

Organic Food 206

11.96% 1.71%

228 13.23% 1.89%

541 31.4% 4.49%

448 26%

3.72%

300 17.41% 2.49%

1723 100%

14.29%

Local Sources 39

2.26% 0.32%

62 3.6%

0.51%

226 13.12% 1.87%

535 31.05% 4.44%

861 49.97% 7.14%

1723 100%

14.29%

Animal Welfare 50

2.9% 0.41%

105 6.1%

0.87%

320 18.58% 2.65%

462 26.83% 3.83%

785 45.59% 6.51%

1722 100%

14.28%

Food Freshness 12

0.7% 0.1%

10 0.58% 0.08%

81 4.7%

0.67%

421 24.43% 3.49%

1199 69.59% 9.94%

1723 100%

14.29%

Eco-footprint (Resources Consumed)

28 1.63% 0.23%

59 3.43% 0.49%

291 16.9% 2.41%

640 37.17% 5.31%

704 40.88% 5.84%

1722 100%

14.28%

Energy and Water Kitchen Efficiency

19 1.1%

0.16%

47 2.73% 0.39%

253 14.69%

2.1%

586 34.03% 4.86%

817 47.44% 6.78%

1722 100%

14.28%

Reduction of Food Waste 22 26 160 463 1051 1722


1.28% 0.18%

1.51% 0.22%

9.29% 1.33%

26.89% 3.84%

61.03% 8.72%

100% 14.28%

Sum 376

100% 3.12%

537 100% 4.45%

1872 100%

15.53%

3555 100%

29.48%

5717 100%

47.42%

12057 100% 100%

*Sequence of numbers in a cell: Absolute frequency Relative frequency row Relative frequency

Fig. Result of Question 5: What efforts do you make to reduce energy, water use, and waste on campus?

Levels


Not Important

Hardly Ever Occasionally Sometimes Frequently Always N/A Sum

Turning down the

heat during the

heating season, in particular, at night,

weekends,

14 0.83% 0.1%

72 4.28% 0.53%

64 3.8%

0.47%

168 9.98% 1.23%

390 23.16% 2.85%

538 31.95% 3.93%

438 26.01%

3.2%

1684 100%

12.31%


and while on

vacation

Turning off lights

4 0.23% 0.03%

16 0.93% 0.12%

17 0.99% 0.12%

56 3.26% 0.41%

379 22.06% 2.77%

1173 68.28% 8.57%

73 4.25% 0.53%

1718 100%

12.56%


18 1.05% 0.13%

125 7.29% 0.91%

98 5.71% 0.72%

295 17.2% 2.16%

396 23.09% 2.89%

698 40.7% 5.1%

85 4.96% 0.62%

1715 100%

12.54%

Choosing the stairs

12 0.7%

0.09%

47 2.74% 0.34%

90 5.24% 0.66%

278 16.2% 2.03%

606 35.31% 4.43%

654 38.11% 4.78%

29 1.69% 0.21%

1716 100%

12.54%


4 0.23% 0.03%

5 0.29% 0.04%

7 0.41% 0.05%

43 2.51% 0.31%

210 12.24% 1.53%

1401 81.69% 10.24%

45 2.62% 0.33%

1715 100%

12.54%

Reducing paper

7 0.41% 0.05%

23 1.34% 0.17%

72 4.2%

0.53%

322 18.76% 2.35%

666 38.81% 4.87%

602 35.08%

4.4%

24 1.4%

0.18%

1716 100%

12.54%

Using a reusable

mug

10 0.58% 0.07%

52 3.04% 0.38%

67 3.91% 0.49%

206 12.03% 1.51%

496 28.97% 3.63%

838 48.95% 6.13%

43 2.51% 0.31%

1712 100%

12.51%

Sorting materials

into proper recycling

and compost

bins

5 0.29% 0.04%

14 0.82% 0.1%

25 1.47% 0.18%

93 5.45% 0.68%

400 23.46% 2.92%

1150 67.45% 8.41%

18 1.06% 0.13%

1705 100%

12.46%

Sum 74

100% 0.54%

354 100% 2.59%

440 100% 3.22%

1461 100%

10.68%

3543 100% 25.9%

7054 100%

51.56%

755 100% 5.52%

13681 100% 100%

*Sequence of numbers in a cell: Absolute frequency Relative frequency row Relative frequency


Fig. Result of Question 7: What is your greatest concern regarding the implementation of separated cycle tracks?

