Sustainable Campus Group
Tertiary Education Sector
Sustainability Report 2012
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
© Sustainable Campus Group 2013
This report was published in August 2013. The SCG reporting process was facilitated by Belinda Allison at
Monash Sustainability Institute.
Published by Monash Sustainability Institute (MSI)
Monash University, VIC 3800 Australia
T: +61 3 990 59323
E: belinda.allison@monash.edu
W: www.monash.edu/research/sustainability-institute
DISCLAIMER:
Monash University disclaims all liability for any error, loss or consequence which may arise from relying on any
information in this publication.
Cover photographs:
Certificate I Word Education Group 2013 and their teacher Tracey Wareham with their art recycling project
“Garbage to Garden” at SuniTAFE. The flowers were made mainly from hubcaps, metal, bottle tops and scraps
from junk collected (legally) from Swan Hill landfill and the SuniTAFE scrap heap. Photos by: Lois Schmidt and
Tracey Wareham.
Printed on 100% recycled content and carbon neutral paper at a carbon neutral facility.
2|Page
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 4
Report Participants 2012 .................................................................................................................................... 4
Reporting Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Summary of Results ............................................................................................................................................ 5
Education for Sustainability .................................................................................................................................... 7
Social Sustainability................................................................................................................................................. 8
Institutional Commitment..................................................................................................................................... 10
Information Technology ........................................................................................................................................ 12
Purchasing ............................................................................................................................................................. 13
Waste .................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Biodiversity............................................................................................................................................................ 19
Water .................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Buildings ................................................................................................................................................................ 23
Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................ 25
Transport ............................................................................................................................................................... 29
Sustainability, the Sector and the Future ............................................................................................................. 32
References ............................................................................................................................................................ 34
Appendix 1 – Data by Institution .......................................................................................................................... 35
Table A: Staff, Students and Gross Floor Area by Institution............................................................................ 35
Table B: Facilities Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................... 36
Table C: Total Water Consumed (Per Capita and Gross Floor Area) by Institution .......................................... 37
Table D: Waste to Landfill and Recycling (Per Capita and Gross Floor Area) by Institution ............................. 38
3|Page
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
Introduction
The Sustainable Campus Group (SCG) began in 2005 as a way of sharing ideas and collaborating on
sustainability. Reporting began in 2006 to encourage members to share their progress on environmental
initiatives and encourage tertiary institutes to improve their performance. The first SCG reports did not name
the institutions involved, but assigned them letters, so they would not be individually recognised. The SCG was
the first sector report of its type in Australia and over the years has witnessed the beginning of other
benchmarking programs on sustainability in tertiary education institutes, some public and some not. It bodes
well for the sector, and sustainability, that many now embrace and support sustainability reporting both as
individual institutions and also as a sector or group of institutions. This is the fourth annual SCG report in
which members have confidently displayed their name beside their performance.
This document reports and discusses the sector averages for 2011 and 2012 data provided by SCG members.
Data from nine SCG members has been included in this report. Institutional-level data is provided in
Appendix 1. Results in this report provide an overview of measuring and reporting at each institution and do
not necessarily reveal the full picture of sustainability management at each institution. A snapshot of
performance can be seen in Table 1. This table is based on 2011 and 2012 data from current SCG Members
(see Report Participants 2012) that submitted the relevant data for both years. The number of respondents
that provided data for each indicator is listed in the table in the relevant section.
Tertiary institutes can vary greatly from one another. Some are located in the CBD and others in suburban,
industrial, or regional areas. This has an impact on land use and transport access, for example. Other variations
include the types of training, teaching and research conducted on the campus. Some is conducted mainly in
classrooms while others will require workshops, laboratories, and agricultural land etc. These variations should
be kept in mind when looking at the results in this report.
Report Participants 2012
Northern Territory
Charles Darwin University (CDU)
Queensland
SkillsTech Australia (SkillsTech)
Sunshine Coast Institute of TAFE (SCIT)
Victoria
Chisholm Institute of TAFE (Chisholm)
Deakin University (Deakin)
Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE (GOTAFE)
Monash University (Monash)
Sunraysia Institute of TAFE (SuniTAFE)
Western Australia
Murdoch University (Murdoch)
Reporting Methodology
Monash Sustainability Institute (MSI) provides members with the SCG Workbook, which is a data management
and reporting tool for both quantitative and qualitative data on different aspects of sustainability. Member
institutions were given the opportunity to complete as much of the Workbook as they could with 2012 data
4|Page
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
before returning a copy to MSI for use in this report. As this is a self-reporting initiative, the data submitted in
the SCG Workbooks was not verified or audited. Data was accepted as provided, except in cases where
obvious anomalies appeared. In such cases MSI liaised with the members to correct the data. All members
were given the opportunity to review the draft findings of this report before publication.
The data provided by the participants was analysed at an institutional level (that is, the total of all campuses).
Data on student residences, overseas campuses, and property not used for core institutional purposes (e.g.
investment property) were not included. To allow comparisons between institutions of very different sizes,
most of the results were normalised by the total number of students (on-campus) and staff at each institution
(equivalent full-time student load (EFTSL) and full-time equivalent (FTE) staff) and by building gross floor area
(GFA, in square metres). Graphs are labelled as to which normalisation was used. The EFTSL, FTE, GFA and
other data reported by each institution are provided in detail in Appendix 1. Where data is compared or shown
over two years (2011 and 2012) in this document, only current members with data for both those years are
included in the averages, totals and comparisons unless a graph shows ‘na’. Graphs with ‘na’ for 2011 data
include 2012 data in the normalised averages. Not all members are listed or included in each category of data,
depending on provision of data, and this is noted in the report where it occurs.
References have been made throughout this document to national data from the Australian National
Sustainability Council’s (NSC) Sustainable Australia Report 2013 (see References for full citation). The NSC
report refers to the most recent data available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics at the time of its
publication and these data have been included in this document for reference or comparison purposes even
though the years the data were gathered may not align. The NSC report data has been included to provide
context for the reader.
Summary of Results
As can be seen in Table 1, student, staff and floor space increased from 2011 to 2012, each by around 5%.
Growth in these numbers is expected year-to-year, and total energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions have also increased by 6.9% and 9.1% respectively. When the figures are normalised for GFA and
staff and student numbers it becomes apparent there has been a small decrease in energy efficiency. Many
energy efficiencies may have been gained in the past and this current decrease in efficiency may reflect the
fact that opportunities to save energy are getting more difficult to find and/or expensive to implement. A
decrease in energy efficiency may also be due to how new space is used; for example conducting energy
intensive research.
Water use has decreased overall and efficiencies have been gained per person and floor area. The reduction in
overall and normalised water use is mostly due to a very large decrease of 32% in water use at CDU from 2011
to 2012.
Paper use has decreased, although per person (staff and student) use has remained relatively steady at 2.8
reams of paper per person per year (2.82 in 2011). However, it should be noted that any printing by staff and
students off campus is not included in these figures and, as data collection methods improve at institutions,
such as the inclusion of paper volume used by printing organisations and departments, it can appear that
paper use has increased. It is encouraging to see that waste to landfill figures have decreased, both overall and
per person and that recycling has increased. It is worth noting that availability of recycling facilities provided at
5|Page
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
each institute has also improved. Approximately 71% of in-door and out-door waste stations had recycling
facilities co-located with them in 2012. This is up from about 56% (combined average of in-door and out-door
stations) in 2011.
