Sustainable Campus Group
Australian Tertiary
Education Sector
Sustainability Report
2011
September 2011
© Sustainable Campus Group 2011
Acknowledgements: The SCG reporting process 2011 was facilitated by Stephen Derrick, Belinda
Towns and Benjamin Meyer at the Monash Sustainability Institute.
Published by the Monash Sustainability Institute (MSI)
Monash University, VIC 3800 Australia
T: +61 3 990 59323
E: enquiries@msi.monash.edu.au
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.
2
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 4
1.1 Participating Institutions .............................................................................................................. 4
1.2 Reporting Methodology ............................................................................................................... 4
Sustainability in the Australian Tertiary Education Sector .............................................................. 5
2.1 Institutional Commitment ............................................................................................................ 6
2.2 Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions ...................................................... 7
2.3 Transport .................................................................................................................................... 10
2.4 Waste and Recycling ................................................................................................................... 11
2.5 Water .......................................................................................................................................... 14
2.6 Buildings ..................................................................................................................................... 15
2.7 Purchasing .................................................................................................................................. 17
2.8 Information Technology (IT) ....................................................................................................... 19
2.9 Education for Sustainability (EfS) ............................................................................................... 20
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................. 21
References ................................................................................................................................. 22
Appendix 1 - Data Completeness ................................................................................................. 23
Table A 1.1 Ranked data completeness for selected sections of the workbook .............................. 23
Appendix 2 – Data by Institution ................................................................................................. 24
Table A 2.1 Staff, Students and Gross Floor Area by Institution ...................................................... 24
Table A 2.2 Institutional Commitment to Environmental Policies Indicator .................................... 24
Table A 2.3 Facilities Energy Consumption....................................................................................... 24
Table A 2.4 GHG Emissions by Facilities, Air Travel and Automotive Travel by Institution.............. 24
Table A 2.5 Mains Water Purchased (Per Capita and Gross Floor Area) by Institution ................... 24
Table A 2.6 Waste to Landfill (Per Capita and Gross Floor Area) by Institution............................... 24
3
Introduction
In March 2010, the Sustainable Campus Group (SCG) and Monash Sustainability Institute (MSI)
launched the first nation-wide assessment of sustainability in the tertiary education sector in Australia.
This is the second nation-wide SCG report and it showcases the 2010 environmental performance of
SCG members.
The SCG is a national environmental sustainability reporting initiative begun in Victoria in 2006. In
2009 membership was opened to tertiary education institutions Australia wide. SCG members consist
of universities and TAFE institutes that are working to improve their environmental performance and
choose to report publicly on their progress. The SCG also facilitates professional networking and
encourages ‘green’ campus best practice.
SCG’s main annual activity is the sustainability reporting project. The SCG reports make the
environmental sustainability performance of participating member institutions publicly available and
accessible. Sharing this information creates a constructive climate for positive change in tertiary
education. It showcases best practice among leading institutions and stimulates improved effort
among peer institutions. It is recognised that institutional peer pressure can be a catalyst for senior
management to commit to sustainability.
1.1 Participating Institutions
NSW
Charles Sturt University
TAFE NSW - Sydney Institute
NT
Charles Darwin University
QLD
Brisbane North Institute of TAFE
Sunshine Coast Institute of TAFE
SA
Flinders University of South Australia
Vic
Box Hill Institute of TAFE
Chisholm Institute of TAFE
Deakin University
Gordon Institute of TAFE
Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE
Kangan Institute of TAFE
Monash University
Sunraysia Institute of TAFE
WA
Central Institute of Technology
Murdoch University
1.2 Reporting Methodology
SCG provides its member institutions with the SCG Workbook, which is a data management and
reporting instrument. Each year the workbook is revised and expanded through further consultation
with experts and member institutions. To avoid duplication of data collection for members, the SCG
Workbook reporting tool is aligned where possible with existing Australian regulations and standards,
such as National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) framework and other reporting
instruments.
4
The modules collected both quantitative and qualitative data on different aspects of sustainability. All
qualitative sections contained questions on systems to support sustainability (such as policies,
strategies, plans, committees and staff) and on sustainability targets.
Member institutions were given 6–8 weeks to complete as much of the Workbook as they could with
their 2010 data before returning a copy to the SCG for use in this report. As this Sector Sustainability
Report is a self-reporting initiative, SCG did not verify or audit the data submitted in the SCG
Workbooks. Data was accepted as provided, except in cases where it appeared obviously incorrect. In
such cases SCG liaised with the members to correct the data. Appendix 1 contains a table of Data
Completeness which shows how many member institutions completed each section of the workbook
for 2009 and 2010 and therefore how complete the data sets are. All members were given the
opportunity to review the draft findings of this report before publication.
The data provided by the participants was analysed on a total institution basis (that is, the total of all
campuses). To allow comparisons between institutions of very different sizes, most of the results
reported here were first standardised either by each institution’s total students and staff (equivalent
full-time student load (EFTSL) and full-time equivalent (FTE) staff) or by its building gross floor area
(GFA - in square metres). The EFTSL, FTE, GFA and other data are reported by each institution are
provided in detail in Appendix 2. Note: Throughout the main body of the report, all of the charts and
figures are shown on a ‘like with like’ basis. That is, all 2009 data are for the same group of members
that reported in 2010 (see section 1.1 Participating Institutions). With two exceptions (institutions that
were not members in 2009 and did not report 2009 data), the data set is complete. The tables in
Appendix 2 include data from all of the members that reported in 2009. This complete set is provided
to enable a broader range of comparisons.
