Western Washington University · PDF fileWestern Washington University Western Washington University ... Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. S-1 Huxley College of the Environment, Student

Western Washington University

Space Needs Assessment

SUMMARY REPORT

May 2014

Mr. Ed Simpson, AIA, and Mr. Rick Benner, AIA May 16, 2014 Page 1

May 16, 2014 (CD sent via FedEx)

Mr. Ed Simpson, AIA Mr. Rick Benner, AIA Assistant Director Director and University Architect Office of Facilities Development and Capital Budget Office of Facilities Development and Capital Budget Western Washington University Western Washington University Physical Plant 108C Physical Plant 112A, Mail Stop 9122 Bellingham, Washington 98225 Bellingham, Washington 98225

RE: Western Washington University, Space Needs Analysis Study

Dear Ed and Rick:

Enclosed is the final Western Washington University, Space Needs Assessment. The report has four separate, standalone components:

Summary Report Appendix A – Expanded Narrative Appendix B – Supplemental Data Appendix C – WWU Room Space Database

Due to the size of this total document, it is being sent as a CD. The document is dated May 2014.

This is a data based report that provides considerable operational and space data for each WWU academic science, technology, and environmental discipline and activity. Identifying their future space needs has two components – what is currently lacking and how to fill the gaps and what is needed to accommodate projected growth or future change. We have included various projections to test these space needs.

We have relied on the interviews I had with both Deans and each of the department chairs and unit leaders to understand what the academic units do and what space gaps they currently identify. We have made considerable use of the enrollment, faculty, and staffing data provided by the University, as well as data on the allocation and use of space in the buildings that house the colleges and academic units.

The report provides considerable data and analysis on how space is allocated by academic unit – research, offices, labs, etc. The report also documents the laboratory space assessment based on the field visits. We have used the peer campus space benchmark data and analysis to provide space comparisons.

Based on the assessment and analysis, both the College of Sciences and Technology and the Huxley College have space needs. The space needs of Huxley College require the most immediate attention.

As you know, this has been an assignment that has required considerable input and information from the University. Please give our thanks to all at WWU who have been so helpful in providing the information needed for the study. Their assistance is greatly appreciated.

Regards, IRA FINK AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Ira Fink, Ph.D., FAIA President



SUMMARY REPORT

May 2014

Prepared for:

Mr. Ed Simpson, AIA Assistant Director Office of Facilities Development and Capital Budget Western Washington University Physical Plant 108C Bellingham, Washington 98225 (360) 650-3231 Mr. Rick Benner, AIA Director and University Architect Office of Facilities Development and Capital Budget Western Washington University Physical Plant 112A, Mail Stop 9122 Bellingham, Washington 98225 (360) 650-3550

Prepared by:

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. University Planning Consultants One Columbia Circle Berkeley, California 94708 (510) 843-1900

Ira F

ink

and

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

Chemistry Building, Room 310, Organic Chemistry Lab. This room has 2,630 assignable square feet and 24 stations for a total of 109.6 ASF per station.

iTable of Contents May 2014

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

Table of Contents –Summary Report

Table of Contents – Summary Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

List of Tables – Summary Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

List of Figures – Summary Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

List of Photos – Summary Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

List of University Representatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-1

Summary Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-1

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-3

Space Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-8

Study Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-11

Enrollment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-12

Huxley College of the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-12

College of Sciences and Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-13

Enrollment and Workload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-16

Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-21

Huxley College Space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-21

College of Sciences and Technology Space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-23

Scientific Technical Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-24

Benchmark Analysis Results, Space per Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-31


Class Laboratory and Research Laboratory Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-43

ii Western Washington University, Space Needs Assessment, Summary Report

Ira F

ink

and

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

Communications Facility, Room 014, Physics Surface Sciences Research Laboratory. This room has 611 assignable square feet.

iiiTable of Contents May 2014


S-1 Huxley College of the Environment, Student Enrollment, Fall 2003, Fall 2008, and Fall 2013. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-13

S-2 College of Sciences and Technology, Student Enrollment, Fall 2003, Fall 2008, and Fall 2013. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-15

S-3 Department Ranking by Undergraduate Majors, Fall 2013. . . . . . . . . . . . . S-16

S-4 Department Ranking by Number of Students Enrolled at Peak, Fall 2013 . . S-17

S-5 Department Ranking by Student Credit Hours and Service Hour Component, 2011-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-18

S-6 Department Ranking by Full-Time Faculty, Fall 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-19

S-7 Department Ranking by Student Credit Hours (SCH) and SCH Percent Distribution by Faculty Type, Fall 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-20

S-8 Huxley College of the Environment, All Departments and Units, Space by Room Type Code, Fall 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-22

S-9 College of Sciences and Technology, All Departments and Units, Space by Room Type Code, Fall 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-23

S-10 Scientific Technical Services, Space by Room Type Code, Fall 2013. . . . . . . S-25

S-11 Department Ranking by Total Space (ASF), Fall 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-26

S-12 Department Ranking by Research Space (ASF), Fall 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-28

S-13 Department Ranking by ASF per Undergraduate Major, Fall 2013 . . . . . . . S-29

S-14 Department Ranking by ASF per Full-Time Faculty Headcount, Fall 2012 . . S-30

S-15 Overall Average Assignable Square Footage per Full-Time Faculty at Comparative Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-32

S-16 Western Washington University, Space Benchmark Analysis by Faculty. . . . S-35

S-17 Space Projections Summary Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-40

S-18 Description of Space Needs by Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-41

S-19 Laboratory Assessment Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-44

A-1 Western Washington University, Headcount Enrollment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-45

List of Tables –Summary Report

iv Western Washington University, Space Needs Assessment, Summary Report

S-1 Space Needs Projections, Aggregate, 2013 to 2023. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-10

S-2 Huxley College of the Environment, All Departments and Units, Space Distribution, Fall 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-22

S-3 College of Sciences and Technology, All Departments and Units, Space Distribution, Fall 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-24

S-4 Scientific Technical Services, Space Distribution, Fall 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-25

S-5 Department Ranking by Total Space (ASF), Fall 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-27

S-6 Department Distribution of Space by Room Type (ASF), Fall 2013 . . . . . . . S-27

S-7 Space Comparison by Faculty, College of Sciences and Technology . . . . . . S-33

S-8 Space Comparison by Faculty, Huxley College of the Environment . . . . . . . S-33

List of Figures –Summary Report

List of Photos –Summary Report

Chemistry Building, Room 310, Organic Chemistry Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Communications Facility, Room 014, Physics Surface Sciences Research Laboratory ii

Environmental Studies Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-2

Biology Building, Room 339, Biology Department Research Laboratory. . . . . . . . . . S-2

vTable of Contents May 2014


List of University Representatives

Rick Benner, Director, Facilities Development and Capital Budget

Andy Bunn, Director, Institute for Energy Studies

Clint Burgess, Engineering Technician/Supervisor, Scientific Technical Services

Mark Bussell, Director, AMSEC

Brent Carbajal, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

Janet Finlay, Director, Behavioral Neuroscience (BRAIN)

Perry Fizzano, Chair, Computer Science

Ed Geary, Director, SMATE

Rebekah Green, Associate Director, Resilience Institute

Francis Halle, Director, Space Administration and Management

Steven Hollenhorst, Dean, Huxley College of the Environment

Bernie Housen, Chair, Geology

Brad Johnson, Chair, Physics and Astronomy

Debra Jusak, Special Assistant to the Provost, Provost’s Office

Kathleen Kitto, Acting Vice Provost for Research and Dean of the Graduate School

Ellen Kuhlmann, Data Compiler, Provost’s Office

Wayne Landis, Director, Institute of Environmental Toxicology

Robin Matthews, Director, Institute for Watershed Studies

Nancy McLaughlin, Operations Manager, Huxley College Centralized Student Services and Technical Support

Michael Medler, Chair, Environmental Studies and Director, Spatial Institute

Jeff Newcomer, Chair, Engineering Technology

Joann Otto, Chair, Biology

John Rybczyk, Chair, Environmental Sciences

Ed Simpson, Assistant Director, Facilities Development

Richard Van Den Hul, Vice President, Business and Financial Affairs

Jim Vyvyan, Chair, Chemistry

Jeff Wright, Dean, College of Sciences and Technology

Tjalling Ypma, Chair, Mathematics

vi Western Washington University, Space Needs Assessment, Summary Report

Consultants

Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. University Planning Consultants Berkeley, California

Ira Fink, Ph.D., FAIA Paula Hudis, Ph.D. Annie Tran

Design for Science Laboratory Design Consulting Services San Marcos, California

Glen Berry

Consolidated Table of Contents

ixTable of Contents May 2014


Table of Contents –Summary Report

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-1

Summary Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-1

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-3


Study Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-11

Enrollment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-12

Huxley College of the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-12

College of Sciences and Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-13

Enrollment and Workload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-16

Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-21

Huxley College Space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-21

College of Sciences and Technology Space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-23

Scientific Technical Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-24

Benchmark Analysis Results, Space per Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-31


Class Laboratory and Research Laboratory Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-43

x Western Washington University, Space Needs Assessment, Summary Report

Table of Contents –Appendix A: Expanded Narrative

I . Introduction to Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Project Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Capsule Summary of Space Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

About Western Washington University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

About Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Campus Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