Indicator
Institutional Commitment
Average no. of staff (FTE) in environmental improvement roles
per 1000 students (EFTSL) and staff (FTE)
Institutional Scope
Total student and staff numbers (EFTSL + FTE)
Total gross floor area (GFA) in metres squared (m 2)
Education for Sustainability
No. of SCG Members with EfS implementation strategy/plan
No. of TAFEs with EfS implementation strategy/plan
2011
2012
0.216
Change Responses
0.216
-0.3%
7
115,777
122,210
5.6%
8
1,418,029
1,483,711
4.6%
8
4
3
5
3
25.0%
0.0%
7
7
Energy and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
Total facilities energy consumption in Gigajoules
Percentage of total facilities energy consumption provided by on-site renewables
Percentage of total facilities energy consumption purchased as GreenPower
Average facilities energy consumption (GJ) per GFA m 2
Average facilities energy consumption (GJ) per EFTSL + FTE
Gross GHG emissions (tonnes) from facilities energy (Scopes 1, 2 & 3)
Percentage of total GHG emissions from facilities energy that is offset
GHG emissions (tonnes) from facilities energy net of offsets per GFA m 2
GHG emissions (tonnes) from facilities energy net of offsets per EFTSL + FTE
1,054,101
0.10%
6.82%
0.74
9.10
222,205
2.21%
0.15
1.88
1,126,356
0.20%
5.83%
0.76
9.22
242,459
2.13%
0.16
1.94
6.9%
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Water
Total water consumption (kilolitres)
Percentage of total water consumption collected/recycled/reclaimed on-site
Average water consumption (litres) per GFA m 2
Average water consumption (litres) per EFTSL + FTE
1,321,249
0.66%
932
11,412
1,292,197
0.88%
871
10,574
-2.2%
-6.5%
-7.3%
8
8
8
8
7,113
2,446
64.45
22.16
6,736
2,739
57.95
23.56
-5.3%
12.0%
-10.1%
6.3%
7
7
7
7
257,999
61%
254,102
55%
-1.5%
4
4
Waste (recycling incl. co-mingle, paper & card, metal & e-waste)
Total waste to landfill (tonnes)
Total waste recycled (tonnes)
Average waste to landfill (kilograms) per EFTSL + FTE
Average waste recycled (kilograms) per EFTSL + FTE
Procurement
Total reams of copy paper purchased
Percentage of total copy paper with recycled content
2.1%
1.2%
9.1%
4.4%
3.5%
Table 1 - Snapshot of Sustainability Performance Indicators for 2011 and 2012
Institutional commitment in terms of number of staff employed whose responsibility it is to implement
sustainability programs and improvements have remained steady at 21.5 FTE staff in total in 2012. Education
for Sustainability (EfS) is gaining momentum across the sector and the number of members with an
implementation strategy or plan has increased in 2012. Social sustainability and biodiversity initiatives are
likely to be expanded in future years.
6|Page
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
Education for Sustainability
This report begins with a summary of progress toward EfS. Educating domestic and international students of
all ages about the importance of sustainability and giving them ways to understand and apply its principles
within their study, and in their wider lives, is a fundamental role that education institutions can play in helping
create a sustainable future. Figure 1 shows the presence of selected EfS initiatives in 2012 and 2011 at TAFEs
and universities and Figure 2 shows some of the EfS support systems each member has in place. A lot more
can be done with both EfS implementation and measurement. More than 50% of the population between the
ages of 20 and 64 hold a tertiary qualification (NSC 2013), so the potential for impacting students’ behaviours
is huge.
Implemention of EfS at Universities and TAFEs
Reward
Env/Sustainable/EfS
Engagement by Staff
Committee/Staff
Member Resp
100%
Implementation
Strategy
80%
60%
Grad
Attribute/Learning
Outcome/Perform
Criteria
40%
Env/Sust Incl in all
Staff Orientation
20%
0%
Students Must Pass
Env/Sust Subject to
Graduate
Env/Sust Incl in all
Student Orientation
Staff Offered
Env/Sust/EfS Prof
Develop't
Students Offered
Env/Sust Courses
Students Offered
Env/Sust Subjects
Universities 2012
TAFEs 2012
All 2012
All 2011
Figure 1 - Percentage of Respondents with Listed EfS Initiatives for Universities and TAFEs (2012) and Averaged for all
Respondents (2011 and 2012)
7|Page
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
Figure 1 highlights that TAFEs and universities have taken different approaches to implementing EfS, but both
have strengths when it comes to ensuring students have access to environmental and/or sustainability
(Env/Sust) related subjects and courses. TAFEs are more likely to ensure staff are exposed to EfS principles and
receive related professional development. Universities are more likely to expose students to sustainability
concepts as well as building it into student learning outcomes.
Education for Sustainability (EfS)
De
aki
Mo n
na
M u sh
rd
Ch och
ish
o
GO lm
TA
Sk i FE
llsT
Sun ech
iTA
SCI FE
T
Individual EfS implementation status can be seen in Figure 2. Currently measurement is for EfS support
systems only as it is too early to measure the success of EfS programs. Students need to be surveyed for their
understanding of sustainability before they begin study, at the completion of their study, and again several
years later, to determine how and if their education has influenced their ongoing commitment to sustainability.
Large scale surveys of this kind are not happening in Australia, however they sometimes occur at a subject
level, such as with Monash’s new subject Sustainability - Learning and Living it, for which students were
surveyed before they began the subject and again on completion.
Committee/Staff Member Responsible
Implementation Strategy
Grad Attribute/Learning Outcome/Perform Criteria
Env/Sust Incl in all Student Orientation
Students Offered Env/Sust Courses
Students Offered Env/Sust Subjects
Staff Offered Env/Sust/EfS Prof Development
Students Must Pass Env/Sust Subject to Graduate
Env/Sust Incl in all Staff Orientation
Reward Env/Sustainable/EfS Engagement by Staff
Figure 2 - Institutional Commitment to EfS for each SCG Member (does not include CDU) in 2012
Social Sustainability
Social sustainability is relatively new on the SCG agenda and reporting against some related indicators was
introduced in last year’s report. Reporting has centred on staff and student support services, although other
indicators report on external influence, for example purchasing locally, and socially responsible investment, as
illustrated in Figure 3.
8|Page
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
Implementation of Social Sustainability at
Universities and TAFEs 2012
Socially Responsible
Investment
Target: Increase no. of Low
SES Students
Use Social Impact
Assessments (SIA) for
Dec'n Making
100%
80%
Reconciliation Action Plan
(RAP)
60%
Purchase from Local
Suppliers
40%
20%
Target: Increase No. of
ATSI Students
Monitor Staff Wellbeing
0%
Publicly Report no. of
Women & Men at Each
Level
Body/Grp Responsible for
'Students at Risk'
Achieved Gender Equality
in Management &/or
Board Composition
Financial & Social Support
for 'Students at Risk'
Targets for Gender
Equality (Mgt & Board)
Universities
TAFEs
Figure 3 - Percentage of Respondents with Listed Social Sustainability Initiatives for Universities and TAFEs
Social sustainability concerns organisations taking responsibility for the impacts their decisions and actions
have on society and the environment (ISO26000 2010). It is also about an organisation conducting itself in an
ethical, transparent and accountable manner (ISO26000 2010). Education institutes can help support diversity,
not only by making education accessible and achievable but also by adopting policies and practices, and using
their influence, to help reduce inequality in society and assist the disadvantaged and vulnerable.
Students who face greater challenges in obtaining educational qualifications include those from low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds; students with a disability; and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI)
students (NSC 2013). These groups have been included in Figures 3 and 4 as students at risk of not completing
their educations (students at risk). Figure 3 illustrates that most social sustainability efforts are aimed at these
students and that institutions need to focus more on staff gender equality and general wellbeing, as well as on
their external sphere of influence such as investment and procurement. Only one member (SCIT, see Figure 4)
9|Page
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
Social Sustainability
Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP)
Monitor Staff Wellbeing
Frequency Wellbeing Monitored (yr)
Publicly Report no. of Women & Men at Each Level
Targets for Gender Equality (Mgt & Board)
Financial & Social Support for 'Students at Risk'
Body/Grp Responsible for 'Students at Risk'
Target: Increase No. of ATSI Students
Target: Increase no. of Low SES Students
Funds in Socially Responsible Investments
CD
U
De
aki
n
Mo
nas
Mu h
rd
Ch och
ish
o
GO lm
TA
Sk i FE
llsT
Sun ech
iTA
SCI FE
T
had a Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) in 2012 although these are expected to become more common in the
sector.
