Right Questions Survey: Analysis Results
A survey was administered to the faculty and staff of SUNY ESF during April 2014 in order to solicit opinions and concerns about pressing environmental issues, university strengths and weaknesses, and other universities that stand as leaders with regard to top environmental priorities.
Survey questions were primarily open-ended in nature, though character limits were put in place to limit the length of most responses. The result of using open-ended questions in the survey is the availability of a broader, richer spectrum of answers than would likely have been uncovered if respondents were only allowed to choose from pre-selected options.
• 240 people (faculty and staff) completed at least some portion of the survey
◦ 123 Faculty members
▪ 64.2% of faculty respondents completed the Opportunity & Challenge section (i.e.
questions 2, 3, & 4 -- upon which some subsequent questions are based) of the survey
◦ 117 Staff members
▪ 55.6% of staff respondents completed the Opportunity & Challenge section of the survey
Responses to open-ended survey questions were first coded by number of distinct themes present in each answer. Themes were then matched in order to eliminate redundancy, and thematic categories of response were created. This process allowed for the categorization of the full spectrum of an individual's response to a question, and allowed for a quantification of qualitative data.

Respondents were asked to list the 3 greatest opportunities and/or challenges to
Environmental Science & Sustainability within 10 years:
Results for all respondents (staff and faculty) -- based on weighted composite scores
• Respondents regard climate change (and associated action) to be the biggest challenge to
ES and sustainability over the next 10 years
◦ 54 times ranked in the top 3, including 19 respondents who ranked it #1
• Issues related to water resources (water quality, quantity, allocation, etc.) rank as a strong second in regard to perceived challenges for ES and sustainability in the next 10 years
◦ 36 times ranked in the top 3, including 16 respondents who ranked it #1
• Energy issues (including consumption, conservation, efficiency, and dwindling resources) comprise the third highest ranked category of concern for respondents (Does not include issues related to Renewable Energy, which is treated as a distinct category)
◦ 24 times ranked in the top 3, including 11 respondents who ranked it #1
• Top 10 challenges/opportunities: Results for all faculty and staff (see Figure 1)
1. Climate Change (Score: 113)
2. Water Resources (Score: 81)
3. Energy (Score: 62)
4. Science Literacy (Score: 38)
5. Population Growth (Score: 37)
6. Renewable Energy (Score: 34)
7. Biodiversity (Score: 33)
8. Tie: Sustainable Management of Resources; Food Resources (Score: 21)
9. Environmental Protection and Functionality (Score: 20)
10. Economic Growth vs. Environmental Protection (Score: 16)
Figure 1.
120
100
Greatest Opportunity or Challenge to Environmental Science
& Sustainability (within 10 years): Combined Faculty & Staff Responses
(by weighted composite score)
113
80
60
40
81
62
20
0
Climate
Change
W ater
Resources
Energy
38
Science
Literacy
37
34 33
21 21 20
16
Population
Growth
Renewable
Energy
Them e
Biodiversity Sustainable
Management of Resources
Food
Resources
Environmental
Protection &
Functionality
Economic
Growth vs.
Environmental
Protection

40
30
20
10
0
70
60
50
Top 10 Challenges & Opportunities: Results for faculty respondents only (See Figure 2)
1. Climate Change (Score: 60)
2. Water Resources (Score: 48)
3. Energy (Score: 26)
4. Biodiversity (Score: 23)
5. Science Literacy (Score: 19)
6. Environmental Protection & Functionality (Score: 16)
7. Population Growth (Score: 15)
8. Tie: Sustainable Management of Resources; Food Resources (Score: 13)
9. Renewable Energy (Score: 11)
10. Economic Growth vs. Environmental Protection (Score: 10)
Figure 2.
Greatest Opportunity or Challenge to Environmental Science
& Sustainability (within 10 years): Faculty Responses
(by weighted composite score)
60
48
26
23
19
16
15
13 13
11 10
Climate
Change
W ater
Resources
Energy Biodiversity Science
Literacy
Environmental
Protection &
Functionality
Population
Growth
Sustainable
Management of Resources
Food
Resources
Renewable
Energy
Economic
Growth vs.
Environmental
Protection
Them e