Frequency table

Choices Absolute frequency

Relative frequency


Loss of Parking 276 14.16% 17.46% Narrower Vehicle Lanes 236 12.11% 14.93% Connection to Other Cycle Lanes 207 10.62% 13.09% Accessibility to Buildings 66 3.39% 4.17% Obstruction to Pedestrian Movement 173 8.88% 10.94% No Concern 623 31.97% 39.41% Sum: 1581 81.12% 100% Not answered: 368 18.88% - Total answered: 1581

Fig. Result of Question 8: University Avenue up to Robie Street will have a pilot cycle track installed (this is cycling infrastructure that provides a physical buffer between vehicular traffic and bicycle lanes). What do you think is the greatest opportunity provided by the implementation of separated cycle tracks?


Frequency table


Relative frequency


Increased Cycling Safety 699 35.86% 44.24% Increased Cycling Ridership 238 12.21% 15.06% Reduced Traffic Congestion 54 2.77% 3.42% Reduced Stress for Drivers and Cyclists 361 18.52% 22.85% Better Flow of Traffic For All 127 6.52% 8.04% No Opportunity 101 5.18% 6.39% Sum: 1580 81.07% 100% Not answered: 369 18.93% - Total answered: 1580

Fig. Result of Question 9: In regards to infrastructure, do you think cycle tracks separated (from traffic) and connected (through intersections) on core routes would be valuable?


Frequency table


Relative frequency


Detrimental 31 1.59% 1.95% Not Valuable 50 2.57% 3.15% Not Sure 332 17.03% 20.93% Valuable 545 27.96% 34.36% Very Valuable 628 32.22% 39.6% Sum: 1586 81.38% 100% Not answered: 363 18.62% - Total answered: 1586

Fig. Result of Question 10: What is your primary mode of transportation (70% of the time or more) for your daily commute to campus throughout the year?


Frequency table


Relative frequency


Automobile - Drive Alone 344 17.65% 21.47% Automobile - Passenger (Including Carpooling) 212 10.88% 13.23% Public Transit (Including Ferry Services) 342 17.55% 21.35% Van Pool 4 0.21% 0.25% Bicycle 144 7.39% 8.99% Walking 547 28.07% 34.14% Skateboard/Longboard 2 0.1% 0.12% Other (e.g. Motorcycle, Electric Scooter) 7 0.36% 0.44% Sum: 1602 82.2% 100% Not answered: 347 17.8% - Total answered: 1602

Fig. Result of Question 11: What is your secondary mode of transportation (less than 70% of the time) for your daily commute to campus?


Frequency table


Relative frequency


Not Applicable - Always Use the Primary Mode 357 18.32% 22.28% Automobile - Drive Alone 161 8.26% 10.05% Automobile - Passenger (Includes Carpooling) 173 8.88% 10.8% Public Transit (Including Ferry Services) 430 22.06% 26.84% Van Pool 3 0.15% 0.19% Bicycle 135 6.93% 8.43% Walking 314 16.11% 19.6% Skateboard and/or Longboard 10 0.51% 0.62% Other: 19 0.97% 1.19% Sum: 1602 82.2% 100% Not answered: 347 17.8% - Total answered: 1602

Fig. Result of Question 12: If your primary mode is "automobile - passenger," do you carpool? Carpooling in this context means two or more people - from different households - in a car going to Dalhousie (any of the four campuses) and/or surrounding areas.