2
1
2 2/3 1
1
1
1
1
Figure 4 - Institutional Commitment to Social Sustainability for each SCG Member in 2012
Institutional Commitment
Institutional Commitment
Env/Sust Policy
Env/Sust Strategy
Env/Sust Plan
Env/Sust Committee
Env/Sust Targets Incl in Staff KPIs
Total Env/Sust Staff (FTE) Employed
Student Engagement Program
Staff Engagement Program
Won Env/Sust Award in 2012
Climate Change Adaptation Plan
CD
U
De
aki
Mo n
nas
Mu h
rd
Ch och
ish
o
GO lm
TA
Sk i FE
llsT
Sun ech
iTA
SCI FE
T
Institutional commitment to sustainability aims to capture the institute-wide initiatives that SCG members
have in place. These initiatives often represent support for sustainability by senior management such as the
creation of the role of environment or sustainability manager or officer. Institutional commitment also
captures initiatives that are not necessarily easy to categorise into other sections of the report, such as
overarching sustainability plans or policies. Initiatives that exist at each member’s institute are shown in Figure
5. Figure 6 illustrates an overall picture and highlights some of variances in approaches between TAFEs and
universities.
3.7 13.0 2.1 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.5 1.0
Figure 5 - Institutional Commitments to Sustainability for each SCG Member in 2012
10 | P a g e
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
Implementation of Institutional Commitment 2012
Env/Sust Policy
100%
Climate Change
Adaptation Plan
Env/Sust Strategy
80%
60%
40%
Won Env/Sust
Award in 2012
20%
Env/Sust Plan
0%
Staff Engagement
Program
Env/Sust Committee
Student
Engagement
Program
Universities
Env/Sust Targets Incl
in Staff KPIs
TAFEs
Figure 6 - Percentage of Respondents with Listed Institution-Wide Initiatives for Universities and TAFEs
Most members had an environmental or sustainability plan, policy or strategy in place (or a combination of the
three). Members employed 21.5 FTE staff in 2012 to monitor and improve sustainability performance. Figure 7
shows a normalised figure for staff and highlights that universities employ almost twice as many sustainability
staff as TAFEs.
11 | P a g e
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
Sustainability Staff Employed (FTE) per 1000
Students & Staff (EFTSL+FTE)
0.3
0.2
2011
0.1
0.0
2012
na
na
Figure 7 - Sustainability Staff Employed per 1000 Students and Staff in 2011 and 2012
The numbers in Figure 7 do not include those staff across the institution who may be embedding sustainability
into their work groups, teams, teaching or research under their own volition and not because it is part of their
official job description.
Information Technology
Green initiatives in communication and information technology affect several areas of an institute’s
sustainability performance. Figure 8 shows energy reduction efforts such as power saving settings on
equipment and savings in paper use via computer based faxing and double sided default printing. Many
members also provided electronic waste re-use and recycling facilities for IT hardware. E-waste recycling is not
mandatory in Australia even though IT hardware contains heavy metals, chemical and toxins dangerous to
human health (Zero Waste SA 2013). Providing e-waste facilities demonstrates members are willing to allocate
finances to act responsibly at their own volition. Only 25% of households recycled e-waste in 2009 (NSC 2013),
compared to 56% of members (i.e. five members) in 2012.
12 | P a g e
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
Implementation of Green IT at Universities and TAFEs
Committee
100%
Computer-based
Faxing
Env Assesments Incl
in ITS Projects
80%
60%
40%
Energy Saving Default
on all Equip
Behaviour Change
20%
0%
Power Saving in
Computer Labs
Double Sided Default
all Equip
Plan: Consolidate
Servers in Data
Centres
Plan: Optimise Energy
Use in Data Centres
Plan: Implement
Server Virtualisation
Universities 2012
TAFEs 2012
All 2012
All 2011
Figure 8 - Percentage of Respondents with Listed Green IT Initiatives for Universities and TAFEs (2012) and Averaged for
all Respondents (2011 and 2012)
Although only 1.3 FTE staff were employed specifically to reduce the impact of IT equipment and practices,
anecdotally there is a culture of innovation and efficiency amongst IT departments that complements
sustainability efforts elsewhere in the organisation.
Purchasing
Sustainable procurement is a process for organisations to meet their requirements for goods and services, and
achieve value for money (within the context of the organisation, society and economy) in an environmentally
responsible manner (DEFRA 2006). Reducing consumption is the first step in sustainable procurement. If the
13 | P a g e
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
purchase of a product (or in some cases, a service) can be avoided this is the best environmental outcome. The
use of manufacturing materials is avoided as is the waste at the end of the product life. Initiatives that reduce
consumption are closely linked with those that reduce waste. For example the Monash University Furniture
Reuse Store reduces the need for the procurement of new furniture and diverts old furniture from landfill
(Case Study 1).
Case Study 1 - Furniture Reuse Store at
Monash University
The Monash Furniture Reuse Program
redistributes surplus furniture to other
departments within the University,
diverting furniture from landfill. Inventory
reporting and promotion of the Program
has been improved by launching the
Reuse web store and inventory
management system. During 2012, the
Monash Furniture and Equipment Reuse
Program has found a new home for more
than 3100 items, diverting more than 85
tonnes of waste from landfill and saving
at least $533,000 of University funds.
Monash continues to donate furniture
from this Program to a number of
charities and community groups.
Furniture Reuse Store
Diversity of the supply chain is one component of the social aspect of sustainable procurement. Diversity
means engaging organisations that offer employment and training opportunities to disadvantaged, vulnerable
or marginalised people such as the long-term unemployed, women, people with disabilities, ethnic minority
groups, the aged, veterans, and Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander peoples, as well as small and local
suppliers. Another example of diversity in the supply chain is committing to purchase Fair Trade products.
Deakin became a Fair Trade University in 2012.
Addressing social sustainability in the supply chain is not well advanced in the tertiary education sector in
Australia. Figure 9 shows whether members have some aspects of sustainability in the supply chain, such as
purchasing from local suppliers (four members). It also highlights the presence or absence of environmental
selection criteria in the procurement process.
14 | P a g e
CD
U
De
aki
Mo n
na
M u sh
rd
Ch och
ish
o
GO lm
TA
Sk i FE
llsT
Sun ech
iTA
SCI FE
T
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
Sustainable Purchasing
Committee
Behaviour Change
Dedicated Staff (FTE)
No. of Staff Trained
Target: Use Env Selection Criteria/Buy Green
Purchase from Local Suppliers
% of Local Purchases Monitored
0.4
0.1
2.0
0.1
2.0
Figure 9 - Institutional Commitment to Sustainable Purchasing for each SCG Member in 2012
Paper was one of the first items on the green procurement agenda for the sector. Paper consumption and
content is a well-known and understood representation of green purchasing. Logging of native forests can be a
highly emotive issue and in the past both students and staff have advocated strongly for high recycled content
copy paper. Figure 10 shows the use of paper per person in 2012 as well as the level of recycled content of the
paper. Paper use per person remained steady (2.82 reams (1410 pages) in 2011 and 2.80 reams (1400 pages)
in 2012). The use of recycled content paper decreased in 2012 compared to 2011, but the use of carbon
neutral paper increased over the same period.