Sustainability in the Australian Tertiary Education Sector
This section reports on and discusses the sector averages for 2010 and 2009 data provided by the 2011
SCG member institutions (see section 1.1 Participating Institutions). Institutional-level data is provided
in Appendix 2. Results are a snapshot of measuring and reporting at each institution and do not
necessarily reveal the full picture of sustainability work and management at each institution. The
approach of this report is not to ‘name and shame’ but rather to create a collaborative environment
for engaging the tertiary education sector in measuring, monitoring and reducing its collective
environmental footprint and improving its sustainability performance. A snap shot of performance can
be seen in table 1, below. This table is based on 2009 and 2010 data from 14 current SCG Members
that provided relevant information for 2009 and 2010. If data was not provided it is indicated with a
‘na’ (not available). This table shows that institutions have grown their student and staff numbers and
floor area, but have managed to reduce relative water consumption and net greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. Encouragingly, energy consumption has not increased at the same rate as the growth in
student and staff numbers and floor area.
Tertiary Institutes can vary greatly from one another. Some are located in the CBD, others in suburban
or rural areas and some provide residential accommodation for students. This has an impact on land
use, transport access and resource use, for example. Other variations include the type of training,
teaching and research that is 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
5
in mind when looking at the results in this report. SCG membership for this Report was 16, down from
27 in 2009. Nevertheless, SCG Members for 2011 represent 25 per cent of total EFTSL for Australia, so
the results are representative of the sector as a whole.
Indicator
Value in 2009 Value in 2010 % Change
Institutional Commitment
Average number of Staff in environmental improvement roles (FTE) per 1000 students
na
0.15
Number of institutions that ran cultural change/green office programs
na
11
Number of institutions with an Environmental Management System (EMS)
na
4
Student and Staff numbers (Effective Full Time Student Load + Full Time Equivalent)
Gross Floor Area (GFA) meters squared (m²)
199,851
210,449
5.3%
2,050,628
2,097,117
2.3%
Energy and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
Total facilities energy consumption (Gigajoules)
Average percentage of total green electrcity consumption
(total green electricty consumption (kWh)/ total electricity consumption (kWh))
Net facilities and automotive emissions (tonnes CO2-e)
Net facilities GHG emissions per head (tonnes CO2-e/(EFTSL + staff FTE))
Automotive emissions (owned and leased) per head (tonnes CO2-e/staff FTE)
1,441,644
1,463,507
1.5%
7.44%
7.49%
0.65%
299,887
318,547
6.2%
1.46
0.12
1.45
0.14
-1.04%
5.3
4.9
-6.5%
68.8
67.8
-1.4%
21.8%
23.4%
7.7%
16.9%
Water
Mains water purchased per head (kilolitres/(EFTSL + staff FTE))
Waste
Waste to landfill per head (kilograms/(EFTSL + staff FTE))
Percentage of waste diverted from landfill (recycled)
Table 1 – Snapshot of Sustainability Performance Indicators by 14 SCG Members in 2009 and 2010
2.1 Institutional Commitment
Measuring institutional commitment to sustainability is an attempt to show how well sustainability
initiatives are funded, integrated and supported by an institution. This is measured in a quantifiable
manner so that results can be monitored and compared to other institutes. Measures used include
number and types of committees and the level of management represented on these committees;
number of staff (FTE) employed to work on sustainability programs; the existence of relevant staff
training and performance reward programs; and sustainability considerations in strategies, targets and
contracts. Chart one shows the number of staff employed (FTE) to work on operational environmental
programs at each institute, for every 1,000 students (EFTSL). Individual Member data can be found in
Appendix 2, table 2.2.
Other topics include sustainable catering, socially responsible investments, environmentally
responsible campus master plans, biodiversity on campus and green leases for tenants to build
environmentally responsible behaviour into lessees’ contracts. Four SCG Members had money
invested in Socially Responsible Investment funds and none used green leases for tenants. Seven
institutions had sustainability principles included in campus master planning and very few institutes
had sustainable catering principles. Two institutions contractually required on campus caterers to use
re-usable/recyclable/biodegradable packaging. No institutions contractually required on-campus
caterers to source foods locally and only one contractually required caterers to provide seasonal
menus. Eight institutions provided vegetarian and culturally sensitive meals on campus.
6
Average Number of Staff (FTE) Employed in
Sustainbility Roles per 1000 Students (EFTSL)
2010
Average
TAFE
University
2009
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
Average FTE Employed
Chart 1 – Average Number of Staff (FTE) Employed in Sustainability Roles, per 1,000 Students (Equivalent Fulltime Student Load) in 2010
Biodiversity was slightly better addressed at an institutional level as six members had a biodiversity
policy, plan, strategy, committee, working group or taskforce and five had a policy to plant native and
indigenous plants on their campuses.
2.2 Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
The majority of energy consumption at Australian tertiary education institutions is for building
management; the big energy consumers are often heating, cooling, and air handling. Energy consumed
on campus for running buildings and infrastructure is referred to in this report as facilities energy. The
majority of facilities energy is electricity and natural gas. As electricity in Australia is largely generated
from burning coal, most of the GHG emissions at tertiary institutes can be directly linked with
maintaining buildings. GHG emissions from Members’ facilities energy consisted of at least 80 per cent
of all their GHG emissions (from facilities, vehicular travel and air travel). The percentage of GHG
emissions from facilities energy is higher at institutes with less vehicular and air travel.
The focus on facilities energy consumption is understandable as it accounts for a very large component
of institution operating costs. It therefore follows that there are significant opportunities for saving
energy and costs. There is also an increasing requirement for some institutions to report energy
consumption and/or emissions. For example, some of the larger institutions already have to report
under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act. This focus is reflected by both the
comprehensiveness of the data reported by the participants and by the large number of policies and
targets they held in relation to this area, such as 100 per cent of all 15 respondents to this question
reporting a target to reduce energy consumption and/or GHG emissions. Additionally, two thirds of
members reported commitments to increase the proportion of accredited GreenPower purchases.