Frequency table


Relative frequency


Yes 156 8% 9.9% No 335 17.19% 21.27% Not Applicable (i.e. automobile passenger is not my primary mode for commute)

1084 55.62% 68.83%

Sum: 1575 80.81% 100% Not answered: 374 19.19% - Total answered: 1575

Fig. Result of Question 13: If your primary mode is automobile (drive alone or passenger), where do you generally park your car?


Frequency table


Relative frequency


Parking in Dalhousie Lots 403 20.68% 25.19% Using Metered Parking 37 1.9% 2.31% Using On-Street Free Parking 100 5.13% 6.25% Parking in Halifax Regional Municipality Carpool Locations

8 0.41% 0.5%

Not Applicable (i.e. automobile is not my primary mode for commute)

967 49.62% 60.44%

Other: 85 4.36% 5.31% Sum: 1600 82.09% 100% Not answered: 349 17.91% - Total answered: 1600

Fig. Result of Question 14: What kind of Dalhousie parking permit did you purchase this year?


Frequency table


Relative frequency


Reserved annual permit 143 7.34% 8.94% General annual permit 282 14.47% 17.62% Term permit 9 0.46% 0.56% Temporary (daily or weekly) permit 3 0.15% 0.19% Did not purchase any permit 1163 59.67% 72.69% Sum: 1600 82.09% 100% Not answered: 349 17.91% - Total answered: 1600

Fig. Result of Question 15: If you bike to campus, do you use bike rack facilities provided by the university?

Frequency table



Relative frequency


Yes 362 18.57% 22.62% No 62 3.18% 3.88% Do not use a bicycle 1176 60.34% 73.5% Sum: 1600 82.09% 100% Not answered: 349 17.91% - Total answered: 1600

Fig. Result of Question 16: If yes, where do you park your bike?

Frequency table


Relative frequency


Studley Campus (ie. the primary campus, between Robie and Oxford St.)

218 11.19% 60.39%

Carleton Campus (ie. the health professions campus, between Robie and Summer St.)

45 2.31% 12.47%

Sexton Campus (ie. the engineering, architecture, and planning campus)

61 3.13% 16.9%

Agriculture Campus (ie. the Truro campus) 19 0.97% 5.26% Other (please specify): 18 0.92% 4.99% Sum: 361 18.52% 100%


Not answered: 1588 81.48% - Total answered: 361

Fig. Result of Question 17: Do you use a different primary commute mode this year (in comparison to your primary commute mode in 2013-2014)?

Frequency table


Relative frequency


Yes 223 11.44% 14.06% No 1206 61.88% 76.04% Not applicable (first year on campus) 157 8.06% 9.9% Sum: 1586 81.38% 100% Not answered: 363 18.62% - Total answered: 1586

Table. Result of Question 18: How many minutes, on average, does it take to get from your home to Dalhousie when you use your primary mode of transportation?

Minimum: 0 Maximum: 240 Average: 24.47 Total answered: 1582

Fig. Result of Question 19: At what time, on average, do you arrive at Dalhousie? Please


identify the time in four-digit 24-hour cycle (i.e. 7 am = 07:00; 2 pm = 14:00)

Frequency table

Items Absolute frequency

Relative frequency


01:00 3 0.15% 0.19% 04:00 1 0.05% 0.06% 06:00 26 1.33% 1.64% 07:00 106 5.44% 6.68% 08:00 584 29.96% 36.82% 09:00 535 27.45% 33.73% 10:00 190 9.75% 11.98% 11:00 69 3.54% 4.35% 12:00 27 1.39% 1.7% 13:00 14 0.72% 0.88% 14:00 10 0.51% 0.63% 15:00 4 0.21% 0.25% 16:00 8 0.41% 0.5% 17:00 3 0.15% 0.19%