120,000
7.00
100,000
6.00
5.00
80,000
4.00
60,000
3.00
40,000
2.00
20,000
1.00
0
-
CDU
Deakin
Reams per EFTSL + FTE
Total Reams
Copy Paper Purchased
(Total Reams & Reams per Person (EFTSL+FTE))
Other
100% plantation
100% recycled
50-99% recycled
Total Reams per
EFTSL + FTE
Monash Murdoch SkillsTech SuniTAFE
Figure 10 - Total Copy Paper Purchased (reams of A4 equivalent) and Paper Use per Student and Staff Numbers per
Institution for 2012 (note: ‘Other’ includes categories of paper not listed individually, including carbon neutral paper)
15 | P a g e
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
Waste
Waste infrastructure is highly visible, and public recycling and waste stations can be used to demonstrate to
students and staff that an institute takes responsibility for its impacts. The most evident aspects of waste are
recycling stations and landfill bins on campuses. Figure 11 shows the increase in the percentage of in-door and
out-door waste bins that had recycling bins accompanying them.
Waste measurement by waste removal services is becoming more accurate (although often waste calculations
for internal and external reporting are calculated based on estimates of volume and then converted to weight
using relevant conversion rates). Direct measurement by waste services suppliers is preferred, but not always
available or reliable. Waste and recycling figures can also be affected by activities at each institution over the
year, for example demolition waste (such as concrete) may not need to be disposed of every year. For this
reason waste and recycling data in this report do not include concrete, demolition or industrial waste.
Proportion of Waste Stations with
Recycling Facilities
100%
80%
Unis 2012
60%
TAFEs 2012
40%
All 2012
20%
All 2011
0%
% In-door Waste Stations with % Out-door Waste Stations
Recycling Option
with Recycling Option
Figure 11 - Percentage of In-door and Out-door Waste Bins accompanied by Recycling Facilities in 2012
The recycling rate is the proportion of total waste generated that is recycled. Members’ recycling rates
averaged 29% in 2012 (see Figure 12) and 26% in 2011. In 2009, Australia-wide, approximately 1030 kg of
waste was disposed to landfill per person; of this, 32% was organics, 30% masonry materials, 11% paper and
cardboard, and 8% plastics (NSC 2013). SCG Members reported waste to landfill of 59.7 kg per person
(students and staff). Waste and recycling amounts per institution are shown in Figures 13 and 14.
16 | P a g e
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
University Waste and
University Waste and TAFE Waste and
Recycling Proportions
Recycling Proportions
Recycling Proportions
29%
71%
27%
29%
71%
73%
Total Waste Recycled/Composted
(tonnes)
Total
Waste Recycled/Composted (tonnes)
Total Waste to Landfill (tonnes)Total Waste to Landfill (tonnes)
Figure 12 - Total Waste Proportion of Recycling/Composting and Waste to Landfill at Universities and at TAFEs in 2012 (by
weight)
It is worth noting that better recycling and waste to landfill results are achievable when the appropriate
services, incentives and infrastructure are available. For example, Australia sent 58% of its municipal waste to
landfill in 2010, whereas Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands sent less than half a per cent of their
waste to landfill in the same year (NSC 2013, p 195).
Figures 13 and 14 provide details on waste to landfill and recycling per person and per floor area. TAFEs and
universities had similar amounts of waste to landfill and recycling in 2012 when compared per person (Figure
13). When compared by floor area TAFEs waste and recycling figures were both higher than universities
(Figure 14), although the proportions were about the same (Figure 12).
Waste Generation per Institution/Person (kgs/(EFTSL+FTE))
160
kgs/(EFTSL+FTE)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
na
0
Recycling 2012
Waste to Landfill 2012
Recycling 2011
Waste to Landfill 2011
Figure 13 - Waste Generation and Recycling per Institution for 2011 and 2012 (kilograms per Equivalent Full-time Student
Load and Full-time Equivalent Staff)
17 | P a g e
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
Waste Generation per Institution/Floor Area (kgs/GFA m2)
25
kgs/m2
20
15
10
5
na
0
Recycling 2012
Waste to Landfill 2012
Recycling 2011
Waste to Landfill 2011
Figure 14 - Waste Generation and Recycling per Institution for 2011 and 2012 (kilograms per Gross Floor Area Metres
Squared)
Waste Reduction
Committee
Behaviour Change
Dedicated Staff (FTE)
Data from Waste Contractors
Waste Audit in 2012
E-waste Recycling
Target: Reduce Waste to Landfill
Target: Reduce Recycling to Landfill
CD
U
De
aki
Mo n
na
M u sh
rd
Ch och
ish
o
GO lm
TA
Sk i FE
llsT
Sun ech
iTA
S CI F E
T
Initiatives to reduce and monitor waste at each institute are listed below in Figure 15. Overall 2.6 FTE staff
were employed to oversee these programs. Other initiatives to reduce waste focussed on eliminating the
creation of waste, such as Murdoch’s biodegradable food packaging trial (Case Study 2).
0.2 1.5 0.2 0.2
0.5
Figure 15 - Institutional Commitment to Waste Reduction for each SCG Member in 2012
18 | P a g e
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
Case Study 2 – Murdoch University Sustainable Food Packaging Trial
BagasseWare packaging
Natural cornstarch bowl range
Selected food vendors on campus were asked to participate in a one-week trial using biodegradable
packaging, rather than their standard single-use (recyclable) plastic containers. Murdoch provided
sustainable packaging made from bagasse (a sugar cane by-product) and corn starch, to the vendors.
Pre-trial waste audits and surveys established baseline data for waste and recycling behaviours. Patrons and
vendors were surveyed during the trial to gauge acceptance of the packaging and any problems or issues
identified. The surveys also sought to establish vendors’ and patrons’ understanding of which packaging items
could be recycled.
Information gathered during the survey was compared against results from waste audits and revealed that
although people might say they know what can and cannot be recycled, their actions were not consistent with
their knowledge. There was a high level of support for the use of sustainable packaging among patrons, but
some reservations from vendors, mainly around suitability of the sustainable packages being pre-filled and
kept warm for quick take-away options.
Recommendations from the trial included: building the use of sustainable packaging into vendors’ contracts;
developing a range of incentives and disincentives for vendors and patrons; ongoing education for vendors
and patrons through engagement strategies (including appropriate signage); investigating introduction of
‘dine in’ cutlery and plates/bowls; and investigating a deposit-based reusable take-out container scheme.
On-site composting for organic waste, including food waste and the sustainable packaging will also be
considered. Roll out of the sustainable packaging recommendations is being explored for 2014.
Biodiversity
Biodiversity (the variety of genes, populations, species, communities, ecosystems, and ecological processes
that make up life on Earth) (Watson 2011) is inextricably linked to wellbeing, quality of life and sustenance. In
2013 more than 1340 species of plants and 440 species of animals were on the national threatened species list
(NSC 2013).
Organisations can affect biodiversity in a direct and tangible way, for example by designating wilderness zones
or corridors on campus; however they also affect biodiversity indirectly through almost every action and
decision they make, from consumption and land use to building materials and teaching methods. For the
purpose of this report biodiversity is intended to refer to native biodiversity and ecosystems on and around
19 | P a g e
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
campuses. As can be seen in Figure 16, universities are more likely to have designated biodiversity zones and
they have a greater commitment to protection and restoration. This may be due to the large areas of land that
universities tend to occupy, whilst TAFEs generally occupy less land.
SCG members were asked to respond to questions about institutional commitment and systems to support
biodiversity as well as areas of land that are considered diverse. Efforts made by individual SCG members to
support and improve biodiversity on campus are listed in Figure 17.