Other SCG Members conducted energy audits to identify areas where savings could be made: five had
a committee, working group or task force dedicated to reducing energy consumption and GHG
emissions, and nine ran behavioural change programs to encourage staff and students to reduce
energy use.
7
Members reported a total facilities energy consumption of 1,773,465 gigajoules (GJ) for 2010. This
total included all sources of stationary energy generation, including grid electricity, purchased
GreenPower, on-site renewable generation, natural gas and diesel oil. Electricity accounted for 59.8
per cent (58.6 per cent in 2009) of all energy consumption and non-transport natural gas was 36.2 per
cent (36 per cent in 2009).
Charts 2 and 3 show the university and TAFE averages for facilities energy consumption per head and
per floor area. As Chart 2 shows, universities reported much higher energy consumption per head
relative to TAFEs, being more than three times higher in 2010.
Facilities Energy Consumption/Head
(GJ/(EFTSL+FTE))
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
GJ
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
2009
2010
University
TAFE
All
Institution type
Chart 2 – Facilities Energy Consumption in Gigajoules (GJ) per Equivalent Fulltime Student Load (EFTSL) plus
Full-time Equivalent Staff (FTE) for 2009 and 2010
However the difference between TAFEs and universities is not as marked when energy consumption is
considered per floor area as chart 3 shows.
Facilities Energy Consumption/Floor
Area (GJ/GFA m²)
1.00
0.80
0.60
GJ
0.40
2009
0.20
2010
0.00
University
TAFE
All
Institution type
2
Chart 3 - Facilities Energy Consumption in Gigajoules (GJ) per Gross Floor Area (GFA) in metres squared (m ) for
2009 and 2010
8
For both indicators, TAFEs have the lowest energy consumption by a significant margin. This difference
is likely to reflect the more energy-intensive research facilities and laboratories in universities.
Some electricity purchased is GreenPower (see chart 4 for percentages of GreenPower purchased at
each institute) which is sourced from renewable energy, and therefore reduces overall GHG emissions.
Several SCG member institutes generate renewable energy-on campus. Some use this energy directly
on-campus and others feed it into the grid. Figure 1 shows the solar panel array at Murdoch University
which is used to provide power for the library. Eight SCG members also purchased emission offsets.
Some of these are general offsets, whilst others specifically offset the emissions from their vehicle
fleet.
Figure 1 - Solar Panels being Installed on
the Library Roof at Murdoch University,
bringing the University’s Total Electricity
Production from On-site Solar Panels to
56kW; enough to Power 45 Houses.
Chart 4 shows the percentage of
GreenPower purchased of the total
electricity purchased for each member.
In 2010 all Government departments
and agencies in Victoria were required
to purchase 10 per cent GreenPower
increasing to 25 per cent in July 2010.
This was not the case in other states and territories. Subsequent to a change of Government in Victoria
this requirement to purchase GreenPower is no longer in effect.
Proportion of GreenPower Purchased
30%
25%
20%
2009
% Purchased 15%
2010
10%
5%
0%
Chart 4 – Percentage of Electricity Purchased that is GreenPower, for each SCG Member in 2009 and 2010
9
2.3 Transport
The environmental impact of transport falls into two main categories: direct and indirect. Direct
impacts generally include transport conducted as part of operating an organisation, such as air travel
and vehicles for staff use whether they be owned or leased by the institute. SCG Members were given
the opportunity to report their energy consumption
for vehicles as well as their air travel. This data was
then used to calculate resulting GHG emissions. As
only seven Members reported air travel for both
2009 and 2010; GHG emissions from air travel are
not displayed. No members had a program to reduce
air travel.
For TAFE members, automotive travel net emissions
per FTE are slightly higher than emissions from air
travel and are at a level comparable with
universities. University staff undertake a much
higher level of air travel which is related to their
research programs, conference attendance and
operation of international campuses.
Figure 2 - Monash University's Bike Share Program
The indirect impact of transport at tertiary
institutions includes staff and students travelling to
and from campuses. Indirect impacts are difficult to measure and have not been included in this
report. Rather SCG members were given the opportunity to report on initiatives they have in place to
reduce the environmental impact of travel such us encouraging staff and students to walk, cycle or use
public transport rather than driving to and from, and between, campuses. Commitment to reduce the
indirect environmental impact of transport varied among members: five had a committee, taskforce or
working group dedicated to sustainable transport and four ran an awareness campaign to encourage
alternatives to vehicle use (see chart 5). Almost all members utilised video conferencing. Finally, most
members had programs to increase sustainable transport modes.
For example, Monash University has a bike share
program to encourage students to cycle rather than
drive around their largest campus (see figure 2), and
Deakin University successfully lobbied the Victoria
Government for two additional bus services that run
every twenty minutes in peak periods to the
Melbourne Burwood campus, which have eased
congestion and encouraged commuter use (see
figure 3).
Figure 3 - One of the two Public Transport Buses that
now serve the Deakin University campus, on site
10
Sustainable Transport Indicators
All
Video Conferencing Facilities
Available
TAFE
Awareness Campaign to
Encourgage Alternative Vehicle
Use
Committee to Develop
Sustainable Transport
Initiatives
University
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
% of Positive Responses
Chart 5 - Percentage of Respondents with Listed Sustainable Transport Initiatives in 2010
2.4 Waste and Recycling
Waste is a large environmental impact of the sector. It is often one of the first programs that institutes
work on when they develop an environmental plan. 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 visible aspects of waste are recycling stations (see figure 4) and
landfill bins on campuses. Chart 6 shows what percentage of internal and external waste bins also had
recycling bins accompanying them. Less visible is the waste generated from building construction,
grounds maintenance and teaching spaces such as laboratories and workshops. Both types of waste
can be monitored and measured, however Members more commonly reported quantities of visible
waste from recycling and landfill stations found in buildings and public areas on campus. The
proportion of recycling to total waste is shown in charts 7 and 8.