Top 10 Challenges & Opportunities: Results for staff respondents only (see Figure 3)
1. Climate Change (Score: 53)
2. Water Resources (Score: 33)
3. Energy (Score: 29)
4. Renewable Energy (Score: 23)
5. Population Growth (Score: 22)
6. Science Literacy (Score: 19)
7. Overconsumption and Resource Scarcity (Score: 11)
8. Biodiversity (Score: 10)
9. Separation from Nature/Reconnect with Nature (Score: 9)
10. Tie: Sustainable Management of Resources; Food Resources (Score: 8)
Figure 3.
Greatest Opportunity or Challenge to Environmental Science
& Sustainability (within 10 years): Staff Responses
(by weighted composite score)
60
50
40
53
30
20
10
0
33
Climate
Change
W ater
Resources
29
Energy
23
22
19
11
8 8
10
9
Renewable
Energy
Population
Growth
Science
Literacy
OverSustainable consumption
& Resource
Scarcity
Management of Resources
Food
Resources
Biodiversity Separation from Nature /
Reconnect with Nature
Them e

Respondents were asked to indicate whether ESF has a record of strength in regard to the top 3 areas indicated in the previous section (see Figure 4):
• 41% of respondents indicate that ESF has a record of strength in regard to the issue they individually perceived as the top challenge to sustainability
◦ Of those who selected Climate Change as one of the three largest challenges (n = 54),
37% indicated that ESF currently has a record of strength in studying or addressing the issue
• 35% of respondents indicate that ESF has a record of strength in regard to the issue they individually perceived as the second greatest challenge to sustainability
• 30% of respondents indicate that ESF has a record of strength in regard to the issue they individually perceived as the third greatest challenge to sustainability
Figure 4.
3rd Priority
2nd Priority
1st Priority
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
% of Respondents Answering in the Affirmative
35 40 45

Respondents were asked to indicate those areas of expertise they feel are lacking at ESF:
• Survey respondents indicate that ESF needs additional social science faculty, applied social science, and social science added to the general curriculum at ESF (16 respondents indicated this need).
• Many respondents (14) also indicate that ESF was already well-positioned to tackle complex issues, with the necessary expertise already being in place
• The third most common response (8) focuses on the fact that ESF needs to do a better job of harnessing interdepartmental synergies, and to bring together expertise from multiple disciplines within the university
• Top 10 areas that need to be addressed according to all respondents (see Figure 5)
1. Social Science -- 6.8% of responses
2. ESF already in good shape -- 5.9% of responses
3. Interdepartmental synergy & Interdisciplinarity -- 3.4% of responses
4. Philosophy of Science & Environmental Ethics -- 3% of responses
5. ESF is too small / lacks critical mass -- 2.1% of responses
6. Communication -- 2.1% of responses
7. Science education -- 1.7% of responses
8. Climatology / Atmospheric science -- 1.7% of responses
9. Political Science -- 1.7% of responses
10. Psychology / Social Psychology -- 1.7% of responses
Figure 5.
5.9
6.8
3.4
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
2.1
2.1
3
Social Science
Interdepartm ental Synergy &
Interdisciplinarity
ESF is too sm all / lacks critical m ass
Science Education
Political Science
ESF already in good shape
Philosophy of Science &
Environm ental Ethics
Com m unication
Clim atology / Atm ospheric science
Psychology / Social Psychology

Respondents were asked to indicate ESF's strongest fields:
• Overwhelmingly, survey respondents indicate that various types of Biology (dominated by Conservation Biology -- see Table 1 for other components) represent ESF's strongest field of research (54)
• Chemistry (see Table 2 for individual components) is seen as the second greatest strength at ESF (29)
• Engineering (see Table 3 for individual components) is the third-ranked field in this category (23)
• Top 10 strongest fields of research at ESF according to all respondents (287 total responses -- multiple answers per respondent) (see Figure 6)
1. Biology (multiple areas) -- 18.8% of responses
2. Chemistry (multiple areas) -- 10.1% of responses
3. Engineering (multiple areas) -- 8% of responses
4. Forestry & Forest Management -- 7.7% of responses
5. Ecology (multiple areas) -- 7% of responses
6. Wildlife Conservation & Management -- 5.6% of responses
7. Natural Resources Management -- 4.9% of responses
8. Water Resources Management -- 4.5% of responses
9. Landscape Architecture -- 4.5% of responses
10. Paper Science & Paper Engineering -- 3.1% of responses
Figure 6.
(by % of responses)
18.8
10.1
8
3.1
4.5
4.5
4.9
5.6
7
7.7
Biology
Engineering
Ecology
Chem istry
Forestry & Forest Managm ent
Wildlife Conservation &
Managem ent
Natural Resources Managem ent Water Resources Managem ent
Landscape Architecture Paper science & Paper engineering