Implementation of Biodiversity Management at
Universities and TAFEs
Committee
100%
80%
Initiatives to
Protect/Improve
Biodiversity
60%
Designated Zones
40%
20%
0%
Biodiversity Incl in
Master Plans
Biodiversity Awareness
Initiatives
Policy for
Native/Indigenous
Planting
Universities 2012
TAFEs 2012
All 2012
All 2011
Figure 16 - Percentage of Respondents with Listed Biodiversity Initiatives for Universities and TAFEs (2012) and Averaged
for all Respondents (2011 and 2012)
20 | P a g e
Biodiversity
Committee
Dedicated Staff (FTE)
Biodiversity Incl in Master Plans
Initiatives to Protect/Improve Biodiversity
Policy for Native/Indigenous Planting
Biodiversity Awareness Initiatives
Designated Zones
CD
U
De
aki
Mo n
na
M u sh
rd
Ch och
ish
o
GO lm
TA
Sk i FE
llsT
Sun ech
iTA
SCI FE
T
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2
2.0
Figure 17 - Institutional Commitment to Biodiversity for each SCG Member in 2012
Water
The tertiary education sector is not a large user of water in Australia, although it has made considerable efforts
over the past ten years or so to reduce its water use. Sectors that use large quantities of water include:
agriculture, forestry and fishing; electricity, gas, water and waste service; and manufacturing and mining (NSC
2013). Although that is not to say tertiary education institutes do not have an impact on these other sectors by
indirectly contributing to water use, for example through energy and food consumption.
Australia-wide water consumption in 2011 was 597kL per person (equating to approximately 1635 litres per
person per day), half of what it was in 2001 (NSC 2013). For SCG members, Figure 18 shows that average water
use per person was 10.57kL in 2012 and 11.41kL in 2011. To put water use at members’ institutions into
context of its contribution to national water use, in 2012 the 10.57kL per person reported by SCG members
equated to 29 litres per person (students and staff) per day and 31 litres in 2011. Figure 19 compares water
use based on GFA and shows that, as with the per person normalisation, usage levels remained steady from
2011 to 2012.
21 | P a g e
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
Water Use per Institution/Person (kL/(EFTSL+FTE))
60
kL/(EFTSL+FTE)
50
40
30
20
10
0
na
2012 Ground, Surface, Collected, Recycled, Treated
2011 Ground, Surface, Collected, Recycled, Treated
2012 Mains
2011 Mains
Figure 18 - Water Consumption per Institution and by Sector for 2011 and 2012 (kilolitres per Equivalent Full-time Student
Load and Full-time Equivalent staff)
Water Use per Institution/Floor Area (kL/GFA m2)
4.0
3.5
kL/m2
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
na
2012 Ground, Surface, Collected, Recycled, Treated
2011 Ground, Surface, Collected, Recycled, Treated
2012 Mains
2011 Mains
Figure 19 - Water Consumption per Institution and by Sector for 2011 and 2012 (kilolitres per Gross Floor Area Metres
Squared)
Water restrictions and a sense of obligation to the community have led to rain water tanks and other methods
of surface collection becoming more common in member institutions. For example SuniTAFE won the Lower
Murray Rural Water Innovation Award – Surface Water Re-use for its redevelopment of existing stormwater
22 | P a g e
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
drains within the campus (see Figure 20). The drainage system is now able to collect and harvest incoming
stormwater and pump it to the existing storage dam for reuse on site. Figure 21 shows the types of water
efficiency support programs and targets that members have in place.
Water Efficency
Water Restrictions
Committee
Behaviour Change
Dedicated Staff (FTE)
Grey Water Recycling
Rain Water Collection
Target: Reduce Water Use
Target: Increase Grey Water Use
Target: Increase Onsite Collection
CD
U
De
aki
Mo n
na
M u sh
rd
Ch och
ish
o
GO lm
TA
Sk i FE
llsT
Sun ech
iTA
SCI FE
T
Figure 20 - Garden Redevelopment for Surface Water Collection (left) and Win Scott (SuniTAFE CEO) and Ron Leamon
(Lower Murray Water MD) standing by the water catchment area at SuniTAFE (right)
0.2 0.9 0.1 0.2
0.5
Figure 21 - Institutional Commitment to Water Efficiency for each SCG Member in 2012
Buildings
SCG members were asked to self-assess how well sustainability was integrated into the building process at
various levels, from the planning and procurement processes to leadership and support for sustainable
buildings provided by senior management. Figure 22 highlights these responses. Each of the four categories
could score a maximum of 100 and the highest possible total score would be 400. As can be seen in the figure,
most members have a long way to go to ensure they are investing in sustainable building stock for the future.
The average total score for 2012 was just 134 (out of 400). The support processes in place to help ensure new
buildings are sustainable have remained largely the same compared to 2011, when the average score was 135.
From 2011 to 2012 sustainability integration in Project Procurement and Leadership declined by 12 and 10 per
23 | P a g e
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
cent respectively, whereas sustainability integration in Strategic Planning and Facilities Management increased
in both by 9%.
Integration of Sustainability in New Buildings at Each Stage
of the Process
0
50
100
Total Score (out of 400)
150
200
250
300
350
400
CDU
Deakin
Monash
Murdoch
Chisholm
GOTAFE
SkillsTech
SuniTAFE
SCIT
Strategic Planning
Project Procurement
Facilities Management
Leadership
Figure 22 - Integration of Sustainability into each Process of Building Planning, Construction and Use in 2012
Green Buildings
Committee
Dedicated Staff (FTE)
Perform. based rating system used for existing buildings
Green Leases
CD
U
De
aki
Mo n
na
M u sh
rd
Ch och
ish
o
GO lm
TA
Sk i FE
llsT
Sun ech
iTA
SCI FE
T
As energy use from buildings contributes about 26% of Australia’s GHG emissions, building stock will continue
to have a significant impact (CSIRO 2011) and it is apparent more effort is needed to ensure existing building
stock is managed well. As can be seen in Figure 23 there were no green leases in place at any members’
institutions. Green Leases help ensure tenants (at institutions where space is leased out) behave in an
environmentally responsible manner; this might extend from energy and water efficiency, to the types of
products sold, packaging used or how waste is disposed. There is a National Green Leasing Policy available at:
ee.ret.gov.au/non-residential-buildings/green-leases-private-sector, however the policy focuses mainly on
energy and water efficiency.
2.0
1.7
0.2 0.1
1.0
Figure 23 - Institutional Commitment to Green Buildings for each SCG Member in 2012
24 | P a g e
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The tertiary education sector as a whole does not account for a large proportion of Australia’s energy use (NSC
2013) although some larger institutes are in the top 300 energy users in Australia (EEO 2013). However energy
use accounts for a large proportion of each institution’s GHG emissions and therefore, members remain
committed to improving energy efficiency and reducing GHG emissions. The tertiary education sector also has
the potential to influence energy efficiency outside their campuses by ensuring graduates are well equipped to
make a positive impact when they complete their education and begin work in other sectors. Research and
researchers contribute by developing energy efficient technology, such as the fuel cell recently installed to
power a building at Deakin (Case Study 3).
In 2012 64% of facilities energy use by members was electricity; the remainder was largely natural gas.
Approximately 0.2% of this energy was sourced from on-site renewable energy and less than 6% was
GreenPower. Figure 24 refers to the proportion of electricity consumed by each member that is GreenPower.
GreenPower is electricity from renewable sources such as wind and solar, which therefore helps reduce GHG
emissions. The amount of energy consumed by each member (Figures 25 and 26) also includes natural gas
consumption, and on-site renewable energy such as from solar panels.