Proportion of Waste Stations with
Recycling Facilities
External
All
TAFE
University
Internal
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Chart 6 - Percentage of Internal and External Waste Bins accompanied by Recycling Facilities in 2010
11
Recycling recorded by SCG Members included paper, cans, bottles and recyclable take-away
containers. Some Members have contracts with their waste management contractors to provide data
on recycling rates and composition of waste to landfill and others use physical audits to determine
amounts. It should be noted that waste and recycling measurement is based on certain assumptions
which vary according to waste management providers and institutions. For example if waste is
counted by volume (numbers of wheelie bins collected) and then converted to weight, assumptions
are made regarding how full the wheelie bins are when collected and what the composition of the
waste/recycling was so that a volume to weight converter can be applied.
2010 University Waste and Recycling
Proportions
23%
Total Waste to Landfill
(tonnes)
Total Waste Recycled
(tonnes)
77%
Chart 7 - Proportion of Recycling (1,651 tonnes) to Waste to Landfill (5,416 tonnes) at Universities in 2010
2010 TAFE Waste and Recycling
Proportions
16%
Total Waste to Landfill
(tonnes)
Total Waste Recycled
(tonnes)
84%
Chart 8 - Proportion of Recycling (1,691 tonnes) to Waste to Landfill (8,858 tonnes) at TAFE Institutions in 2010
The waste and recycling module asked the institutions for data on the amount and composition of
waste they sent to landfill and the amount of waste recycled or composted. It also asked them about
the institutional support systems for waste reduction and recycling, such as waste audits, waste
reduction campaigns, and prevalence of recycling stations: ten institutes had waste committees; nine
had a target to reduce waste and/or increase recycling; 12 included the provision of waste collection
12
data in their waste management contracts and 11
had allocated staff time to reducing the
environmental impact of waste. Finally, across all the
members on average 51% of internal waste stations
and 43% of external waste stations had recycling
components, as depicted in chart 6.
Figure 4 - Recycling Station at Charles Darwin University
In 2010, SCG members sent over 22,000 tonnes of
waste to landfill and reported recycling over 4,800
tonnes. The proportions sent to landfill and recycled
did not differ significantly between universities and
TAFEs as shown in charts 7 and 8.
Charts 9 and 10 below provide details per head and
per floor area. Universities sent more waste to
landfill per head and recycled more than for TAFEs
for both 2009 and 2010 as shown in chart 9.
Total Waste to Landfill and Recycled/Head
(kg/(EFTSL+ FTE))
80
70
60
50
Mass (kg) 40
30
20
10
0
to landfill 2009
to landfill 2010
recycled 2009
recycled 2010
University
TAFEs
All
Institution type
Chart 9 – Total Waste to Landfill and Recycled in kilograms (kg) per Equivalent Full-time Student Load (EFTSL)
plus Full-time Equivalent Staff (FTE) for 2009 and 2010
As can be seen in chart 10, when this is compared to waste per floor area, the situation is reversed as
TAFEs sent more waste to landfill and recycled more than universities on this measure.
13
Total Waste to Landfill and Recycled/Floor
Area (kg/GFA m2)
12
10
8
Mass (kg)
to landfill 2009
6
to landfill 2010
4
recycled 2009
2
recycled 2010
0
University
TAFEs
All
Institution type
Chart 10 – Total Waste to Landfill and Recycled in kilograms (kg) per Gross Floor Area (GFA) in metres squared
2
(m ) for 2009 and 2010
2.5 Water
Tertiary education institutes are often large water users. Areas of high water consumption include
grounds maintenance, cooling towers, student residences, laboratories, on-campus agriculture and
other areas of teaching, training and research. For example, figure 5 shows rain water tanks at Sydney
institute used to provide water for Fire Services and Plumbing training. Water reduction has long been
a focus for the sector often due to water restrictions and availability of water. As well as reduction
initiatives, sources of non-mains water have been developed, such as rainwater tanks, bores and
dams.
Figure 5 - An array of Water Tanks at Sydney
Institute’s Randwick College used to collect
Water for Fire Services Training and
Dampening the Sand Pit for Plumbing Training
SCG members used a total of 2,303,642 kL
of water during 2010 from several sources
including mains, bore and rain water. For
those members that provided both 2009
and 2010 data, a four per cent decrease in
the proportion of mains water consumed
was noted, from 1,015,222 kL (96% of total
2009 water consumption) to 1,004,001 kL
(92% of total 2010 water consumption).
Between 2009 and 2010 water use
decreased at universities by head and by
floor area and increased slightly at TAFEs by head and floor area. This is illustrated in charts 11 and 12.
Commitment to reducing water use was evident amongst members: 10 had a committee, taskforce or
working group dedicated to water reduction; 10 had reduction targets; 10 were regulated by water
14
restrictions; 10 conducted a behavioural change program for staff and students to encourage water
reduction; 11 collected rain water and 3 conducted water audits to identify water saving measures and
technology. One of the SCG Members had a grey water system (unmetered) and none had black water
systems. Reliance on potable mains water is still high.