Category Conservation
Biology
Biology Environmental
Biology
Fish &
Wildlife
Biology
Organismal
Biology
Field
Biology
Forest
Biology
Plant
Biology
# of
Responses
20 12 5 5 4 4 2 1
Microbiology
1
Category Chemistry Environmental
Chemistry
Biogeochemistry/
Ecological
Biogeochemistry
Geochemistry Nomura's work in chemistry
Aquatic
Chemistry
Plant Biochemistry
# of
Responses
14 6 4 1 1 1 1
Biochemistry
Innovation
1
Category Engineering/
ERE
Bioprocess
Engineering/
Bioprocessing
Environmental Engineering/
Environmental Process
Engineering
Wood Products
Science/ Wood
Products Engineering
Water Resources
Engineering
# of
Responses
7 7 6 2 1

Respondents were asked to indicate the fields/academic areas most closely identified with the ESF brand:
• Biology (see Table 4 for individual components) is seen as the field most closely identified with ESF (55)
• Forestry is ranked as a close second (51), though several respondents expressed disappointment that ESF was still thought of as 'only a forestry school' and indicated that such a designation was unfortunate and no longer appropriate
• Ecology (see Table 5 for individual components) was a distantly-ranked third (22)
◦ Top 10 academic areas that all respondents believe are most closely identified with
ESF (see Figure 7)
1. Biology (multiple areas) -- 16.8% of responses
2. Forestry -- 15.6% of responses
3. Ecology (multiple areas) -- 6.7% of responses
4. Environmental Science -- 5.8% of responses
5. Natural Resources & Natural Resources Management -- 4.3% of responses
6. Wildlife Conservation & Management -- 4% of responses
7. Sustainability -- 3.1% of responses
8. Landscape Architecture -- 2.4% of responses
9. Conservation & Environmental Preservation -- 2.1% of responses
10. Water Science & Water Resource Management -- 2.1% of responses
Figure 7.
(by % of responses)
16.8
15.6
2.1
2.1
2.4
3.1
4
4.3
5.8
6.7
Biology
Forestry
Ecology
Environm ental Science
Natural Resources & Nat. Resources Mgm t
Wildlife Conservation & Managem ent
Sustainability
Landscape Architecture

Category Conservation
Biology
Biology Environmental
Biology
Wildlife
Biology
Organismal
Biology
Field
Biology
Forest
Biology
# of
Responses
17 10 9 8 1 5 4
Plant
Biology
1
Category Ecology Conservation
Ecology
Forest
Ecology
Wildlife
Ecology
Aquatic
Ecology
Tropical
Ecology
# of
Responses
8 2 3 4 3 1
Restoration
Ecology
1

Respondents were asked to list the top values that are most present at ESF:
• Sustainability, including sustainable development and social sustainability, is seen by respondents as the top value that ESF either has or should have as a guiding principle
(31).
• Environmental Education, Teaching, and Knowledge Sharing is ranked second by the survey respondents (22).
• A value centered on custodianship, conservation of resources, and reducing consumption of resources was ranked third by respondents (18).
• Top 10 values that all respondents believe ESF has or should have (see Figure 8):
1. Sustainability (in various forms) -- 9.2% of responses
2. Environmental Education, Teaching & Knowledge Sharing -- 6.5% of responses
3. Custodianship, Conservation of Resources, and Reduced Consumption of
Resources -- 5.3% of responses
4. Outreach and Community Engagement -- 4.7% of responses
5. Environmental Stewardship & Respect for the Environment -- 4.5% of responses
6. Collaboration and Collective Responsibility/Participation -- 4.2% of responses
7. Conservation -- 4.2% of responses
8. Scientific & Academic Integrity -- 3.9% of responses
9. Reduce Impacts on the Environment / Restore the Environment -- 3.6% of responses
10. Scholarship, Research, & Dispassionate Inquiry -- 3.6% of responses
Figure 8.
(by % of responses)
6.5
5.3
9.5
4.7
3.6
3.6
4.5
3.9
4.2
4.2
Sustainability
Environm ental Education, Teaching & Know ledge
Sharing
Custodianship, Conservation of Resources & Reduced
Consum ption
Outreach & Com m unity Engagem ent
Environm ental Stew ardship & Respect for Environm ent
Collaboration & Collective Responsibility
Conservation
Scientific & Academ ic Integrity
Reduce Im pacts on Environm ent / Restore Environm ent
Scholarship, Research, & Dispassionate Inquiry