Case Study 3 – Fuel Cells at Deakin University
Deakin implemented a number of energy reduction
initiatives in 2012, one of which was the installation
of natural gas fuel cells at a marine research facility
at Deakin’s Warrnambool Campus. A fuel cell is a
generator that uses chemical reactions rather than
combustion to generate electricity and heat. Fuel
cells have been around for some time but are finding
wider commercial building applications in recent
years. Six fuel cell units were installed at Deakin
totalling 9kW per hour of electricity generation and
3kW of heat. This will provide a significant proportion
of the building’s electricity needs including water
pumps, lights and office equipment. This will be the
only 3-phase ‘BlueGen’ installation in the world. By
changing the energy source from coal-fired grid
supply to natural gas, Deakin will reduce its
greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 63,000
kg C02-e per year; contributing to Deakin’s
commitment to reduce its carbon footprint.
Fuel cell prefabrication plantroom
25 | P a g e
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
GreenPower as a Percentage of Electricity Purchased
30%
25%
20%
2011
15%
2012
10%
5%
0%
Figure 24 - Percentage of Electricity Consumption that was GreenPower in 2011 and 2012
As can be seen in Figures 25 and 26, average energy consumption has remained relatively steady from 2011 to
2012, when normalised. Actual consumption has increased by 6.9% (Table 1). On average, TAFEs show
reductions per person and per floor area, whereas universities show increases per person (Figure 25) and per
floor area (Figure 26). Individual institutions showed decreases per person with the exception of Monash and
SuniTAFE; results were more mixed per floor area, with increases recorded at CDU, Monash, GOTAFE and
SuniTAFE.
Facilities Energy Consumption per
Institution/Person (GJ/(EFTSL+FTE))
14.00
GJ/(EFTSL+FTE)
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
2011
4.00
2012
2.00
0.00
na
Figure 25 - Facilities Energy Consumption per Institution, and Sector Averages for 2011 and 2012 (Gigajoules per
Equivalent Full-time Student Unit and Full Time Equivalent Staff)
26 | P a g e
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
GJ/m2
Facilities Energy Consumption per
Institution/Floor Area (GJ/GFA m2)
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
2011
2012
na
Figure 26 - Facilities Energy Consumption per Institution and Sector Averages for 2011 and 2012 (Gigajoules per Gross
Floor Area in Metres Squared)
GHG Emissions from electricity consumption accounted for approximately 84% of members’ reported
emissions (for members that reported facilities energy, air travel and fleet vehicles). (Air travel and vehicles
are discussed further in the following section.) Normalised facilities GHG emissions are shown in Figures 27
and 28. These emissions are shown net of the offsets members purchased to help reduce the impact of their
facilities emissions. SCIT retained its Carbon Neutral status in 2012 and therefore no emissions are shown.
Facilities GHG emissions increased by 9.1% overall, but only increased by 3.5% per person and 4.4% per floor
area. The percentage of facilities GHG emissions that were offset decreased slightly from 2.21% in 2011 to 2.13%
in 2012.
In Australia GHG emissions per capita in 2012 were 24.4 tonnes per person (Carbon Neutral 2013) or 67 kg per
person per day. The education sector contributes to this per capita use somewhat; of the members who
reported emissions for facilities energy, vehicle fleet and air travel the average GHG emissions per person
(students and staff) were 2.44 tonnes or 6.69 kg per person per day.
27 | P a g e
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
Facilities GHG Emissions Net of Offsets per
Institution/Person (Tonnes CO2e/(EFTSL+FTE))
Tonnes CO2e/(EFTSL+FTE)
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
2011
1.00
2012
0.50
0.00
na
Figure 27 - Facilities GHG Emissions Net of Offsets per Institution and Sector Averages for 2011 and 2012 (Tonnes of
CO2-e per Equivalent Full-time Student Load and Full-time Equivalent Staff)
Facilities GHG Emissions Net of Offsets per
Institution/Floor Area (Tonnes CO2e/GFA m2)
Tonnes CO2e/m2
0.25
0.20
0.15
2011
0.10
2012
0.05
0.00
na
Figure 28 - GHG Emissions Net of Offsets per Institution and Sector Averages for 2011 and 2012 (Tonnes of CO2-e per
Gross Floor Area in Metres Squared)
Efforts to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions include behaviour change, infrastructure changes
and purchasing or generating renewable energy. Figure 29 shows the existence of energy efficiency and GHG
reduction activities by members. There were seven FTE staff responsible for energy efficiency and emissions
reduction at member institutions in 2012.
28 | P a g e
Energy Efficency
Committee
Strategy/Policy/Action Plan
Behaviour Change
Dedicated Staff (FTE)
Generate Renewable Energy On-site
Purchase GreenPower
Target: Reduce Energy/GHG
Purchase GHG Offsets
CD
U
De
aki
Mo n
na
M u sh
rd
Ch och
ish
o
GO lm
TA
Sk i FE
llsT
Sun ech
iTA
S CI F E
T
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
2.0 0.5 3.7 0.1 0.2
0.5
Figure 29 - Institutional Commitment to Energy Efficiency for each SCG Member in 2012
Transport
Sustainable Transport
Sustainable Transport Committee
Awareness Campaign
Dedicated Staff (FTE)
Working with Gov't to Expand Public Transport
Cyclist Support Systems on Campus
Car Pool Program
Strategies to Reduce Air Travel
Video Conf (VC) Available
Collect Data on VC Use
CD
U
De
aki
Mo n
na
M u sh
rd
Ch och
ish
o
GO lm
TA
Sk i FE
llsT
Sun ech
iTA
SCI FE
T
The environmental impact of transport for the sector falls into two main categories: travel for business and
travel to and from work/study. Travel for business generally includes travel for operational purposes, over
which institutions have some control, such as air travel and vehicles for staff use, whether they are owned or
leased by the institute. Initiatives to reduce the environmental impacts of travel are highlighted in Figures 30
and 31 and show that members made efforts to reduce the environmental impacts of both categories of travel,
even if it was outside their direct control.
0.5 1.2 0.2 0.2
Figure 30 - Institutional Commitment to Sustainable Transport for each SCG Member in 2012
29 | P a g e
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
Sustainable Transport Initiatives 2012
Sust. Transport
Committee
100%
Collect Data on VC Use
80%
Awareness Campaign
60%
40%
20%
Video Conf (VC) Avail
Working with Gov't to
Expand PT
0%
Strategies to Reduce
Air Travel
Cyclist Support
Systems on Campus
Car Pool Program
Universities
TAFEs
Figure 31 - Percentage of Respondents with Listed Sustainable Transport Initiatives for Universities and TAFEs
Data on travel for business purposes (kilometres travelled by vehicle and by air) was reported by most
members. Vehicular travel is difficult to compare as data for vehicles under a novated lease was not available.
The mix of owned and leased vehicles at each institute varies greatly and therefore does not allow for an
accurate comparison. Air travel emissions and distance travelled are depicted in Figure 32.
Domestic air travel in Australia ‘comprises an increasing share of overall passenger kilometres per capita, up
from 6% in 1990-1991 to 16% in 2009-2010’ (NSC 2013, p 220). Pressure to provide opportunities for staff
learning and development (such as attending conferences) and internationalisation of campuses (particularly
by universities) means the environmental impact of air travel is rarely, if ever, taken into account when making
business decisions. As can be seen in Figures 30 and 31 only one member had strategies to reduce air travel.
30 | P a g e
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
CDU
Deakin
Monash
Murdoch
Chisholm
GOTAFE
Kilometres Travelled per Staff FTE
Tonnes of GHG Emissions per Staff FTE
Distance Travelled by Air (kms) and Associated GHG
Emissions (tonnes), per Staff FTE
Total Staff Air Travel (km) (OS & Domestic) per Staff FTE
Total CO2 -e (tonnes) from Air Travel (SCOPE 3) per Staff FTE
Figure 32 – Distance Travelled by Air (kilometres per Staff FTE) and GHG Emissions (Tonnes of CO2-e per Staff FTE) by
Institution for 2012
Much of the focus on minimising GHG emissions from travel for business has been on reducing car fleet engine
sizes, fuel use and vehicle use in general. Some of this has been accomplished via the use of video
conferencing.