II . College of Sciences and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

College of Sciences and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Enrollment and Space Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Space Priorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Biology Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Chemistry Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Computer Science Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Engineering Technology Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Geology Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Mathematics Department. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Physics and Astronomy Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

III . Huxley College of the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Huxley College of the Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Environmental Sciences Department. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Environmental Studies Department. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

IV . Centers, College of Sciences and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Advanced Materials Science and Engineering Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

xiTable of Contents May 2014


V . Institutes, Huxley College of the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Institute for Energy Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Institute of Environmental Toxicology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Institute for Watershed Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Resilience Institute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Spatial Institute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

VI . Scientific Technical Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

VII . By the Numbers, Academic Program Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Enrollment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Research Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

VIII . Space Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

Table of Contents –Appendix A: Expanded Narrative

xii Western Washington University, Space Needs Assessment, Summary Report

IX . Introduction to Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193


About Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

X . Carnegie Foundation Classification Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Basic Carnegie Foundation Classification Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

XI . Benchmark Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Identifying Benchmark Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

Carnegie Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

Benchmark Analysis Results, Space per Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

Detailed Analysis of Space Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

XII . Benchmark Analysis Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

XIII . Space by Room Type Code at Each Peer Campus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

XIV . R2 Linear Regression of Space (ASF) per Faculty by Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

XV . Laboratory Assessment Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

XVI . Analysis of Building Space by Room Type Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303

XVII . Analysis of Building Space by Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

XVIII . Summary of Department Space by Room Type Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335

Table of Contents –Appendix B: Supplemental Data

xiiiTable of Contents May 2014


XIX . Introduction to Appendix C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343


About Appendix C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346

XX . WWU Room Space Database by Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347

XXI . WWU Room Space Database by Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497

Table of Contents –Appendix C: WWU Room Space Database

ESExecutive Summary

ES-2 Western Washington University, Space Needs Assessment, Executive Summary

Environmental Studies Center. The Environmental Studies Center has 111,145 gross square feet and 63,526 assignable square feet.

Ira F

ink

and

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

ES-3Executive Summary May 2014


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


• This study is a broad-based, conceptual space needs assessment of the College of Sciences and Technology and the Huxley College of the Environment academic units at Western Washington University.

– One premise of the study is that enrollment growth at WWU will be slow and total campus enrollment will remain at approximately 15,000.

Primary Findings

Huxley College of the Environment

• Of the two colleges, the primary finding of the study is that the space needs of Huxley College require the most immediate attention.

– Facilities: Huxley College space needs have substantially changed since the College was founded and facilities were built 40 years ago.

– Space: Both Huxley College departments are consistently positioned in the lowest range of amount of space per faculty, per student, and per research unit among the WWU science and technology departments.

– Class Laboratories: Moreover, the instructional laboratory spaces of the Huxley College units are in the poorest condition of the two colleges and in the most need of attention.

College of Sciences and Technology

• Among the College of Sciences and Technology (CST) units, four of the seven departments and both research units have relatively new space. Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Physics and Astronomy, AMSEC, SMATE are in recently renovated or otherwise relatively new space. These units have both contemporary space and space largely adequate for their needs. Geology needs better space. Mathematics needs both better space and more space. Engineering Technology requires a total review of its space and a plan to provide appropriate space for its newly designated engineering programs.

Space for Scientific Instrumentation

• There is a collaborative desire for additional or replacement instrumentation since the instruments and their centers serve both disciplinary and interdisciplinary objectives.

– To help guide this activity, an overall WWU plan for new and replacement instrumentation is needed.

ES-4 Western Washington University, Space Needs Assessment, Executive Summary

Space Projections

• To test alternatives, a series of eight separate space projection estimates, identified as Scenarios 1 through 8, were tabulated.

– For the purposes of this study, Scenario 3 was chosen as a plausible planning projection. In Scenario 3, the faculty growth is based upon the Provost’s estimates of growth from 2013 to 2018 or one new faculty member per department, whichever is greater. Faculty growth counts add one faculty member per department from 2018 to 2023.

• In Scenario 3, space needs for Huxley College would grow by 32,014 ASF from its existing 36,788 ASF in 2013 to 68,802 ASF in 2018 and an additional 3,106 ASF to 71,908 ASF in 2023.

• Space needs for CST would grow by 37,229 ASF from 231,599 ASF in 2013 to 268,828 ASF in 2018 and an additional 15,680 ASF to 284,508 ASF in 2023.

• Space needs for Scientific Technical Services would grow by an estimated 1,800 ASF based upon instrument requirements, or a growth from 7,337 ASF to 9,137 ASF.

Summary Report

• This summary report is accompanied by three separate, standalone appendices, which together constitute an omnibus indicators report.

– Appendix A is an expanded narrative, which includes a listing of space needs as identified by each department or unit.

– Appendix B provides supplemental data, including detailed space benchmark analysis.

– Appendix C presents the WWU room-by-room space database, both by building and by department.

SSummary Report

Overview

Space Projections

Study Approach

Enrollment Huxley College of the Environment College of Sciences and Technology

Enrollment and Workload

Space Huxley College Space

College of Sciences and Technology Space Scientific Technical Services

Benchmark Analysis Results, Space per Faculty

Space Projections

Class Laboratory and Research Laboratory Assessment

S-2 Western Washington University, Space Needs Assessment, Summary Report

Biology Building, Room 339, Biology Department Research Laboratory. This room has 455 assignable square feet.

Ira F

ink

and

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

S-3Summary Report May 2014


SUMMARY REPORT

This report is a summary of the Western Washington University, Space Needs Analysis of science,

technology, and environmental departments and research centers study. This summary report

also includes three separately bound appendices that provide additional narrative (Appendix A),

additional data (Appendix B), and an identification of space by building and department, by room

type code (Appendix C).

OVERVIEW


• The purpose of this study is a broad-based, conceptual space needs assessment of the College of Sciences and Technology and the Huxley College of the Environment academic units at Western Washington University.

• One premise undergirding the study is that enrollment growth at WWU will be slow and total campus enrollment will remain at approximately 15,000.

– As a result of the campus remaining at approximately its current enrollment, this space needs assessment is based on changes that have occurred in each academic unit over the past decade, in enrollment, faculty, staff, and space. The report includes both an historical look-back period from 2003 to 2013 and a projection period to 2023.

WWU Strategic Plan

• The Western Washington University Strategic Plan, approved by the WWU Board of Trustees in 2006, outlines a vision of the University to “become the premier public comprehensive university in the country through engaged excellence.” The Strategic Plan does not identify, highlight, or refer to specific academic disciplines.

– The Strategic Plan enrollment capacity of 12,500 FTE by 2013 has been exceeded; fall 2013 enrollment was 13,457 full-time and 1,493 part-time, for a total fall 2013 enrollment of 14,950. (A complete ten-year enrollment history is shown in Appendix Table A-1.)

– If future strategic plans, or amendments to the current plan, identify or highlight specific academic programs for growth or provide specific numerical target enrollments or faculty size, the following study should be revised.


Primary Findings


• Of the two colleges, the primary finding of the study is that the space needs of Huxley College require the most immediate attention.

– Facilities: Huxley College space needs have substantially changed since the College was founded and facilities were built 40 years ago. Up-to-date facilities are required to allow Huxley College to continue to provide the interdisciplinary education for which it was established. One facilities goal is that both Huxley College departments share a common facility, which they currently do not.

– Space: Both Huxley College departments are consistently positioned in the lowest range of amount of space per faculty, per student, and per research unit among the WWU science and technology departments. Huxley College lacks the programmatic space it needs.

– Class Laboratories: Moreover, the instructional laboratory spaces of the Huxley College units are in the poorest condition of the two colleges and in the most need of attention.

• A facilities solution for Huxley College may also result in an identifiable physical presence for the College that is now lacking.

– For example, the largest space user among the 16 WWU user groups in the Environmental Studies Building is not a Huxley College department, but is the Geology Department, a department of the College of Sciences and Technology. The Geology Department occupies 37 percent of the Environmental Studies Building.

– The Huxley College Environmental Sciences Department, which is located in the Environmental Studies Building, has 13 percent of the space in the building.

– Other Huxley College users, including the Institute of Environmental Toxicology and the Institute for Watershed Studies, occupy 18 percent of the Environmental Studies Building.

– Other non-Huxley College users in the Environmental Studies Building include: the College of Humanities and Social Sciences, the Engineering Technology Department, Environmental Health and Safety, Media Service, and classrooms. Taken together, but excluding Geology, these non-Huxley College units total 33 percent of space in the building.

– The majority of space used by the Huxley College Environmental Studies Department, for which the Environmental Studies Building might have been named, is not located in the Environmental Studies Building, but in the adjacent multi-user Arntzen Hall building. The Environmental Studies Department is the largest space user in Arntzen Hall with 21 percent of the square footage.



• Based on enrollment data of the number of majors provided by WWU, Huxley College of the Environment has not grown numerically as much as the College of Sciences and Technology, although it has grown proportionately more than CST over the past decade.

– At the same time, Huxley College does not appear to have received equivalent resources to update, improve, or even rebuild its space and buildings as have CST units. An emphasis at WWU over the past 20 years has been to grow and improve the science departments, which it has done very well.