Mains Water Purchased/Head
(kL/(EFTSL+ FTE))
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
Mains Water 5.0
Purchased (kL) 4.0
2009
3.0
2010
2.0
1.0
0.0
University
TAFE
All
Institution type
Chart 11 –Mains Water Purchased in kilolitres (kL) per Equivalent Full-time Student Load (EFTSL) plus Full-time
Equivalent Staff (FTE) for 2009 and 2010
Mains Water Purchased/Floor Area
(kL/GFA m2)
0.7
0.6
0.5
Mains Water
Purchased (kL)
0.4
2009
0.3
2010
0.2
0.1
0.0
University
TAFE
All
Institution type
2
Chart 12 – Mains Water Purchased in kilolitres (kL) per Gross Floor Area (GFA) in metres squared (m ) for 2009
and 2010
2.6 Buildings
Buildings have both a long lasting and immediate impact on the environment. The construction of a
building has an immediate impact with regard to existing biodiversity on site, building materials and
the waste created during the construction process. The long lasting environmental impacts are largely
15
influenced by the amount of energy and water a building requires for heating, ventilation, cooling and
occupant usage, such as lighting and IT equipment. Sustainable buildings are designed to have a much
lower impact on the environment and use technologies such as double glazed windows, night cooling
and rain water harvesting to reduce on-going energy and water consumption. Many buildings in the
sector are not sustainable as they are old buildings and /or they have not had a sustainable retrofit. An
example of a sustainable building at Central Institute of Technology is in figure 6.
SCG Members were given the opportunity to
report on how much of the GFA retrofitted was
sustainable; either by their own internal
assessment or according to an externally
accredited assessment such as the Green Building
Council of Australia, and responses to this
question was high. A total of 37,944 m2 of new
GFA was added during the year by Members. One
Member recorded a new building of 1,900 m2
(GFA) that was accredited 4 Stars according to
the National Australian Built Environment Rating
System (NABERS). Other new buildings and
retrofits may operate as sustainable spaces even
if they were not externally accredited.
Figure 6 - New Sustainable Building at Central
Institute of Technology’s Perth Campus
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 the leadership and support
provided by senior management, as well as the reporting processes to ensure sustainable buildings
were the most desired outcome. Chart 13 below highlights these responses. Each of the four
categories could score a maximum of 25 per cent and the best score would be 100 per cent. When
averaged, the lowest score was for Project Procurement processes (8.2 %), such as selecting
appropriate consultants and contractors and setting environmental targets. The highest average score
was for ongoing Facilities Management processes (11.2 %), such as staff environmental programs and
utilities metering.
16
Integration of Sustainability in New Buildings
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Box Hill Institute of TAFE
Brisbane North Institute of TAFE
Central Institute of Technology
Charles Darwin University
Charles Sturt University
Strategic Planning
Chisholm Institute of TAFE
Deakin University
Project Procurement
Flinders University of South Australia
Gordon Institute of TAFE
Facilities Management
Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE
Leadership
Kangan Institute of TAFE
Monash University
Murdoch University
Sunshine Coast Institute of TAFE
Sunraysia Institute of TAFE
TAFE NSW - Sydney Institute
0
20
40
60
80
100
Frequency of integration in each stage of the process (%)
Chart 13 – Integration of Sustainability into each Process of Building Planning, Construction and Use, for each
SCG Member in 2010
2.7 Purchasing
Green purchasing means selecting environmentally preferable products from environmentally
responsible suppliers. According to ECO-Buy ‘environmentally preferable products (and services) are
those that are less damaging to human health and the environment than comparable or competing
products that serve the same purpose.’
Green products and services can include high recycled content office furniture or green cleaning
services. Green criteria can be used to assess suppliers, such as ensuring that an environmentally
responsible company is engaged to provide staff recruitment, telecommunication or marketing
services. Environmental considerations can be given a weighting for tender proposals and tendering
organisations can be required to complete environmental assessment criteria. On-campus vendors can
be contractually obliged to provide environmentally responsible packaging and organic Fairtrade
produce. Contracts with these criteria can also form part of a green lease (see 2.1 Institutional
Commitment for more information about green leases). Very few of the practices above have been
implemented within the tertiary education sector, although it is a growing are of concern and interest
for the Sector.
SCG Members were given the opportunity to provide data on green purchasing such as the dollar value
of procurement that had environmental criteria applied to it, the number of staff trained in green
procurement, the average weighting given to environmental considerations across all procurement
and the existence of green procurement targets. Seven members had provided green purchasing
17
training for procurement staff in 2010 and all members responded to this question. The average
weighting given to environmental considerations, from the six members that responded to this
question, was 13% and the average dollar value was $22.75 million.
Quantitative data on some items were collected. These are items that members and stakeholders,
such as students, have deemed to be important, such as a commitment to purchasing Fairtrade tea
and coffee for staff tea rooms (chart 14) and recycled content copy paper (chart 15).
Proportion of Fairtrade Tea & Coffee
vs. Tea & Coffee Purchased
9%
Tea & Coffee (kg)
Tea & Coffee Fairtrade (kg)
91%
Chart 14 – Proportion of Fairtrade Tea & Coffee Purchased vs. Total Tea & Coffee Purchased in 2010
Data shown in chart 14 is representative of the seven institutions that provided data in 2010 and as
can be seen, Fairtrade tea and coffee purchased is nine per cent (485 kilograms) of non-Fairtrade tea
and coffee purchased (4,918 kilograms). Data shown in chart 15 is representative of the 14 institutions
that provided data for this section.