18:00 1 0.05% 0.06% 19:00 1 0.05% 0.06% 20:00 2 0.1% 0.13% 21:00 1 0.05% 0.06% 24:00 1 0.05% 0.06% Sum: 1586 81.38% 100% Not answered: 363 18.62% - Total answered: 1586

Fig. Result of Question 20: At what time, on average, do you leave Dalhousie? Please identify the time in four-digit 24-hour cycle (i.e. 7 am = 0700; 2 pm = 1400)

Frequency table



Relative frequency


01:00 8 0.41% 0.5% 02:00 10 0.51% 0.63% 03:00 25 1.28% 1.58% 04:00 118 6.05% 7.44% 05:00 111 5.7% 7% 06:00 36 1.85% 2.27% 07:00 12 0.62% 0.76% 08:00 12 0.62% 0.76% 09:00 8 0.41% 0.5% 10:00 4 0.21% 0.25% 11:00 7 0.36% 0.44% 12:00 28 1.44% 1.77% 13:00 33 1.69% 2.08% 14:00 31 1.59% 1.95% 15:00 105 5.39% 6.62% 16:00 340 17.44% 21.44% 17:00 371 19.04% 23.39% 18:00 161 8.26% 10.15% 19:00 71 3.64% 4.48% 20:00 39 2% 2.46% 21:00 29 1.49% 1.83% 22:00 13 0.67% 0.82% 23:00 9 0.46% 0.57% 24:00 5 0.26% 0.32% Sum: 1586 81.38% 100% Not answered: 363 18.62% - Total answered: 1586

Fig. Result of Question 21: If you drive alone, would you be interested in a carpooling initiative?


Frequency table


Relative frequency


Yes--With My Friends 131 6.72% 8.26% Yes--With My Co-worker 39 2% 2.46% Yes--With Anyone 96 4.93% 6.05% No 217 11.13% 13.68% Not Sure 133 6.82% 8.39% Not Applicable 970 49.77% 61.16% Sum: 1586 81.38% 100% Not answered: 363 18.62% - Total answered: 1586

Fig. Result of Question 23: How often do you travel between the Halifax campuses? (Carleton, Sexton, and Studley)


Frequency table


Relative frequency


Daily 98 5.03% 6.26% 3-4 Times a Week 104 5.34% 6.64% 1-2 Times a Week 163 8.36% 10.41% A Few Times a Month 177 9.08% 11.3% Once a Month 78 4% 4.98% A Few Times a Year 144 7.39% 9.2% Rarely 404 20.73% 25.8% Never 398 20.42% 25.42% Sum: 1566 80.35% 100% Not answered: 383 19.65% - Total answered: 1566

Fig. Result of Question 24: What is your primary means of travel between Halifax campuses?


Frequency table


Relative frequency


Walking 795 40.79% 50.83% Bicycle 91 4.67% 5.82% Bus 107 5.49% 6.84% Private Car 77 3.95% 4.92% Taxi 15 0.77% 0.96% Dal Tiger patrol Van 2 0.1% 0.13% Not Applicable 464 23.81% 29.67% Other (please specify): 13 0.67% 0.83% Sum: 1564 80.25% 100% Not answered: 385 19.75% - Total answered: 1564

Fig. Result of Question 25: How often do you travel between the Halifax and Truro campuses?


Frequency table


Relative frequency


Daily 5 0.26% 0.32% 3-4 Times a Week 3 0.15% 0.19% 1-2 Times a Week 10 0.51% 0.64% A few Times a Month 20 1.03% 1.28% Once a Month 21 1.08% 1.34% A few Times a Year 100 5.13% 6.4% Rarely 141 7.23% 9.02% Never 1263 64.8% 80.81% Sum: 1563 80.19% 100% Not answered: 386 19.81% - Total answered: 1563

Fig. Result of Question 26: What is your primary means of travel between the Halifax and Truro Campuses?