– Consideration should now be given to repurposing the Environmental Studies site with an appropriately scaled and functioning building to serve as a home for Huxley College, core instrument center or centers, and flex space for interdisciplinary studies.


• Among the College of Sciences and Technology (CST) units, four of the seven departments and both research units have relatively new space. Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Physics and Astronomy, AMSEC, SMATE are in recently renovated or otherwise relatively new space. These units have both contemporary space and space largely adequate for their needs. Geology needs better space. Mathematics needs both better space and more space. Engineering Technology requires a total review of its space and a plan to provide appropriate space for its newly designated engineering programs.

– The CST based Geology Department does not lack space, but needs improved space tailored to departmental purposes. Geology also needs upgraded and newer geophysical equipment and instrumentation.

– Opportunities exist for another CST department, the Computer Science Department, to repurpose its existing space as the department grows.

– One CST department that could use more space, the Mathematics Department, appears content with its location, but not with its facilities. Projections in this study indicate increased space for Mathematics. Both the changes in Computer Science and the shift from Engineering Technology to Engineering will create additional workload for Mathematics, which already has the largest number of student credit hours of all CST and Huxley College departments.

– The Engineering Technology Department has the largest amount of space in CST. This may allow it to transition to a new Engineering Department by repurposing and reassigning its space for its new academic programs.

• CST, excluding Engineering Technology as it progresses toward Engineering, as identified in the interviews and measured by the benchmark analysis, has comparatively few space needs. The overall needs are for relatively small amounts of space – a few offices, laboratories, and space for graduate students.


– To meet these needs, small portions of CST space may be able to be reclaimed and repurposed.

– Some space that was intended for instructional purposes was observed as being used for storage. While storage use may be only a temporary condition, it does provide an opportunity to put the rooms to a higher and better use.

Space for Scientific Instrumentation

• The study identified a need for updated and shared scientific instrumentation, much of which is in the domain of Scientific Technical Services (STS), a unit of the Provost’s Office.

– There is a collaborative desire for additional or replacement instrumentation since the instruments and their centers serve both disciplinary and interdisciplinary objectives.

• To help guide this activity, an overall WWU plan for new and replacement instrumentation is needed.

– The plan should identify user needs and University needs, and serve to establish resource requirements, instrument stewardship, secured space, and continued development of core instrumentation.

• The current space housing the scientific instruments is inconsistent.

– Some disciplinary and interdisciplinary instruments are in rooms with outdated furnishings. This may be due to the age of the instruments and that funding has not been available to change either the instruments or their environment.

– The newer instrumentation, particularly those as part of an organized instrument center, such as CST Advanced Materials Sciences and Engineering Center (AMSEC) are housed in up-to-date facilities.

– As part of this study, no analysis was made of the users, user groups, or frequency of use of the disciplinary or core shared instrumentation.

Institutes and Centers

• While both Huxley College and CST have institutes and centers, their space needs are quite different.

– The Huxley College Institute for Watershed Studies space is at capacity. The Institute requires larger and better space and access to equipment.

– The Huxley College Institute of Environmental Toxicology requires space and infrastructure for larger projects and space for graduate students.



– The Huxley College Resilience Institute is currently co-located with the Spatial Institute, but does not have any space of its own.

– The Huxley College Spatial Institute shares space with the Resilience Institute, but University records indicate that neither the Resilience Institute or the Spatial Institute have any assigned space. The Spatial Institute, which utilizes four Huxley College computer teaching labs, requires server space, office space, and work space.

– The CST Science, Mathematics, and Teaching Education unit, which is at the “intersection” of the College of Sciences and Technology and the College of Education is located on the second floor of its own building, constructed in the 1990’s.

- SMATE seeks to use its existing space but reconfigure these spaces and reuse the space they have to create more effective teaching/learning environments.

– The CST AMSEC unit is located in newly renovated space.

– The University’s new Institute for Energy Studies is an interdisciplinary program with faculty appointments shared between Energy Studies and a home department. Energy Studies will require administrative space and space for class and research laboratories.

Instructional Space

• Instructional space consists of classrooms, class (scheduled course) laboratories, as well as open (unscheduled) laboratories and computer labs.

• Although some of the science, technology and environmental departments have departmentally scheduled classrooms (seminar rooms), the majority of classrooms at WWU are a campus-wide resource whose use is scheduled by the Registrar. Once scheduled, departmental faculty teach in these classrooms in buildings across the campus.

• Class (teaching) laboratories as instructional space are an integral and major portion of the department space inventory and are located in proximity to other department space. Because class laboratory furniture and equipment is specific to each discipline, these rooms are used for discipline related courses only. While the scheduled time of class laboratory courses is published by the Registrar, the actual scheduling of the class laboratories is under department control.

• As part of this study, no determination was made of the scheduled use and seat capacity utilization of instructional space. While some departments have classrooms, all departments have class laboratories. These class laboratories are a significant portion of the department space inventory. Collecting and analyzing use and utilization information about these rooms will require a separate classroom and class laboratory use analysis.


– In Huxley College, 16 percent of space is in class laboratories and five percent in classrooms. An additional 23 percent is in research laboratories.

– In CST, 55 percent of space is in class laboratories and three percent in classrooms. CST also has 16 percent of its space in research laboratories.

Facilities Plan for Engineering Degree Programs

• A facilities plan to accommodate the new engineering degree programs within the Engineering Technology Department was not apparent.

– The Engineering Technology Department has the largest amount of space in total, per student, and per faculty among the science and technology departments. Identification of which portions of Engineering Technology should remain, what should be transformed, what should be discarded, and how the whole will work as Engineering Technology transitions to Engineering degree programs was not included as part of this space needs assessment.

SPACE PROJECTIONS

• To estimate space needs of additional faculty, a series of space projections to the year 2018 and the year 2023 were prepared.

Planning Assumptions

• Future space needs projections for CST and Huxley College are based on the following planning assumptions:

Enrollment

– Overall enrollment growth at WWU will be slow.

– Total enrollment campus wide will remain at approximately 15,000 to the year 2023.

Faculty Growth

– Generalized faculty growth projections provided by the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs are as follows:

- Biology, one faculty

- Chemistry, one faculty

- Computer Science, four faculty (in addition to one new position in 2012-13)

- Engineering Technology (Engineering), four faculty



- Mathematics, one faculty

- Physics and Astronomy, one faculty

- Environmental Sciences, one faculty

- Environmental Studies, one faculty

– Faculty growth to the year 2023 could range from 14 additional new faculty (based on current estimates from the Provost shown above) to as many as 24 additional faculty if each department grows by two positions with Computer Science and Engineering Technology growing by four each. Faculty growth could reach 45 additional new positions if all departments grew by five faculty each.

Space per Faculty

– In the projections, the amount of space per each faculty for CST will remain at the current space per faculty by department.

– Space needs for Huxley College are projected on the basis of an average square footage per faculty that matches the average square footage per faculty of all CST departments excluding Engineering Technology.

• To test alternatives, a series of eight separate space projection estimates, identified as Scenarios 1 through 8, were tabulated.

– While results of each of the eight projections are shown, for the purposes of this study, Scenario 3 was chosen as a plausible planning projection.

– In Scenario 3, the faculty growth is based upon the Provost’s estimates of growth from 2013 to 2018 or one new faculty member per department, whichever is greater. Faculty growth counts add one faculty member per department from 2018 to 2023.

– Space projections are based on the number of faculty and ASF per faculty. Projections to the year 2018 and the year 2023 are based on the greater of the following space per faculty factors:

- The 2013 WWU ASF per full-time faculty is used for CST for all projection years.

- For Huxley College, space is projected based on an average of space per faculty in CST excluding Engineering Technology.

Space Projections

• In Scenario 3, space needs for Huxley College would grow by 32,014 ASF from its existing 36,788 ASF in 2013 to 68,802 ASF in 2018 and an additional 3,106 ASF to 71,908 ASF in 2023.

• Space needs for CST would grow by 37,229 ASF from 231,599 ASF in 2013 to 268,828 ASF in 2018 and an additional 15,680 ASF to 284,508 ASF in 2023.


• Space needs for Scientific Technical Services would grow by an estimated 1,800 ASF based upon instrument requirements, or a growth from 7,337 ASF to 9,137 ASF.

• Aggregate total space needs for the science, technology, and environmental departments, institutes, and centers would be a growth of an additional 71,043 ASF between 2013 and 2018, and a further additional 18,786 ASF by the year 2023.

• A graphic representation of projected growth for each scenario is shown below in Figure S-1.

Figure S-1

Space Needs Projections, Aggregate, 2013 to 2023

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

Scenario1

Scenario2

Scenario3

Scenario4

Scenario5

Scenario6

Scenario7

Scenario8

Ass

igna

ble

Squ

are

Fee

t

2023

2018

2013

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc.

Notes: 2013: Existing 2013 space.

2018: Projected space growth from 2013 to 2018.

2023: Projected space growth from 2018 to 2023.



STUDY APPROACH

• The study is a data based analysis of existing conditions and projected needs.

• This study assesses the space needs of both Huxley College of the Environment and the College of Sciences and Technology, and each of their departments, institutes, and centers.

• The study approach included:

– A review of enrollment based factors for the years fall 2003, fall 2008, and fall 2013.