Total Copy Paper Purchased 2010
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
Reams
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Other
50 - 99% Recycled
100% Recycled
Plantation
Chart 15 – Total Copy Paper Purchased (reams of A4 equivalent) in 2010 by Institution
18
2.8 Information Technology (IT)
IT is an area that can have a large impact on sustainability in the workplace. Electricity and paper
consumption can be reduced by including the appropriate criteria when purchasing IT equipment,
electronic waste can be re-used and recycled rather than going to landfill and the technology itself can
be used to reduce travel and paper, such as video conferencing and lecture downloads. Other criteria
for IT equipment have been developed by EPEAT, a resource for environmentally preferable IT
equipment which several members use when making purchasing decisions.
Chart 16 shows data collected on green IT for this report. This included the existence of behaviour
change programs and green IT committees. Additionally results from surveys regarding the automatic
installation of low energy and low paper use options in all IT equipment are included.
TAFEs show a better performance than universities however this may be due to the higher number of
participating TAFE members.
Green IT Performance Indicators
All
Institution
Type
TAFE
University
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
% of Positive Responses
Behaviour Change Programs
Auto Installation of Double Sided Printing
Auto Installation of Low Energy Settings
Committee for monitoring and improving IT Practices
Chart 16 – Percentage of Respondents with Listed Green IT Initiatives in 2010
19
2.9 Education for Sustainability (EfS)
Although universities and TAFEs have large day-to-day environmental impacts by far the greatest
contribution they can make to sustainability is to educate students to understand and apply
sustainability principles in all that they do:
in their work, careers, communities and
society.
Figure 7 - “Little Red” Murdoch University’s
endangered baby Forest Red-tailed Black
Cockatoo with students Neil Goldsborough,
Robin Scott, Adjunct Professor Ron Johnstone
and Environmental Program Manager
Caroline Minton.
The SCG introduced an EfS data collection
section in its 2009 Workbook not only to
gauge progress, but also to encourage
institutions to collect and report data in
this area and bring this topic to the
attention of senior staff members and decision makers. EfS can be taught, researched or applied on
campus, such as Murdoch University’s engagement of academic staff and students with biodiversity on
campus, depicted in figure 7.
EfS Performance Indicators
All
Institution
Type
TAFE
University
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
% of positive responses
Environmental or Sustainability Aspects Included in Orientation
Environment or Sustainability Subject Required to Graduate
Strategy or Plan for Implementing EfS
EfS Committee
Chart 17 – Percentage of Respondents with Listed EfS Initiatives in 2010
20
EfS has a long way to go before it can be considered embedded in universities, however senior
management is beginning to show an interest in delivering strategic approaches to support EfS at their
institutes. Senior management commitment and support is crucial to the success of EfS at any
institute.
As can be seen in chart 17, TAFEs have a better record when it comes to embedding sustainability in
their education and training packages. The Green Skills Agreement, which is an agreement between
the Australian Government and state and territory governments to “build the capacity of the
vocational education and training sector to deliver the skills for sustainability required in the
workplace” mandated that Australian TAFEs review their training packages for any gaps in their skills
for sustainability by the end of March 2010 (COAG 2009). Many TAFE courses and subjects have been
updated to embed sustainability content and TAFEs have supported staff to attend relevant training
and education programs.
Conclusion
Environmental responsibilities of TAFEs and universities fall into two main areas: 1. Academia, such as
teaching, training, and research; and 2. Operations, such as finance, procurement, IT, building and
grounds management, and other student and staff support services. Most TAFEs and universities take
an active role in promoting their environmental capabilities and performance in this area and publicise
this through their web sites and reports.
Operations based environmental impacts such as energy and water consumption, GHG emissions and
waste have been the focus of the sector for several years and efforts in these areas are quite
advanced. This has been evidenced in this report by decreases on 2009 figures (per EFTSL/FTE) of
mains water use (down 6.5%), waste (down 1.4%) and GHG emissions (down 1.04%) and by an
increase in energy consumption of only 1.5 per cent despite increases in student numbers of 5.3 per
cent and GFA of 2.3 per cent. The impacts directly related to the operation and maintenance of
buildings and grounds are usually the responsibility of one department within an institution. These
direct impacts on the environment are relatively easy to measure and monitor.
Other areas within operations are not as well as advanced when it comes to measuring, monitoring
and reducing the environmental impacts. There are several reasons for this. Environmental impacts
that are not under the direct control of the institution are difficult to affect and measure, such as how
students and staff travel to and from work every day and the sustainability performance of suppliers.
These may be considered within the influence of an institution, but not direct control.
Also, as so much of the focus of environmental impacts has been on those associated with buildings
and grounds there have been fewer resources to concentrate on other areas of responsibility within
institutions. For example, areas such as Socially Responsible Investment may be the responsibility of
the finance department, or green purchasing which may be the responsibility of the procurement
department, or green IT etc. As seen in the report the sector is aware of these issues and some steps
have been taken to reduce their impact, such as $22.75 million of green purchasing in 2010 and seven
members running behaviour change programs specifically related to Green IT. These will be areas of
greater focus in future.
21
Academically, large positive environmental impacts can be made via teaching, training and research.
Impacts on students’ behaviours once they leave an institution and enter the workforce are extremely
difficult to measure. However the efforts made to ensure they are exposed to the knowledge and
learning necessary to help reduce their impact are within the powers of the sector to deliver and
measure. This is another emerging area of concern for the sector and more resources will be directed
this way in future. It is apparent that government support and encouragement for EfS (i.e. the Green
Skills Agreement) does have an impact, as it has in the TAFE sector which is more advanced than the
university sector in imbedding EfS in 2010. Six TAFE members but only one university member had a
strategy or plan in 2010 for implementing EfS.