Efforts to reduce GHG emissions from travel to and from work/study have focussed on sustainable transport
options. In 2011 the dominant mode of travel to and from work in Australia was by car with a single occupant
(68%). Rates of travel to and from work as a passenger, pedestrian, and cyclist were around 5% each. Travel
via public transport and taxi made up about 11%. Approximately 5% of people worked from home (NSC 2013).
Members try to encourage staff and students to travel to and from campus via sustainable means of transport.
Figure 31 shows cycling was supported by five members with the provision of facilities on campus such as bike
lockers and showers (see Case Study 4). Car pooling software and incentives were also provided by four
members. Some institutes offered discounted or salary sacrificed tickets to encourage and reward travel by
public transport. Overall more than two FTE staff were employed by members to help manage a transition to
sustainable transport options.
31 | P a g e
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
Case Study 4 - Bike Hub as Part of a Bike
Friendly Campus at Deakin
Bike hub at Waurn Ponds Campus
A Deakin University initiative to make its
Geelong Waurn Ponds Campus a bike
friendly Campus has assisted in
progressing sustainable transport use.
Advancing both social and environmental
sustainability, two new bike hubs, various
bike racks, bike lanes, and signage were
installed on the regional Campus. The
bike hub (pictured) has been designed to
stand out from the crowd while also
providing functionality and purpose. The
hub has 20 bike hoops, 28 lockers and
two solar heated showers.
Sustainability, the Sector and the Future
The tertiary education sector has reacted to environmental challenges in a positive way by reducing its own
environmental impacts and continuing to expand its areas of responsibility. For example GHG emissions
calculations are now more likely to include not just GHG emissions from energy, but also those from air travel,
paper use and waste. The next stage for the sector is to expand this responsibility beyond our own boundaries
(both physical and legal) and take responsibility for our wider impacts such as those on biodiversity and
ecosystems. Part of this broader outlook for sustainability needs to include an institutional-level approach to
integrating social and environmental performance and recognition that an integrated approach is necessary
for a sustainable future.
The value of biodiversity and ecosystems is not included in economic decision making; this needs to change
(Watson 2011). This is not just an issue for tertiary education in Australia, but is a wide-spread problem
throughout the business world. There is a need for all sectors, including tertiary education, to look beyond
their immediate boundaries and take responsibility for the impacts of their decisions and actions. Sourcing of
products, services, energy, food, transport options and buildings are just a few examples of daily occurrences
that directly affect off-campus (and in many cases on-campus) biodiversity.
Specific to the sector is the need to recognise and formalise the alignment of social and environmental
sustainability. In a global context many of us realise it is impossible to have one without the other and yet
within the sector the two are often separated. This may be because traditionally the departments responsible
for the institutes’ social wellbeing (such as staff, students and community) are not the same departments or
32 | P a g e
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
divisions that can have the biggest immediate impact on the environment (such as facilities, building
management, finance and procurement). Institutions need a better strategy for social sustainability. We are
good at including students categorised as ‘at risk’ or ‘vulnerable’ but we are not good at ensuring this
responsible approach to society and the community is across all that we do. For example investment strategies,
procurement processes, and approaches to managing staff need to have a positive, rather than a negative
impact on society and environment.
EfS is a growing area for the sector and an area of potential influence for the wider community, both
domestically and internationally. What our future organisational and governmental leaders learn about
sustainability could have far reaching impacts. The importance of EfS cannot be underestimated. The impact of
having graduates that are familiar with, and see the relevance of, sustainability concepts in everyday life, is not
yet known, but the potential is huge. Implementing EfS is expensive. Curriculum needs to be developed or
revised and academic and teaching staff require professional development. It is not a sustainability measure
that can be justified with cost savings, such as saving energy, and with the financial pressure tertiary education
institutes are now under it is most likely the full implementation of EfS will be delayed. Students exposed to an
education centred on immersion in sustainability principles, philosophy and application are a greater
immediate benefit to business and the community than to an education institute. Therefore it requires a
culture of community engagement and organisational altruism. This is more difficult to foster in times of great
financial pressure.
Efforts to reduce environmental impacts continue at member institutions, although activities that have an
overall financial cost are on the decline, for example the purchase of GreenPower and emission offsets.
Reduction of GHG emissions continues in other ways such as reductions in fleet vehicle size and building
energy efficiencies. There are good examples in the sector of sustainable buildings, however the majority of
the buildings are older stock and were not built to include sustainability principles. There remains room for
improvement and the costs of operating a building are rarely factored into the initial construction or
renovation costs of the building. With increasing energy, water and carbon costs forecasted in the near future,
this simple change to how new building and refurbishment costs are calculated could help result in even
greater environmental and financial savings.
Lastly, we as a sector need to paint a picture of what a sustainable education institute looks like, particularly
one that can adapt to climate change. We are reducing our environmental impacts and becoming more
‘sustainable’, but what is the end goal? We need a vision of what a sustainable organisation would look like,
how it operates and how it would contribute to a sustainable nation and world. At the most senior levels the
big questions need to be asked, such as: are we doing enough; how should we adapt; do we need to change
the way we do business; are our future plans going to promote or hinder sustainability; what does a workforce
committed to sustainability consist of; what does a campus based on sustainability look like; what does
sustainable education, or research look like? How do we know when we are sustainable?
33 | P a g e
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
References
National Sustainability Council (2013). Sustainable Australia Report 2013: Conversations with the future.
Canberra: Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities.
International Organization for Standardization (2010). ISO 26000:2010 – Guidance on social responsibility.
Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.
Watson, Robert (2011). Biodiversity as a strategic priority for commissioning and use of evidence. Retrieved
from sd.defra.gov.uk/2011/04/biodiversity-as-a-strategic-priority-for-commissioning-and-use-of-evidence/ on
28/06/2013.
Zero Waste SA (2013). What can be recycled from e-waste? Retrieved from www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/ewaste/what-can-be-recycled-from-e-waste on 01/07/2013.
UK Government Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2006). Procuring the Future:
Sustainable Procurement National Action Plan: Recommendations from the Sustainable Procurement Task
Force. London, UK: DEFRA.
CSIRO (2011). Energy for Buildings. Retrieved from www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Energy/Renewables-andSmart-Systems/Energy-for-buildings.aspx on 01/07/2013
Carbon Neutral (2012). Australia’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Retrieved from
www.carbonneutral.com.au/climate-change/australian-emissions.html on 02/07/2013
Energy Efficiency Opportunities (2013). Results and Participants. Retrieved from
energyefficiencyopportunities.gov.au/results-and-participants on 16/07/2013
34 | P a g e
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
Appendix 1 – Data by Institution
The following tables include data reported by SCG members for 2012. Where members had previously reported 2011 data this has also been included. The
data includes Staff, Students and Gross Floor Area by Institution (Table A); Facilities Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions (Table B); Total Water
Consumed (Per Capita and Gross Floor Area) by Institution (Table C); and Waste to Landfill and Recycling (Per Capita and Gross Floor Area) by Institution
(Table D).