Frequency table


Relative frequency


Bus 29 1.49% 1.85% Carpool 103 5.28% 6.58% Drive Alone 137 7.03% 8.75% Taxi 1 0.05% 0.06% Not Applicable 1296 66.5% 82.76% Sum: 1566 80.35% 100% Not answered: 383 19.65% - Total answered: 1566

Fig. Result of Question 27: Are you aware of the Share the Road – Thumbs Up campaign, which is running at Dalhousie?

Frequency table



Relative frequency


Yes 328 16.83% 20.99% No 1050 53.87% 67.18% Not Sure 185 9.49% 11.84% Sum: 1563 80.19% 100% Not answered: 386 19.81% - Total answered: 1563

Fig. Result of Question 28: How important is sharing the road to you?

Frequency table


Relative frequency


Not Important 56 2.87% 3.58% Somewhat Important 146 7.49% 9.32% Important 401 20.57% 25.61% Very Important 730 37.46% 46.62% Not Sure 233 11.95% 14.88% Sum: 1566 80.35% 100% Not answered: 383 19.65% - Total answered: 1566

Fig. Result of Question 29: How important was sharing the road to you six months ago?


Frequency table


Relative frequency


Not Important 95 4.87% 6.07% Somewhat Important 176 9.03% 11.24% Important 419 21.5% 26.76% Very Important 605 31.04% 38.63% Not Sure 271 13.9% 17.31% Sum: 1566 80.35% 100% Not answered: 383 19.65% - Total answered: 1566

Fig. Result of Question 30: Do you own or have access to a car? (Choose all that apply)

Frequency table



Relative frequency by choice

Relative frequency


I own a car 881 54.42% 45.2% 56.44% I am a member of a car sharing service 53 3.27% 2.72% 3.4% I can borrow a car or get a ride most times I need it

252 15.57% 12.93% 16.14%

I do not own or have access to a car 354 21.87% 18.16% 22.68% Not Applicable 79 4.88% 4.05% 5.06% Sum: 1619 100% - - Not answered: 388 - 19.91% - Total answered: 1561

Fig. Result of Question 31: Do you own or have access to a bicycle? (Choose all that apply)

Frequency table


Relative frequency by choice

Relative frequency


I own a bicycle 744 46.13% 38.17% 47.54% I can use or borrow a bicycle most times I need it

126 7.81% 6.46% 8.05%

I do not own or have access to a bicycle 634 39.31% 32.53% 40.51% Not Applicable 109 6.76% 5.59% 6.96% Sum: 1613 100% - - Not answered: 384 - 19.7% - Total answered: 1565


Table. Result of Question 32: How much on average do you spend out-of-pocket on a monthly basis for transportation purposes (for gas, parking, etc.)? Costs of ownership or vehicle maintenance should not be included.

Minimum: 0 Maximum: 1000000000000000000 Average: 684931506849431.4 Total answered: 1460

Fig. Result of Question 38: What is your age?

Frequency table


Relative frequency


15-19 100 5.13% 6.7% 20-24 407 20.88% 27.28% 25-34 361 18.52% 24.2% 35-44 229 11.75% 15.35% 45-54 226 11.6% 15.15% 55-64 146 7.49% 9.79% 65 and above 23 1.18% 1.54% Sum: 1492 76.55% 100% Not answered: 457 23.45% - Total answered: 1492

Fig. Result of Question 39: What is your gender?


Frequency table


Relative frequency


Female 1075 55.16% 70.82% Male 411 21.09% 27.08% Intersex 2 0.1% 0.13% Trans 1 0.05% 0.07% Other 5 0.26% 0.33% Prefer not to say 24 1.23% 1.58% Sum: 1518 77.89% 100% Not answered: 431 22.11% - Total answered: 1518

Fig. Result of Question 40: What is your annual household income?