References
Council of Australian Governments (COAG), (2009), Green Skills Agreement: An Agreement between
the Australian Government and the state and territory governments
EPEAT, http://www.epeat.net/resources/criteria-verification/, accessed 04/09/2011
Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA), http://www.gbca.org.au/about/, accessed 05/09/2011
ECO-Buy, http://www.ecobuy.org.au/director/suppliers/What%20are%20green%20products.cfm,
accessed 01/09/2011
22
Appendix 1 - Data Completeness
Table A 1.1 Ranked data completeness for selected sections of the
workbook
Module
Campus Statistics
Section
Total number of
institutions who
provided data for
2009 (of 16)
Total number of
institutions who
provided data for
2010 (of 16)
Effective Full Time Student Load (EFTSL)
Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Academic
and Non Academic Staff
16
14
16
14
Campus Statistics
Gross Floor Area
16
14
Energy use & GHG emissions
Facilities energy use and GHG emissions
Automotive transport energy use
and GHG emissions
16
14
16
14
Campus Statistics
Energy use & GHG emissions
9
8
GreenPower
16
14
Waste & Recycling
Total waste to landfill
16
14
Waste & Recycling
Total waste recycled
16
14
Water
Amount of potable (mains) water used
16
14
Water*
Licensed Ground Water Extraction
4
3
Water*
Licensed Surface Water Collection
1
0
Water*
Rainwater Collected & Used
5
2
Water*
Runoff Collected & Used
3
1
Water*
Water Recycled / Treated
0
0
Water*
Other Recycled Water
0
Buildings
14
15
14
16
14
Green purchasing
Total GFA of New & Retrofitted Buildings
Total GFA of New & Retrofitted Buildings
with Accredited Sustainable Design
Integration of Sustainability into new
Buildings
A4 copy paper purchasing
0
15
13
14
Green purchasing
Tea & coffee purchasing
6
6
Energy use & GHG emissions
Air travel GHG emissions
Energy use & GHG emissions
Buildings
Buildings
* It was not possible for all Institutions to complete this section as they did not have the relevent facilities
23
Appendix 2 – Data by Institution
The following tables include all data reported for 2009 by SCG Members in 2009. SCG Members in
2010 reported 2010 data and many also reported 2009 data, which has been included.
Table A 2.1 Staff, Students and Gross Floor Area by Institution
Page 25
Table A 2.2 Institutional Commitment to Environmental Policies
Indicator
Page 26
Table A 2.3 Facilities Energy Consumption
Page 27
Table A 2.4 GHG Emissions by Facilities, Air Travel and Automotive
Travel by Institution
Page 28
Table A 2.5 Mains Water Purchased (Per Capita and Gross Floor
Area) by Institution
Page 29
Table A 2.6 Waste to Landfill (Per Capita and Gross Floor Area) by
Institution
Page 30
24
na
Murdoch University
535,538
na
12,196
13,648
Victoria Uni
Central Institute of Technology
47,489
Uni of Melbourne
Edith Cowan Uni
15,310
36,001
Uni of Ballarat
28,351
Swinburne Uni of Technology
2,476
52,999
RMIT Uni
Sunraysia Inst
36,801
Monash Uni
7,929
7,959
21,874
3,421
Goulburn Ovens Inst
Kangan Inst
5,857
Gordon Inst
La Trobe Uni
3,778
18,734
Deakin Uni
212,173
9,785
na
12,279
na
na
na
na
2,592
na
37,186
na
10,971
23,296
12,887
15,713
Chisholm Institute of TAFE
9,711
10,061
16,859
12,922
5,374
12,084
4,856
na
na
Box Hill Institute of TAFE
Uni of Adelaide
TOTAL TOTAL
WA
VIC
12,243
4,016
Flinders University
11,058
Brisbane North Inst
Sunshine Coast Inst
17,291
QLD
30,196
Sydney Inst
Western Sydney Inst
4,837
30,766
25,935
South West. Sydney Inst
Charles Darwin Uni
na
27,048
Northern Sydney Inst
na
11,156
North Coast Inst
na
na
na
7,373
NT
SA
na
15,757
New England Inst
10,791
na
11,961
Illawarra Inst
Charles Sturt University
NSW
15,885
Aust. Catholic Uni
Nat.
Students (EFTSL)
2009
2010
Hunter Inst
Institution
State
29,818
na
577
565
974
3,375
550
1,075
91
1,665
3,766
1,434
977
264
577
1,058
692
442
910
736
293
415
1,099
456
2,723
877
516
659
193
678
1,447
na
735
14,410
505
na
598
na
na
na
na
98
na
3,716
na
1,011
272
335
1,093
673
541
na
747
272
423
512
na
2,981
na
na
na
na
na
na
633
na
Academic /Teaching
Staff (FTE)
2009
2010
27,100
na
957
388
1,237
3,996
622
1,524
131
2,079
3,786
1,251
na
186
na
1,425
383
446
1,351
1,021
255
650
645
279
1,269
760
444
413
207
421
325
na
648
12,444
774
na
407
na
na
na
na
110
na
3,954
na
na
190
233
1,521
440
412
na
1,054
266
574
607
na
779
na
na
na
na
na
na
1,123
na
General/NonTeaching Staff (FTE)
2009
2010
56,919
na
1,534
953
2,211
7,371
1,172
2,599
222
3,744
7,552
2,685
977
450
577
2,483
1,075
888
2,261
1,757
548
1,065
1,744
735
3,992
1,637
960
1,072
400
1,099
1,772
na
1,383
na
26,853
1,279
na
1,005
na
na
na
na
208
na
7,670
na
1,011
462
568
2,614
1,112
953
na
1,801
538
997
1,119
na
3,760
na
na
na
na
na
na
1,756
Total Staff (FTE)
2009
2010
Table A 2.1: Staff, students and gross floor area by institution.