– An analysis of total space and distribution of space by room type, by building, and by department, institute, and center for fall 2013.

– A field review of all department, institute, and center facilities.

– A comparison benchmarking space analysis with seven other WWU peer universities.

– Interviews with both deans and all department chairs and unit directors.

• This summary report is accompanied by three separate, standalone appendices, which together constitute an omnibus indicators report.

– Appendix A is an expanded narrative, which includes a listing of space needs as identified by each department or unit.

– Appendix B provides supplemental data, including detailed space benchmark analysis.

– Appendix C presents the WWU room-by-room space database, both by building and by department.

– A complete table of contents for this report and the three appendices precedes this section.


ENROLLMENT

This section describes historical enrollment data for both colleges. It also provides a series of

enrollment measures, recognizing there are many factors that contribute to enrollment related

workload and space needs.

HUXLEY COLLEGE OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Background

• Huxley College of the Environment was founded in 1969 as the first interdisciplinary environmental college in the U.S.

• The Huxley College concept is one of expanding disciplinary boundaries using the environment as an organizational theme.

– Huxley College addresses today’s environmental issues and prepares tomorrow’s interdisciplinary problem solvers.

• Huxley College is composed of:

– Two departments: Environmental Sciences and Environmental Studies.

– Four research institutes: Institute of Environmental Toxicology, Institute for Watershed Studies, Resilience Institute, and Spatial Institute.

Huxley College Enrollment

• Huxley College of the Environment enrollment has increased significantly over the past decade, as shown in Table S-1.

– Undergraduate majors have increased by 122 students from 230 to 352, a 53 percent increase.

– Pre-majors have also grown from 40 to 177, a 343 percent growth.

– Huxley College undergraduate majors in the Environmental Studies Department (183 majors) and the Environmental Sciences Department (169 majors) have the third and fourth highest number of majors among the science, technology and environmental departments, exceeded only by Engineering Technology (299) and Biology (256), as shown in Table S-2.

– Graduate students in Huxley College Environmental Studies (35) and Environmental Sciences (27), represent the first and second largest number of graduate students among the departments included in this study. Mathematics (25) is the third largest.



• According to the Dean, the Huxley College focus will be on improving quality and diversity, not growing larger. While growth will occur in both departments, the emphasis will be on improving quality.

– Huxley College sees growth in key program areas: energy, marine science, sustainability.

Table S-1

Huxley College of the Environment,

Student Enrollment, Fall 2003, Fall 2008, and Fall 2013

Fall2003

Fall2008

Fall2013

# Change 2003-2013

% Change 2003-2013


UndergraduateMajor 230 299 352 122 53%Pre-Major 40 38 177 137 343%

Graduate 67 58 62 –5 –7%

Primary (Major 1) Interest 79 196 197 118 149%

Undergraduate Majors by Department

Environmental Sciences 91 112 169 78 86%Environmental Studies 139 187 183 44 32%

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from Western Washington University, dated December 5, 2013.

COLLEGE OF SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY

Background

• The mission of the WWU College of Sciences and Technology (CST) is to provide the highest quality of education in science, mathematics, and technology; to participate in the discovery, communication, and application of knowledge; to integrate teaching, scholarly activity, and service; and to maintain a diverse college community.

• The College of Sciences and Technology (CST) organization includes:

– Seven departments: Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Engineering Technology, Geology, Mathematics, and Physics and Astronomy.


– Two research centers: Advanced Materials Science and Engineering Center (AMSEC) and Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education (SMATE).

Enrollment

• From the year 2003 to the year 2013, the total number of undergraduate majors in the College of Sciences and Technology grew by 319 from 1,007 to 1,326, a total 32 percent increase in enrollments, as shown in Table S-2.

– During the same time, pre-majors in CST grew by 523 from 210 to 733, a 249 percent increase.

– (Note: The use of pre-major status and the relationship between majors and pre-majors varies among CST departments. It also has also changed significantly within individual departments during the past ten years.

- For example, Geology, Mathematics, and Physics do not use pre-major status at all. Biology, Chemistry, and Computer Science do.

- Engineering Technology has started using pre-major status for its programs only in the past two years, resulting in a dramatic decrease in the number of Engineering Technology majors, while the total of majors plus pre-majors has increased.

• According to the Dean, CST will continue to contribute to meeting the workforce needs of the state.

– This will include increasing professional programs and moving from Engineering Technology to Engineering. The state has already provided funding to begin these activities.



Table S-2

College of Sciences and Technology,

Student Enrollment, Fall 2003, Fall 2008, and Fall 2013

2003 2008 2013# Change 2003-2013

% Change 2003-2013


UndergraduateMajor 1,007 1,184 1,326 319 32%Pre-Major 210 156 733 523 249%

Graduate 105 99 85 –20 –19%

Primary (Major 1) Interest 663 785 900 237 36%

Undergraduate Majors by Department

Biology 180 236 256 76 42%Chemistry 89 160 118 29 33%Computer Science 122 107 168 46 38%Engineering Technology 402 403 299 –103 –26%Geology 51 93 160 109 214%Mathematics 108 100 169 61 56%Physics and Astronomy 38 62 131 93 245%



ENROLLMENT AND WORKLOAD

• Many factors contribute to workload. Some of these factors, ranging from student majors in a department to student credit hour production, are shown.

Department Ranking by Undergraduate Majors

• Undergraduate majors are based on the student’s indication of their primary major known as the Major 1 position code. According to the WWU Provost’s Office, a major is declared by the student at time of admission and is coded by the Admissions Office. It is one indicator of department workload.

• In the year 2013, the department with the highest number of declared undergraduate majors is Engineering Technology with 299.

• Biology is the second highest ranking with a total of 256 undergraduate majors.

• Environmental Studies is the third highest ranking with a total of 183 undergraduate majors.

• Environmental Sciences and Mathematics are the fourth highest ranking departments in terms of undergraduate majors each with a total of 169.

Table S-3

Department Ranking by Undergraduate Majors, Fall 2013

Ranking Department/UnitNo. of

Undergraduate Majors

1 Engineering Technology 2992 Biology 2563 Environmental Studies 1834 Environmental Sciences 169

Mathematics 1696 Computer Science 1687 Geology 1608 Physics and Astronomy 1319 Chemistry 11810 SMATE 25

Total 1,678




Department Ranking by Course Enrollments

• A further measure of workload is based on course enrollments.

• A course enrollment is one student taking one course.

– Since a student could be taking two, three, four, or more courses, there is a duplication in the number of students, but not a duplication in the number of course enrollments.

• The largest number of course enrollments occurs in Mathematics with 4,000 course enrollments in fall 2013. This is one indication of Mathematics being a required course in many disciplines.

• The second highest ranking course enrollment is Biology with 2,066 course enrollments.

• Chemistry is the third highest ranking with 1,869 course enrollments.

• Environmental Studies is the fourth highest ranking in terms of course enrollments with 1,567 course enrollments.

Table S-4

Department Ranking by Number of Students Enrolled at Peak, Fall 2013

Ranking Department/UnitPeak Course Enrollments

1 Mathematics 4,0002 Biology 2,0663 Chemistry 1,8694 Environmental Studies 1,5675 Physics and Astronomy 1,5126 Computer Science 1,2267 Geology 9648 Environmental Sciences 9609 Engineering Technology 86610 SMATE 24311 AMSEC 19

Total 15,292

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from Western Washington University, dated March 17, 2014.


Department Ranking by Student Credit Hours

• Total student credit hours, both for students who are subject matter majors and for service courses to other WWU units, are a further measure of workload.

• Student credit hours are a measure of the number of credits allocated to a course multiplied by the number of course enrollments.

• Based on the most current data available, which measures both total student credit hours and credit hours for non-majors, in fall 2011, mathematics generated the largest number of student credit hours at 43,561, with 92 percent generated by service credit hours, or credit hours to non-majors.

• Chemistry was the second highest generator of student credit hours at 19,999, with 78 percent as service credits.

• Biology was the third highest at 18,138 credit hours, with 62 percent as service credit hours.

• Environmental Studies was fourth at 14,858 credit hours, with 81 percent as service credit hours.

Table S-5

Department Ranking by Student Credit Hours and

Service Hour Component, 2011-12

Ranking Department/UnitStudent Credit

Hours (SCH)Percentage of

SCH Non-Majors

1 Mathematics 43,561 92%2 Chemistry 19,999 78%3 Biology 18,138 62%4 Environmental Studies 14,858 81%5 Physics and Astronomy 13,880 90%6 Computer Science 12,253 57%7 Geology 11,572 87%8 Engineering Technology 11,006 8%9 Environmental Sciences 10,050 69%

Total 155,317

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from Western Washington University, dated October 8, 2013 and March 17, 2014.



Department Ranking by Full-Time Faculty

• Data on faculty counts was provided by WWU Institutional Research.

– The most recent year for which this data was provided was fall 2012.

– Faculty headcount and FTE closely mirror enrollment generated workload.

• Mathematics is the largest department among the College of Sciences and Technology and Huxley College of the Environment combined with a total of 30 full-time faculty and 38.8 FTE faculty.

• Biology was the second largest department with 21 full-time faculty and 23.9 FTE faculty.

• Chemistry was the third largest with 18 full-time faculty and 18.8 FTE faculty.