Table A: Staff, Students and Gross Floor Area by Institution
Table A: Staff, students and gross floor area by institution
Institution
Charles Darwin University
Students (EFTSL)
2011
2012
Academic /Teaching
Staff (FTE)
2011
2012
General/NonTeaching Staff (FTE)
2011
2012
Total Staff (FTE)
2011
2012
Total Staff + Students Gross Floor Area (m 2 )
2011
2012
2011
2012
3,906
4,445
888
888
623
623
1,511
1,511
5,417
5,956
123,791
122,490
Deakin University
24,436
25,669
1,208
1,312
1,586
1,638
2,793
2,950
27,229
28,619
288,067
316,874
Monash University
38,525
38,542
3,524
3,589
4,123
4,582
7,647
8,171
46,172
46,713
650,743
672,528
Murdoch University
8,849
10,512
505
542
771
847
1,276
1,389
10,125
11,901
123,030
132,075
12,140
13,352
684
724
425
314
1,109
1,038
13,249
14,390
111,719
119,613
3,042
4,135
304
292
191
181
495
473
3,537
4,608
54,347
52,767
NA
5,197
NA
337
NA
378
NA
715
NA
5,912
NA
69,372
Sunraysia Institute of TAFE
2,765
3,047
92
85
110
99
202
184
2,967
3,231
29,029
29,029
Sunshine Coast TAFE
6,557
6,376
224
185
299
231
523
416
7,080
6,792
37,303
38,335
100,221
111,274
7,429
7,954
8,127
8,894
Chisholm Institute of TAFE
Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE
SkillsTech Australia
TOTAL
15,556
16,848
115,777
128,122 1,418,029 1,553,083
Note: If numbers of staff could not be subclassified into either academic/teaching or general/non-teaching then the total staff has been included in one category only.
35 | P a g e
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
Table B: Facilities Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table B: Facilities energy consumption (includes all electricity, gas and diesel oil consumed for facilities and excludes transport-related
energy use) and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (net of offsets)
Energy
Institution
Charles Darwin University
GJ/head (a)
2011
2012
GreenPower (b)
GJ/GFA m 2
2011
2012
% of total
electricity
purchased
2011
2012
GHG Emissions (Net of offsets) (d)
Electricity (c)
kWh/head (a)
2011
2012
kWh/GFA m 2
2011
2012
t CO2 -e/(staff
FTE + students
EFTSL)
2011
2012
t CO2 -e/GFA
m 2 (a)
2011
2012
12.46
11.61
0.55
0.56
0.0%
0.0%
3460
3224
151.41
156.75
2.56
2.55
0.11
0.12
Deakin University
9.12
7.74
0.86
0.70
1.2%
0.0%
1447
1428
136.81
128.95
2.14
2.04
0.20
0.18
Monash University
11.38
13.18
0.81
0.92
15.0%
13.9%
1778
2052
126.17
142.50
2.33
2.68
0.17
0.19
Murdoch University
9.15
8.08
0.75
0.73
20.4%
18.8%
2042
1781
168.02
160.45
1.60
1.42
0.13
0.13
Chisholm Institute of TAFE
5.26
4.93
0.62
0.59
13.0%
0.0%
835
673
99.07
80.91
1.11
1.04
0.13
0.12
Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE
6.85
5.70
0.45
0.50
27.7%
11.2%
1078
837
70.14
73.10
1.22
1.14
0.08
0.10
NA
3.35
NA
0.29
NA
0.0%
NA
931
NA
79.33
NA
0.91
NA
0.08
Sunraysia Institute of TAFE
4.37
4.44
0.45
0.49
18.9%
21.9%
944
877
96.51
97.63
1.09
0.99
0.11
0.11
Sunshine Coast TAFE
1.89
1.78
0.36
0.32
0.0%
0.0%
494
465
93.68
82.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Universities (Average)
10.50
10.76
0.79
0.81
10.6%
9.7%
1809
1900
135.73
142.36
2.20
2.31
0.17
0.17
TAFEs (Average)
4.48
4.11
0.52
0.46
14.3%
4.2%
789
717
91.12
80.98
0.80
0.78
0.09
0.09
All (Average)
9.10
8.95
0.74
0.74
11.0%
9.0%
1573
1578
128.42
130.14
1.88
1.89
0.15
0.16
SkillsTech Australia
Notes :
(a ) Per hea d i ncl udes s taff (FTE) a nd s tudents (EFTSL).
(b) Where no fi gures were gi ven by i ns titutions for GreenPower i t i s a s s umed no GreenPower wa s purcha s ed.
(c) Ca l cul a tion combi nes kWh purcha s ed from the gri d, GreenPower a nd el ectri ci ty genera ted through ons i te renewa bl es .
(d) Offs ets recorded a s 'fa ci l i ties offs ets ' or 'other offs ets ' ha ve been deducted. If offs ets were recorded for 'a i r tra vel ' or 'vehi cl es ' they were not deducted
from fa ci l i ties emi s s i ons .
36 | P a g e
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
Table C: Total Water Consumed (Per Person and Gross Floor Area) by Institution
Table C: Total water consumed per head (staff FTE & students EFTSL) and
per gross floor area (GFA) by institution
Institution
Charles Darwin University
Deakin University
Water per head
(kL/(staff + students)
2011
2012
Water per floor area
(kL/GFA m 2 )
2011
2012
59.8
37.2
2.6
1.8
3.7
3.3
0.4
0.3
Monash University
7.1
8.1
0.5
0.6
Murdoch University
47.2
41.7
3.9
3.8
Chisholm Institute of TAFE
2.7
2.5
0.3
0.3
Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE
7.8
6.9
0.5
0.6
SkillsTech Australia
NA
1.5
NA
0.1
Sunraysia Institute of TAFE
5.7
7.3
0.6
0.8
Sunshine Coast TAFE
1.6
1.6
0.3
0.3
13.8
12.8
1.0
1.0
3.4
3.2
0.4
0.4
11.4
10.2
0.9
0.8
Universities (Average)
TAFEs (Average)
All (Average)
Note: Ins titutions tha t di d not provi de wa ter da ta or GFA fi gures ha ve been
excl uded from the a vera ge ca l cul a tions .
37 | P a g e
Sustainable Campus Group 2012
Table D: Waste to Landfill and Recycling (Per Person and Gross Floor Area) by Institution
Table D: Waste to landfill and recycling per head (staff FTE + students EFTSL) and per gross floor area (GFA) by institution
Institution
Charles Darwin University
Waste per head
(kg/head)
2011
2012
Waste per floor area
Recycling per head
(kg/head)
2011
2012
Recycling per floor area
2
(kg/GFA m 2 )
2011
2012
(kg/GFA m )
2011
2012
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
Deakin University
47.6
51.7
10.9
12.9
4.5
4.7
1.0
1.2
Monash University
62.7
62.3
21.4
26.0
4.4
4.3
1.5
1.8
Murdoch University
53.2
37.2
41.1
36.5
4.4
3.4
3.4
3.3
Chisholm Institute of TAFE
99.4
94.1
35.5
35.9
11.8
11.3
4.2
4.3
Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE
41.7
31.8
18.0
12.5
2.7
2.8
1.2
1.1
SkillsTech Australia
NA
94.0
NA
9.6
NA
8.0
NA
0.8
Sunraysia Institute of TAFE
81.0
24.0
15.0
3.2
8.3
2.7
1.5
0.4
Sunshine Coast TAFE
96.2
47.8
23.9
19.7
18.3
8.5
4.5
3.5
Universities (Average)
56.6
55.4
20.3
23.2
4.5
4.3
1.6
1.8
TAFEs (Average)
88.9
65.6
27.9
24.7
10.3
7.9
3.2
3.0
All (Average)
64.5
57.9
22.2
23.6
5.5
4.9
1.9
2.0
Note: Ins titutions tha t di d not provi de wa s te da ta or GFA fi gures ha ve been excl uded from the a vera ge ca l cul a tions .
Concrete a nd demol i ti on wa s te (to l a ndfi l l a nd recycl ed) a nd i ndus tri a l wa s te a re not i ncl uded i n thes e fi gures .
38 | P a g e