Frequency table Choices Absolute

frequency Relative frequency


Less than $19,999 322 16.52% 21.32% $20,000-39,999 176 9.03% 11.66% $40,000-59,999 185 9.49% 12.25% $60,000-79,999 130 6.67% 8.61% $80,000-99,999 122 6.26% 8.08% Above 100,000 296 15.19% 19.6% Prefer not to say 279 14.32% 18.48% Sum: 1510 77.48% 100% Not answered: 439 22.52% - Total answered: 1510

Fig. Result of Question 42: What is your primary campus?

Frequency table


Relative frequency


Studley 972 49.87% 64.12% Carleton 250 12.83% 16.49% Sexton 199 10.21% 13.13% Agricultural 95 4.87% 6.27% Sum: 1516 77.78% 100% Not answered: 433 22.22% - Total answered: 1516


Fig. Result of Question 43: Which of these groups do you currently belong to?

Frequency table


Relative frequency


Students 720 36.94% 47.46% Faculty 185 9.49% 12.2% Staff 612 31.4% 40.34% Sum: 1517 77.83% 100% Not answered: 432 22.17% - Total answered: 1517

Table. Result of Question 44: What is your department and/or program(s):

Frequency table Items Absolute

frequency Relative frequency


Ancillary Services 14 0.72% 0.92% Athletics and Recreational Services 8 0.41% 0.53% Bookstores 2 0.1% 0.13% Business Process and Integration Office 1 0.05% 0.07% Centre for Learning and Teaching 4 0.21% 0.26% College of Continuing Education 9 0.46% 0.59% Communications and Marketing 6 0.31% 0.4% Dalhousie Art Gallery 2 0.1% 0.13% Dalhousie Arts Centre 6 0.31% 0.4%


Dalhousie Libraries 28 1.44% 1.85% Environmental Health and Safety 3 0.15% 0.2% External Relations 9 0.46% 0.59% Facilities Management 60 3.08% 3.96% Faculty of Agriculture 57 2.92% 3.76% Faculty of Architecture and Planning 65 3.34% 4.28% Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences 182 9.34% 12% Faculty of Computer Science 15 0.77% 0.99% Faculty of Dentistry 20 1.03% 1.32% Faculty of Engineering 84 4.31% 5.54% Faculty of Graduate Studies 53 2.72% 3.49% Faculty of Health Professions 103 5.28% 6.79% Faculty of Law 21 1.08% 1.38% Faculty of Management 129 6.62% 8.5% Faculty of Medicine 143 7.34% 9.43% Faculty of Science 270 13.85% 17.8% Financial Services 27 1.39% 1.78% Human Resources 12 0.62% 0.79% Information Technology Services 33 1.69% 2.18% Legal Services 1 0.05% 0.07% Office of Industry Liaison & Innovation 1 0.05% 0.07% Presidents Office 5 0.26% 0.33% Registrar's Office 31 1.59% 2.04% Research Services 15 0.77% 0.99% Student Community Services (Housing/Residence Life) 1 0.05% 0.07% Student Services 23 1.18% 1.52% Trace Analysis Research Centre 1 0.05% 0.07% Writing Centre 1 0.05% 0.07% Other 72 3.69% 4.75% Sum: 1517 77.83% 100% Not answered: 432 22.17% - Total answered: 1517

Fig. Result of Question 45: How did you hear about this survey?


Frequency table


Relative frequency


Faculty/Departmental Administrator 113 5.8% 7.46% Office of Sustainability website 13 0.67% 0.86% LED Screen 5 0.26% 0.33% Friend Referral 27 1.39% 1.78% Direct Email 1066 54.69% 70.41% "Today at Dal" 110 5.64% 7.27% "My Announcement" 15 0.77% 0.99% Student Society 12 0.62% 0.79% Departmental Newsletter 21 1.08% 1.39% Facebook 92 4.72% 6.08% Twitter 14 0.72% 0.92% Other: 26 1.33% 1.72% Sum: 1514 77.68% 100% Not answered: 435 22.32% - Total answered: 1514


Documents

FINAL Annual Sustainability Survey 2014 Annual Report - draft 4.8