• Environmental Studies was the fourth largest with 13 full-time faculty and 17.7 FTE faculty.

• At the lower end of the scale, Computer Science had eight full-time faculty and 10.9 FTE faculty.

Table S-6

Department Ranking by Full-Time Faculty, Fall 2012

Ranking Department/UnitNo. of

Full-Time Faculty

No. of Part-Time

Faculty

No. of Total Faculty

Headcount

No. of FTE

Faculty

1 Mathematics 30 12 42 38.82 Biology 21 4 25 23.93 Chemistry 18 2 20 18.84 Environmental Studies 13 13 26 17.75 Engineering Technology 12 9 21 16.26 Geology 11 4 15 13.5

Environmental Sciences 11 2 13 11.88 Physics and Astronomy 10 -- 10 10.09 Computer Science 8 5 13 10.910 AMSEC 2 -- 2 2.011 Huxley College of the Environment 1 1 2 1.7

Institute of Environmental Toxicology a 1 -- 1 1.013 College of Sciences and Technology -- -- -- --

SMATE -- 1 1 0.6Institute for Watershed Studies -- -- -- --Scientific Technical Services -- -- -- --

Total 138 53 191 166.9

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from Western Washington University, dated October 16, 2013.

a: Note: The WWU Institutional Research Unit counts the Director of the Institute of Environmental Toxicology as having Environment Toxicology as his home department, no the Environmental Sciences Department.


Department Ranking by Student Credit Hours (SCH) and SCH Percent Distribution by Faculty Type

• Listed below in Table S-7 is a tally of student credit hours by department and tenure status for fall 2013.

• Based on data stored by WWU, the faculty status of the department credit hour production is calculated.

• Table S-7 shows that for many departments, for example, Chemistry and Mathematics, most department credit hours are generated by non-tenured faculty.

– In Chemistry, 50 percent of credit hour production comes from non-tenured faculty instruction. In Mathematics, it is 54 percent.

– The table shows the proportions among NT (non-tenured), TT (tenure-track), and TN (tenured) instructors, and “not reported.”

– The “not reported” category is a combination of graduate students who teach laboratories or lower division classes, the occasional staff member teaching a class, and omissions by departments to note tenure status for faculty.

Table S-7

Department Ranking by Student Credit Hours (SCH) and

SCH Percent Distribution by Faculty Type, Fall 2013

Ranking Department/UnitFall 2013

SCHNon-

TenuredTenured

Tenure Track

Not Reported

Total

1 Mathematics 18,116 54% 19% 3% 25% 100%2 Chemistry 7,934 50% 19% 23% 8% 100%3 Science Education 1,044 44% 56% 0% 0% 100%4 Computer Science 4,479 43% 43% 12% 2% 100%5 Biology 6,900 42% 45% 9% 4% 100%6 Engineering Technology 3,382 39% 44% 10% 8% 100%7 Environmental Sciences 3,346 36% 46% 4% 13% 100%8 Environmental Studies 5,454 29% 58% 2% 10% 100%9 Physics and Astronomy 5,075 27% 46% 27% 0% 100%10 Geology 3,906 17% 47% 13% 23% 100%11 Materials Science 75 16% 4% 80% 0% 100%

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from Western Washington University, dated April 15, 2014.



SPACE

Department and college space has many uses. In this section, space assigned to both colleges and

to the academic units is described. The distribution of the space is analyzed and documented.

HUXLEY COLLEGE SPACE

• Overall, both Huxley College departments, their four research institutes, and the Dean’s Office collectively enclose 36,788 ASF, as shown in Table S-8 and Figure S-2.

– To provide a sense of scale to the Huxley College space, the standalone academic departments of Engineering Technology (58,624 ASF), Biology (41,939 ASF), and Chemistry (37,964 ASF) each individually has more assigned space than the entire Huxley College departments and research institutes combined.

• Of the space in Huxley College:

– Offices are the largest space use, 38 percent (13,866 ASF).

– Research laboratories total 8,556 ASF, 23 percent.

– Class (teaching) laboratories enclose 5,825 ASF, 16 percent.

– Classrooms are 1,919 ASF, five percent.


Table S-8

Huxley College of the Environment, All Departments and Units,

Space by Room Type Code, Fall 2013

Room Type Codes

Room Type DescriptionNo. of Rooms

No. of Stations

Assignable Square Footage

% ASF Distribution

000 to 099 Non-Assignable Area 26 0 2,125 5.8%100 to 199 Classroom Facilities 2 72 1,919 5.2200 to 249 Class Laboratory Facilities 12 133 5,892 16.0250 to 299 Research Laboratory Facilities 30 75 8,556 23.3300 to 399 Office Facilities 66 146 13,866 37.7400 to 499 Library/Study Facilities 0 0 0 0.0500 to 599 Special Use Facilities 0 0 0 0.0600 to 699 General Use Facilities 0 0 0 0.0700 to 799 Support Facilities 7 0 4,430 12.0

Total 143 426 36,788 100.0%


Figure S-2

Huxley College of the Environment, All Departments and Units,

Space Distribution, Fall 2013

Classrooms (5.2%)

Class/Open Labs (16.0%)

Research Labs (23.3%)

Offices (37.7%)

Library/Study (0.0%)

Special Use (0.0%)

General Use (0.0%)

Support (12.0%)

Non-Assignable (5.8%)Offices

SupportClass Labs

Research Labs

Classrooms




COLLEGE OF SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY SPACE

• The distribution of space among the departments and units in the College of Sciences and Technology is shown in Table S-9 and Figure S-3.

• What is noteworthy about this analysis is that 55 percent of all the assignable square footage in the College of Sciences and Technology (127,421 ASF) is devoted to class and teaching laboratory facilities and support.

– Another 16 percent of all assignable square footage is dedicated to research laboratory facilities (37,386 ASF).

– In other words, more than 71 percent of all the space in the College of Sciences and Technology is in laboratory space, either teaching laboratory or research laboratory.

• Offices (45,512 ASF) account for 20 percent of CST space use.

Table S-9

College of Sciences and Technology, All Departments and Units,

Space by Room Type Code, Fall 2013

Room Type Codes


No. of Stations


% ASF Distribution

000 to 099 Non-Assignable Area 7 0 499 0.2%100 to 199 Classroom Facilities 12 261 6,528 2.8200 to 249 Class Laboratory Facilities 183 2,132 127,421 55.0250 to 299 Research Laboratory Facilities 85 298 37,386 16.2300 to 399 Office Facilities 245 478 45,512 19.7400 to 499 Library/Study Facilities 6 89 2,160 0.9500 to 599 Special Use Facilities 4 0 1,869 0.8600 to 699 General Use Facilities 8 79 2,111 0.9700 to 799 Support Facilities 16 3 8,113 3.5

Total 566 3,340 231,599 100.0%



Figure S-3

College of Sciences and Technology, All Departments and Units,

Space Distribution, Fall 2013

Classrooms (2.8%)

Class/Open Labs (55.0%)

Research Labs (16.2%)

Offices (19.7%)

Library/Study (0.9%)

Special Use (0.8%)

General Use (0.9%)

Support (3.5%)

Non-Assignable (0.2%)

Offices

Support

Class Labs

Research Labs

Classrooms


SCIENTIFIC TECHNICAL SERVICES

• Scientific Technical Services (STS) is another component of the sciences, technology, and environmental programs at Western Washington University.

• STS is a program of the Provost’s Office providing services ranging from shop operations to research support to campus instrument centers with one-of-a-kind instruments, including scanning electron microscope (SEM), high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), and atomic absorption and graphite furnace spectroscopy (AAS and GFAAS).

• STS has shop space in the basement of Bond Hall and instrument centers on the third and fifth floors of the Environmental Studies Building.

• As shown in Table S-10, STS has a total of 7,337 assignable square feet.

• The distribution of space is shown in Figure S-4.

• Nearly 90 percent of the STS space is research laboratories and support facilities.

• STS needs to keep current with equipment and technical expertise. Funding for the technical equipment has come in spurts. According to the STS Supervisor, years can pass between major equipment purchases.



Table S-10

Scientific Technical Services, Space by Room Type Code, Fall 2013

Room Type Codes


No. of Stations


% ASF Distribution

000 to 099 Non-Assignable Area 0 0 0 0.0%100 to 199 Classroom Facilities 0 0 0 0.0200 to 249 Class Laboratory Facilities 1 1 151 2.1250 to 299 Research Laboratory Facilities 4 9 1,329 18.1300 to 399 Office Facilities 4 5 679 9.2400 to 499 Library/Study Facilities 0 0 0 0.0500 to 599 Special Use Facilities 0 0 0 0.0600 to 699 General Use Facilities 0 0 0 0.0700 to 799 Support Facilities 15 4 5,178 70.6

Total 24 19 7,337 100.0%


Figure S-4

Scientific Technical Services, Space Distribution, Fall 2013

Classrooms (100-199)

Class/Open Labs (200-249)

Research Labs (250-299)

Offices (300-399)

Library/Study (400-499)

Special Use (500-599)

General Use (600-699)

Support (700-799)

Non-Assignable (000-099)

Offices

Research Labs

Class Labs

Support



Department Ranking by Total Space Measured in Assignable Square Footage (ASF)

• Engineering Technology is the department with the largest amount of assigned space with 58,624 ASF, as shown in Table S-11.