Words that respondents would like to see associated with ESF:
• Environment/Environmental is the word(s) that was chosen by respondents as that which they would most like to have associated with ESF (25)
• Sustainability was ranked second by respondents in this category (19)
• Leadership/Leader was chosen by respondents as the third most important word to have associated with the university (18).
• Top 10 words that all respondents would most like to come to mind when thinking of
ESF (see Figure 9)
1. Environment/Environmental -- 7.3% of responses
2. Sustainability -- 5.6% of responses
3. Leadership/Leader -- 5.3% of responses
4. Excellence/Talented/Elite -- 4.7% of responses
5. Innovation/Cutting-edge -- 3.8% of responses
6. Science -- 2.9% of responses
7. Research -- 2.9% of responses
8. Educator(s) -- 2.9% of responses
9. Community -- 2.6% of responses
10. Competence/Knowledgeable -- 2.6% of responses
Figure 9.
(by % of responses)
5.6
7.6
2.6
2.6
2.9
2.9
2.9
Environment/Environmental
Sustainability
Leadership/Leader
Excellence/Talented/Elite
Innovation/Cutting-edge
Science
Research
Educator(s)
Community
Competence/Knowledgeable
5.3
3.8
4.7

Respondents were asked to list the top institutions (academic or otherwise) that stand as leaders or competitors in regard to their top 3 challenges and opportunities (as analyzed in the first section of this report):
Top 10 University Leaders and Competitors: Results for all faculty and staff (see Figure 10):
1. Cornell University (31 responses)
2. Yale University (17 responses)
3. Tie: University of California-Berkeley & Columbia University (15 responses)
4. Tie: SUNY ESF; University of Michigan; Harvard University (12 responses)
5. Duke University (11 responses)
6. Tie: University of Wisconsin; Massachusetts Institute of Technology (10 responses)
Figure 10.
Leaders and Challengers Among Universities
Other Universities (generic/Ivy league/Top tier)
University of Arizona
Indiana University
University of British Columbia
University of Georgia
University of Florida
Virginia Tech University
Purdue University
Iowa State University
North Carolina State University
Arizona State University
Penn State University
University of Colorado
Duke University
SUNY ESF
McGill University
Oregon State University
University of Washington
Columbia University
Wageningen University
Colorado State University
Harvard University
University of Minnesota
Rutgers University
Cornell University
University of Wisconsin
Stanford University
University of Maryland
University of Massachusetts
Oxford University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
University of Vermont
UC Berkeley
University of Michigan
Yale University
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
Number of Responses

Top 10 Non-university Leaders and Competitors: Results for all faculty and staff
(see Figure 11):
1. Don't Know/Unsure (45 responses)
2. Too Many to List (18 responses)
3. Government & Agencies at all Scales (12 responses)
4. There are no Leaders (6 responses)
5. Tie: Businesses & Corporations; Nonprofit Organizations (5 responses)
6. Tie: Woods Hole Research Institute; National Science Foundation (4 responses)
7. Many tied with 3 responses
8. Many tied with 2 responses
Figure 11.
Media / Public television
Politicians
World Wildlife Fund
NASA/ Goddard Space Science
Other engineering programs
Stockholm Resilience Centre
Hoover Institute
American Enterprise Institute
EU and European Countries
SUNY centers
Businesses/Companies/Corporations
Union of Concerned Scientists
Industry
NSF
United Nations
Natural Resources Defense Council
Government/Agencies (All scales)
Scripts
NOAA
EPA
The Nature Conservancy
Woods Hole Research Institute
USDA
Nonprofit Organizations
No leaders
Don't Know
Too Many to List
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46
Number of Responses