• Biology has the second largest amount of space with 41,939 ASF.

• Chemistry is the third largest with 37,964 ASF.

• Geology has 24,205 ASF.

• At the lower end of the scale:

– Environmental Studies has 11,382 ASF.

– Mathematics has 11,230 ASF.

– Environmental Sciences has 8,622 ASF.

Table S-11

Department Ranking by Total Space (ASF), Fall 2013

Ranking Department/UnitTotal Space

(ASF)

1 Engineering Technology 58,6242 Biology 41,9393 Chemistry 37,9644 Geology 24,2055 Physics and Astronomy 22,1636 SMATE 15,1987 Computer Science 15,1808 Environmental Studies 11,3829 Mathematics 11,23010 Institute of Environmental Toxicology 9,05611 Environmental Sciences 8,62212 Scientific Technical Services 7,33713 Huxley Dean’s Office 4,94514 Institute for Watershed Studies 2,78315 CST Dean’s Office 2,56616 AMSEC 2,530

Total 275,724


• This is shown graphically for the departments in Figure S-5 by rank and Figure S-6 by distribution of space type.



Figure S-5

Department Ranking by Total Space (ASF), Fall 2013

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

EngineeringTechnology

Biology Chemistry Geology Physics andAstronomy

ComputerScience

EnvironmentalStudies

Mathematics EnvironmentalSciences

Ass

igna

ble

Squ

are

Fee

t


Figure S-6

Department Distribution of Space by Room Type (ASF), Fall 2013

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Biology Chemistry ComputerScience


Geology Mathematics Physics andAstronomy

EnvironmentalSciences


Ass

igna

ble

Squ

are

Fee

t

Non-Assignable

Support

General Use

Special Use

Library/Study

Offices

Research Labs

Class Labs

Classrooms

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from Western Washington University, dated October 8, 2013


Department Ranking by Research Space

• One of the hallmarks of WWU is the importance of undergraduate research.

• Chemistry has the largest inventory of research space of any department with 14,190 ASF. Chemistry also has the highest percentage of research space as a percentage of its total space, 37 percent, and the highest amount of research space per student major at 120 ASF per student, as shown in Table S-12.

• Biology has the second highest amount of research space with 11,069 ASF and 44 ASF per student major.

• Geology has the third largest amount of research space with 5,563 ASF and 35 ASF per student major.

• Physics and Astronomy has the fourth highest amount with 3,786 ASF and 29 ASF per student major.

• Environmental Sciences has 3,067 ASF of research space, which is 36 percent of all space in the department, and provides 18 ASF of research space per student major.

• At the lower end of the scale, Computer Science has 642 ASF and Environmental Studies has 621 ASF of research space, generating four ASF per student and three ASF per student major respectively. Mathematics has no space devoted to research.

Table S-12

Department Ranking by Research Space (ASF), Fall 2013

Ranking Department/UnitResearch

Space (ASF)

Research Space as a Percentage of

All Department Space

Research Space (ASF) per Major

1 Chemistry 14,190 37.4% 1202 Biology 11,069 26.4% 443 Geology 5,563 23.0% 354 Physics and Astronomy 3,786 17.1% 295 Environmental Sciences 3,067 35.6% 186 Institute of Environmental Toxicology 2,899 32.0% --7 Engineering Technology 2,136 3.6% 78 Institute for Watershed Studies 1,366 49.1% --9 Scientific Technical Services 1,329 18.1% --10 Computer Science 642 4.2% 411 Environmental Studies 621 5.5% 312 Huxley Dean's Office 603 -- --13 Mathematics -- -- --

Total 47,271




Department Ranking of Total Assignable Square Footage Space per Undergraduate Major

• Another gauge of space allocation is based on space per enrolled student, using student majors as the metric, as shown in Table S-13.

– This metric was also calculated as part of the space benchmark analysis.

– All CST departments, on average, have more space per student major in comparison to the seven benchmark campuses, except for Geology and Mathematics.

• Excluding Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education (SMATE), which is classified as a CST research center and has the largest amount of space per undergraduate major at nearly 608 ASF, Chemistry has the largest amount of space per student at a total of 322 ASF per student.

• Engineering Technology is second at 196 ASF.

• Physics and Astronomy is third at 169 ASF.


– Environmental Studies has 62 ASF per undergraduate student major.

– Environmental Sciences has 51 ASF per undergraduate student major.

Table S-13

Department Ranking by ASF per Undergraduate Major, Fall 2013

Ranking Department/UnitWWU ASF per Undergraduate

Major

Benchmark Average

ASF per Major

-- SMATE 607.9 --1 Chemistry 321.7 202.62 Engineering Technology 196.1 39.23 Physics and Astronomy 169.2 169.44 Biology 163.8 50.65 Geology 151.3 184.06 Computer Science 90.4 17.97 Mathematics 66.4 81.18 Environmental Studies 62.2 --9 Environmental Sciences 51.0 --

Average 146.9 71.0



Department Ranking by ASF per Full-Time Faculty Headcount

• Another useful gauge of space is assignable square footage per faculty, which is shown in Table S-14.

– In comparison to the benchmark campuses, all CST departments have more space per faculty, except for Chemistry and Mathematics. The Chemistry benchmark campuses included two campuses ranked by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education with large research programs. One was a Doctorate/Research University (DRU); the other was a Research University/High Research Activity (RU/H).

• Calculating ASF per full-time faculty is the space benchmark analysis measurement used in this study.

• Engineering Technology is the unit with the largest amount of ASF per full-time faculty at 4,855 ASF per faculty.

• Physics and Astronomy is the second largest unit with an average of 2,216 ASF per full-time faculty.

• Geology is the third largest department with 2,200 ASF per full-time faculty.

• Chemistry is the fourth highest with 2,109 ASF per full-time faculty.


– Environmental Studies has 876 ASF per full-time faculty.

– Environmental Sciences has 784 ASF per full-time faculty.

– Mathematics has 374 ASF per full-time faculty.

Table S-14

Department Ranking by ASF per Full-Time Faculty Headcount, Fall 2012

Ranking Department/UnitWWU ASF per

Full-Time Faculty Headcount

Benchmark ASF per Full-Time Faculty Headcount

1 Engineering Technology 4,885 1,3472 Physics and Astronomy 2,216 1,4783 Geology 2,196 2,0344 Chemistry 2,109 2,3895 Biology 1,979 1,8686 Computer Science 1,898 4907 Environmental Studies 876 --8 Environmental Sciences 784 --9 Mathematics 372 480

Average 1,722 1,394




BENCHMARK ANALYSIS RESULTS, SPACE PER FACULTY

• Space benchmarking is a methodology to quantify academic or other program space among similar colleges or universities and compare their quantity of space by using a measure of space per faculty by department.1 This section describes the space benchmark analysis conducted for this study and presents the results.

Overall Assignable Square Footage per Faculty

• The overall results of the benchmark analysis are summarized in Table S-15 below.

• Data on square footage per faculty for the seven peer institutions included in the WWU space benchmark study are shown for each of the seven WWU College of Sciences and Technology departments and the two Huxley College of the Environment departments. These departments include:

– Biology

– Chemistry

– Computer Science

– Engineering Technology

– Geology

– Mathematics

– Physics and Astronomy

– Environmental Sciences

– Environmental Studies (Benchmark data was not available)

• The benchmark institutions were asked to provide faculty counts, including regular, full-time, tenure-track, ladder rank faculty, but excluding research assistants, post-docs, adjuncts, instructors, etc.

• The first numerical column in Table S-15 describes the assignable square footage per faculty member by department at WWU.

• The second column describes the assignable square footage per faculty member at the seven benchmark institutions.

• The third column describes the range of values from the institution with the smallest amount of assignable square footage per faculty member by department to the institution with the largest amount.

1 Ira Fink. “Benchmarking: A New Approach to Space Planning.” Planning for Higher Education. Vol. 17, No. 3. (Spring 1999), pp. 9-18.


Table S-15

Overall Average Assignable Square Footage per Full-Time Faculty

at Comparative Universities


Benchmark AverageLow to High

Range

College/School ASF per FT Faculty ASF per FT Faculty ASF per FT Faculty

Biology 1,979 1,868 1,028 – 2,298

Chemistry 2,109 2,389 1,749 – 3,784

Computer Science 1,898 490 179 – 761

Engineering Technology 4,885 1,347 1,175 – 1,434

Geology 2,196 2,034 1,764 – 2,552

Mathematics 372 480 303 – 708

Physics and Astronomy 2,216 1,478 898 – 2,238

Environmental Sciences 784 1,811 967 – 4,980

Environmental Studies 876 --

Campus Total/Average Academic Units 1,722 1,394


• The benchmark campuses include:

– College of Charleston

– James Madison University

– Northern Arizona University

– Truman State University

– University of North Carolina at Charlotte

– University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire

– University of Wisconsin-La Crosse

Space Benchmark Analysis Results

• A graphic representation summarizing the space benchmark study is shown in Figure S-7 and Figure S-8.

– As shown in Figure S-7 and Table S-15, for many of the departments there is little variation in the range or spread of square footage per faculty member among the seven comparative benchmark institutions.



Figure S-7

Space Comparison by Faculty, College of Sciences and Technology

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Biology Chemistry ComputerScience


Geology Mathematics Physics andAstronomy

Ass

igna

ble

Squ

are

Fee

t pe

rF

ull-

Tim

e H

eadc

oun

t F

acul

ty

Department

WWUSpace perFaculty

BenchmarkAverageSpace perFaculty

Benchmark Campus Range High to Low Space per Faculty


Figure S-8

Space Comparison by Faculty, Huxley College of the Environment

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

EnvironmentalSciences


Ass

igna

ble

Squ

are

Fee

t pe

rF

ull-

Tim

e H

eadc

oun

t F

acul

ty

Department

WWUSpace perFaculty

BenchmarkAverageSpace perFaculty

Benchmark Campus Range High to Low Space per Faculty



– Almost all CST departments, with the exception of Engineering Technology and Mathematics, have an average of 2,000 ± ASF per faculty. Among the two Huxley College departments, the average is 800 + ASF per faculty.

– For Huxley College, there were no comparable programs with which to create a benchmark for the Environmental Studies Department.

• Summary information on space by department for WWU and the seven benchmark campuses is shown in Table S-16.

Complete Benchmark Study Results

• Appendix B has complete detailed information on the space benchmark study.

– This includes a detailed narrative description of the peer comparison campus space benchmark study in Appendix B, Section XI.

• Appendix B also provides data on the benchmark study contained in Sections X, XII, XIII, and XIV.

– Appendix B, Section X describes the basic Carnegie Foundation Classification Methodology.

– Appendix B, Section XII displays the detailed benchmark analysis tables, by academic discipline.

– Appendix B, Section XIII provides the space and faculty data provided by each peer benchmark campus.

– Appendix B, Section XIV provides discipline specific R2 linear regression of space (ASF) by faculty.



Table S-16

Western Washington University, Space Benchmark Analysis by Faculty

(Excluding non-assignable [000] and residential [900] space)

Wes

tern

W

ash

ing

ton

U

niv

ersi

ty

Co

lleg

e o

f C

har

lest

on

Jam

es M

adis

on

U

niv

ersi

ty

No

rth

ern

A

rizo

na

Un

iver

sity

Tru

man

Sta

te

Un

iver

sity

Un

iver

sity

of

No

rth

Car

olin

a at

Ch

arlo

tte

Un

iver

sity

of

Wis

con

sin

- Ea

u C

lair

e

Un

iver

sity

of

Wis

con

sin

- La

Cro

sse

Ave

rag

e

BiologyTotal ASF 41,557 66,101 45,229 77,471 52,851 42,234 37,078 84,428 57,913Total Faculty 21 32 44 41 23 21 18 38 31ASF/Faculty 1,979 2,066 1,028 1,890 2,298 2,011 2,060 2,222 1,868

ChemistryTotal ASF 37,964 35,389 39,042 71,958 36,555 52,970 28,564 43,727 44,029Total Faculty 18 14 22 20 18 14 16 25 18ASF/Faculty 2,109 2,528 1,775 3,598 2,031 3,784 1,785 1,749 2,389

Computer ScienceTotal ASF 15,180 6,084 8,294 -- 3,606 14,588 4,496 1,608 6,446Total Faculty 8 8 16 -- 6 33 7 9 13ASF/Faculty 1,898 761 518 -- 601 442 642 179 490

Engineering TechnologyTotal ASF 58,624 -- 18,293 60,230 -- 30,562 -- -- 36,362Total Faculty 12 -- 13 42 -- 26 -- -- 27ASF/Faculty 4,885 -- 1,407 1,434 -- 1,175 -- -- 1,347

GeologyTotal ASF 24,153 24,230 -- 45,944 2,013 38,977 8,820 -- 23,997Total Faculty 11 13 -- 18 1 22 5 -- 12ASF/Faculty 2,196 1,864 -- 2,552 2,013 1,772 1,764 -- 2,034

MathematicsTotal ASF 11,165 15,544 15,545 26,194 13,247 18,405 8,496 12,572 15,715Total Faculty 30 28 47 37 22 40 28 27 33ASF/Faculty 372 555 331 708 602 460 303 466 480

Physics and AstronomyTotal ASF 22,163 15,733 16,171 26,057 14,198 30,333 13,306 24,620 20,060Total Faculty 10 14 18 15 7 18 12 11 14ASF/Faculty 2,216 1,124 898 1,737 2,028 1,685 1,109 2,238 1,478

Environmental SciencesTotal ASF 8,622 -- 14,498 19,918 -- -- -- -- 17,208Total Faculty 11 -- 15 4 -- -- -- -- 10ASF/Faculty 784 -- 967 4,980 -- -- -- -- 1,811

Environmental StudiesTotal ASF 11,382 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Total Faculty 13 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --ASF/Faculty 876 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --



SPACE PROJECTIONS

This section provides the space projections tables for the eight space projections scenarios developed

for this study.

Planning Assumptions

• The following planning assumptions form the basis for the space projections scenarios.

– Western Washington University will remain fairly level in enrollment.

- Overall enrollment growth at WWU will be slow.

- Total enrollment campus wide will remain at approximately 15,000.

– Net additional new faculty in the sciences, technology, and environment will be in the range of ten faculty over the next decade.

- Many of the faculty searches currently underway are associated with retirements and other needs that have built up over the past five or so years.

- Generalized faculty growth projections from the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs are as follows:

+ Biology, one faculty

+ Chemistry, one faculty

+ Computer Science, four faculty (in addition to one new position in 2012-13)

+ Engineering Technology (Engineering), four faculty

+ Mathematics, one faculty

+ Physics and Astronomy, one faculty

+ Environmental Sciences, one faculty

+ Environmental Studies, one faculty

• The summary results for each scenario are shown in Table S-17.

Scenarios

• Scenario 1: Faculty growth according to the Provost and the 2013 ASF per full-time faculty, as shown in Table S-17.

– Faculty

- Faculty growth according to the Provost from 2013 to 2018.

- Faculty kept constant from 2018 to 2023.



– Space

- Space growth is projected for CST for 2018 and 2023 using the 2013 WWU ASF per full-time faculty factor.

- Space growth for Huxley College would match the average square footage per faculty of all CST departments excluding Engineering Technology.

• Scenario 2: Faculty growth according to the Provost. Space projection is the greater of either the 2013 ASF per full-time faculty or the benchmark average ASF per full-time faculty.

– Faculty

- Faculty growth according to the Provost from 2013 to 2018.

- Faculty kept constant from 2018 to 2023.

– Space

- CST space growth is projected for 2018 and 2023 using the greater of the following two factors:

+ The 2013 WWU ASF per full-time faculty.

+ The 2013 benchmark average ASF per full-time faculty.


• Scenario 3: Faculty growth of at least two per department over the next ten years. Space projection is based on the 2013 ASF per full-time faculty.

– Faculty

- Faculty growth from 2013 to 2018 of either (whichever is greater):

+ Faculty growth according to the Provost from 2013 to 2018.

+ Faculty growth of one per department.

- Faculty growth from 2018 to 2023 of one per department.

– Space

- CST space growth is projected for 2018 and 2023 using the 2013 WWU ASF per full-time faculty factor.



• Scenario 4: Faculty growth of at least five per department over the next ten years. Space projection is based on the 2013 ASF per full-time faculty.

– Faculty

- Faculty growth from 2013 to 2018 of either (whichever is greater):

+ Faculty growth according to the Provost from 2013 to 2018.

+ Faculty growth of two per department.

- Faculty growth from 2018 to 2023 so that total faculty growth from 2013 to 2023 equals five additional faculty per department.

– Space

- CST space growth is projected for 2018 and 2023 using the 2013 WWU ASF per full-time faculty factor.


• Scenario 5: Projected student enrollment using a least squares criterion linear regression of enrollment for the years 2003 through 2013. Space projection is the greater of either the 2008 ASF per undergraduate major or the 2013 ASF per undergraduate major.

– Students

- Student enrollment growth for 2018 and 2023 using a linear regression of enrollment by department from 2003 to 2013.

– Space

- CST space growth is projected for 2018 and 2023 using the greater of the following two factors:

+ The 2008 WWU ASF per undergraduate major.


- Space growth for Huxley College would match the average square footage per undergraduate major of all CST departments excluding Engineering Technology.

• Scenario 6: No projected student enrollment growth. Space projection is the greater of either the 2013 ASF per undergraduate major or the benchmark average ASF per undergraduate major.

– Students

- No enrollment growth.



– Space

- CST Space growth is projected for 2018 and 2023 using the greater of the following two factors:


+ The 2013 benchmark average ASF per undergraduate major.


• Scenario 7: Projected student enrollment using a least squares criterion linear regression of enrollment for the years 2003 through 2013. Space projection is based on the greater of either the 2013 ASF per undergraduate major or the benchmark average ASF per undergraduate major.

– Students

- Student enrollment growth for 2018 and 2023 using a linear regression of enrollment by department from 2003 to 2013.

– Space

- CST space growth projected for 2018 and 2023 using the greater of the following two factors:


+ The 2013 benchmark average ASF per undergraduate major.


• Scenario 8: Projected space needs are those identified by department or unit chair, as described during the interview with the department chair or unit director.

• All projections were made individually be department or unit and are shown in assignable square feet. With the exception of Scenario 8, space projections are shown in separate totals for the College of Sciences and Technology and the Huxley College of the Environment, as well as combined.


Table S-17

Space Projections Summary Totals

Assignable Square Footage2018 Huxley CST STS Combined

Existing Space (2013) 36,788 231,599 7,337 275,724

Scenario 1 (2018) 68,802 266,627 9,137 344,566

Scenario 2 (2018) 68,802 275,221 9,137 353,160

Scenario 3 (2018) 68,802 268,828 9,137 346,767

Scenario 4 (2018) 71,908 277,725 9,137 358,770

Scenario 5 (2018) 98,952 341,372 9,137 449,461

Scenario 6 (2018) 81,928 240,493 9,137 331,558

Scenario 7 (2018) 98,952 279,217 9,137 387,306

Scenario 8 (2018) 54,288 245,999 9,137 309,424

Assignable Square Footage2023 Huxley CST STS Combined

Existing Space (2013) 36,788 231,599 7,337 275,724

Scenario 1 (2023) 68,802 266,627 9,137 344,566

Scenario 2 (2023) 68,802 275,221 9,137 353,160

Scenario 3 (2023) 71,908 284,508 9,137 365,553

Scenario 4 (2023) 81,226 311,200 9,137 401,563

Scenario 5 (2023) 110,808 384,233 9,137 504,178

Scenario 6 (2023) 81,928 240,493 9,137 331,558

Scenario 7 (2023) 110,808 307,318 9,137 427,263

Scenario 8 (2023) 54,288 245,999 9,137 309,424




Table S-18

Description of Space Needs by Department

Name of Department

Name of BuildingNo. of Rooms

ASFDepartment Identified Space Needs

Biology BIGH

Biology BuildingBiology Greenhouse

1154

40,0701,869

Offices for new hires, shared equipment space, prep rooms, support space, office space for post-docs, AC rooms to house a –80° freezer

Chemistry CBSL

Chemistry BuildingSMATE (Science Lecture III)

811

37,824140

Carrying capacity based on instructional lab space, analytical lab holds 32 but limit is 25, pinched for research space in the summer

Computer Science

CF Communications Facility 47 15,180 Space for all tenure track faculty, larger conference room, one classroom, two labs, faculty offices

Engineering Technology

ESFIET

Environmental Studies CenterFine Arts BuildingRoss Engineering Technology

63

100

2,3924,369

51,863

Space useful for labs are full, other space is inflexible and hard to re-purpose, saturation on lab space, separate research space from teaching space

Geology AHES

Arntzen HallEnvironmental Studies Center

165

11924,086

Space for mass spectrometer, space for scanning electron microscope, bad HVAC, horrible windows, individual and group research space, smaller offices

Mathematics BH Bond Hall 58 11,230 Needs more space overall

Physics and Astronomy

CFHH

Communications FacilityHaggard Hall

461

21,355808

Research labs, space for new hires, space for experiments, office space at capacity, student space for study and socialization

AMSEC ES Environmental Studies Center 7 2,530 More instrumentation, additional space

SMATE SL SMATE (Science Lecture III) 20 15,198 Learning environments that support active, student centered learning, goal to use existing space most effectively, create more effective teaching/learning environments

CST Dean’s Office

AHBHSL

Arntzen HallBond HallSMATE (Science Lecture III)

191

1202,254

192


Table S-18 (continued)

Description of Space Needs by Department Name of Department

Name of BuildingNo. of Rooms

ASF Space Needs

Environmental Sciences

ES Environmental Studies Center 32 8,622 Research space for new faculty, lab space, space for non-tenure track, at capacity

Environmental Studies

AHES

Arntzen HallEnvironmental Studies Center

392

10,2581,124

Office space, research space, room for graduate students to work, proximity

Institute for Energy Studies

Administrative space, class labs, research labs, collaborative faculty office, centralized space

Institute for Watershed Studies

ES Environmental Studies Center 13 2,783 At capacity, space to add people, lab space, better space, access to equipment, new facility

Institute of Environmental Toxicology

ESHRHBHA

Environmental Studies CenterHannegan Rd--Envir.Ctr./LabHannegan Road Metal BuildingHannegan Road Residence

1231

26

2,9761,5552,4002,125

Space and infrastructure for larger projects, space for graduate students to do write-ups

Resilience Institute

Close to Environmental Studies Center, separation of work and collaborative space, group work station, hub location for all instructions to be collocated, central administration, central conference, central social space

Spatial Institute Better server space, offices for Ph.D. level faculty

Huxley Dean’s office

ESVC

Environmental Studies CenterViking Commons

141

4,559386

Scientific Technical Services

BHES

Bond HallEnvironmental Studies Center

177

5,5431,794

Space for new instruments and replacement instruments – field emission electron microscope, liquid chromatograph/mass spectrometer, gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on interviews with department chairs.

Note: The off-campus Hannegan Road space shown as part of the space assigned to the Huxley College Institute of Environmental Toxicology was in the WWU room space database, but is no longer a university property.



CLASS LABORATORY AND RESEARCH LABORATORY ASSESSMENT

• To assess the quality of class (teaching) laboratories and research laboratories and related support spaces, a field visual assessment of 108 separate laboratory rooms was conducted and an assessment made by Design for Science. No engineering analysis of the rooms or testing of equipment was included. This section summarizes the results. The complete analysis is included in Appendix B, Section XIV.

Laboratory Assessment Report

• The purpose of the laboratory assessment was to provide a broad review of laboratory capability across all departments in science, technology, and environment and related research units.

• The assessment report was prepared by Glen Berry, Principal of Design for Science, who conducted the laboratory assessment.

• Laboratories and support spaces were graded on a scale from A–Optimum to E–Unsatisfactory.

– In the College of Sciences and Technology, nearly all laboratory spaces were rated as Optimum.

– In the Environmental Studies Building and in Arntzen Hall, the laboratories were generally rated Fair, Poor, or Unsatisfactory, with the exception of the new Advanced Materials Science and Engineering Center (AMSEC), which are rated as Optimum, although the Environmental Studies Building in which AMSEC is located is not an optimum facility.

– Overall, 63 percent of the laboratories and support space were rated as Optimum, as shown in Table S-19.

– Approximately 19 percent were rated as Adequate.

– The remaining 18 percent of the laboratories were classified as Fair, Poor, or Unsatisfactory. This includes more than 80 percent of laboratory support space visited in the Environmental Studies Building.


Table S-19

Laboratory Assessment Summary

Building Name Floor

No. of Labs

Visited A. O

pti

mu

m

B. A

deq

uat

e

C. F

air

D. P

oo

r

E. U

nsa

tisf

acto

ry

Arntzen Hall Basement 3 67% 33%

Biology Building Second 6 100%Biology Building Third 6 100%Biology Building Fourth 8 100%

Biology Greenhouse 3 100%

Bond Hall Basement 4 100%Bond Hall Second 1 100%Bond Hall Fourth 1 100%

Chemistry Building First 3 100%Chemistry Building Second 7 100%Chemistry Building Third 6 100%Chemistry Building Fourth 5 100%

Communications Facility Basement 7 100%Communications Facility Third 9 100%Communications Facility Fourth 3 100%

Environmental Studies Building Basement 2 50% 50%Environmental Studies Building Ground 5 40% 20% 40%Environmental Studies Building First 7 29% 71%Environmental Studies Building Third 5 40% 60%Environmental Studies Building Fifth 3 33% 67%

Ross Engineering Building First 8 100%Ross Engineering Building Third 3 100%

SMATE Building Second 3 100%_______ _______ _______ _______ _______

Overall Average 63% 19% 3% 11% 4%

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on analysis prepared by Design for Science.



Appendix Table A-1

Western Washington University, Headcount Enrollment

Fall 2003

Fall 2004

Fall 2005

Fall 2006

Fall 2007

Fall 2008

Fall 2009

Fall 2010

Fall 2011

Fall 2012

Fall 2013

Freshman 2,829 3,015 3,050 2,979 3,195 3,335 3,287 3,228 3,239 3,237 3,249Sophomore 2,221 2,113 2,206 2,436 2,397 2,550 2,673 2,687 2,569 2,659 2,737Junior 3,650 3,891 3,703 3,426 3,601 3,354 3,418 3,717 3,607 3,588 3,660Senior 3,632 3,665 3,858 3,870 3,774 3,997 3,871 4,021 4,270 4,317 4,279Post Bac 461 474 417 351 397 410 393 413 338 280 259Masters 834 778 752 743 693 730 705 694 661 594 605PostMasters 73 76 76 103 87 74 81 63 60 57 60Non-Matric 145 178 187 127 132 170 147 156 98 101 101

Total 13,845 14,190 14,249 14,035 14,276 14,620 14,575 14,979 14,842 14,833 14,950

Source: Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., based on data from Western Washington University, dated February 18, 2014.


This page is intentionally left blank.

Documents

Western Washington University · PDF fileWestern Washington University Western Washington University ... Ira Fink and Associates, Inc. S-1 Huxley College of the Environment, Student