592,457
na
15,182
13,149
49,700
43,372
16,482
30,950
2,698
56,743
44,353
24,559
8,936
3,871
6,434
21,217
16,788
10,949
19,120
14,000
4,564
12,123
6,581
18,026
34,188
27,572
28,008
12,228
7,773
11,890
17,657
na
13,344
na
193,599
103,305
311,279
746,809
0
195,507
24,432
430,815
668,521
286,739
83,878
43,358
48,328
230,009
98,820
82,047
304,695
192,813
29,873
90,127
120,300
151,626
234,817
231,679
188,724
121,822
57,352
144,676
0
na
107,136
na
119,552
na
103,305
na
na
na
na
24,432
na
668,521
na
83,878
50,574
51,202
265,037
98,820
88,152
192,813
33,134
90,127
112,040
na
235,082
na
na
na
na
na
na
185,575
239,026 5,523,086 2,402,244
11,064
na
13,284
na
na
na
na
2,800
na
44,856
na
8,940
4,240
11,539
25,910
13,999
10,664
na
14,723
5,912
13,081
5,975
na
34,526
na
na
na
na
na
na
17,513
na
Total Staff + Students Gross Floor Area ( m2)
2009
2010
2009
2010
25
Avg.
WA
Vic
2.1
Uni of Melbourne
4.2
0.8
2.4
TAFE
All
2.1
0.9
5.4
1
na
2
na
0
na
na
na
na
0
na
na
14.4
1
0.3
1
3.5
1
0
na
1
1
1
3
na
2
na
na
na
na
na
na
3
na
0
University
Murdoch University
Edith Cowan Uni
Central Institute of Technology
3
2.3
Uni of Ballarat
Victoria Uni
18
Sunraysia Inst
Swinburne Uni of Technology
3
0
RMIT
3
15
0.3
Goulburn Ovens Inst
La Trobe Uni
Monash Uni
2.5
Gordon Inst
1
2.5
Deakin Uni
Kangan Inst
na
0.5
Box Hill Institute of TAFE
Chisholm Inst
1.8
Uni of Adelaide
1
na
Flinders University
Sunshine Coast Inst
SA
na
Brisbane North Inst
Qld
0
Charles Darwin Uni
1
1.2
0
NT
Western Sydney Inst
Sydney Inst
South West. Sydney Inst
na
1
North Coast Inst
Northern Sydney Inst
1
New England Inst
1.2
na
0.5
Illawara Inst
Charles Sturt University
NSW
2
Aust. Catholic Uni
Nat.
Staff (FTE)
2009
2010
Hunter Inst
Institute
State
2.5
1.6
3.1
na
1
0
1
17
0
1
na
1
1
11
0
1
1
6
0
na
4
na
0
na
0
2
7
2
8
1
0
1
1
na
0
2
6
na
5
na
na
na
na
na
na
6
na
Director
na
na
Chief Operating Officer
na
3.0
1.6
5.8
3
na
0
na
na
na
na
0
na
na
11
0.5
Pro Vice-Chancellor
na
Vice-Chancellor
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Director
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Senior Deputy
Senior Manager
General Manager:
Finance & Infrastructure
Chief Operating Officer
CIO responsible for the
ResourceSMART working group
Deputy Vice-Chancellor
Vice-Chancellor
Vice-Chancellor
na
General Manager,
5 Finance & Infrastructure
na
0
6
0
2
0
Deputy Vice-Chancellor
na
na
Manager Strategy & Governance
na
na
na
na
Associate Director/College Director
Associate Director
na
College Manager
na
na
na
na
na
na
Associate Director
na
na
na
na
na
na
Highest Institutional Position on Environmental Committee
2009
2010
na
Deputy Vice-Chancellor &
Vice-President
na
0.8
Number of
Environmental
Committees
2009
2010
Table A2.2 Institutional Commitment to Environmental Policies Indicator
26
Table A 2.3: Facilities energy consumption (includes all electricity, gas and diesel oil consumed for facilities and
excludes transport-related energy use)
Energy
State
Institution
Nat.
Aust. Catholic Uni
NSW
Charles Sturt University
GJ/head(a)
2009
2010
Hunter Inst
GJ/m2 (b)
2009
2010
Green
energy(c)
Electricity(d)
%
of total
energy
use
kWh/head(a)
kWh/m2 (b)
2009
2010
2009
2010
2009
2010
4.53
na
0.56
na
3.2%
na
890
na
111
na
na
11.94
na
1.13
na
0.0%
na
1439
na
136
2.61
na
na
na
0.0%
na
724
na
na
na
Illawarra Inst
3.57
na
0.29
na
4.4%
na
746
na
61
na
New England Inst
1.79
na
0.24
na
5.3%
na
441
na
60
na
North Coast Inst
2.43
na
0.24
na
0.0%
na
262
na
26
na
Northern Sydney Inst
2.57
na
0.38
na
0.0%
na
569
na
84
na
South West. Sydney Inst
3.51
na
0.42
na
4.8%
na
783
na
93
na
Sydney Inst
3.14
2.94
0.46
0.43
6.2%
6.2%
671
632
98
93
Western Sydney Inst
2.78
na
0.33
na
5.0%
na
716
na
85
na
NT
Charles Darwin Uni
12.61
12.65
0.69
0.67
0.0%
0.0%
3029
3414
166
182
QLD
Brisbane North Inst
2.41
2.06
0.32
0.30
0.0%
0.0%
644
549
87
80
Sunshine Coast Inst
3.64
2.61
0.56
0.46
0.0%
0.0%
949
680
145
121
SA
Flinders University of SA
5.70
5.75
0.41
0.44
7.7%
7.6%
1349
1331
98
102
11.46
na
0.72
na
0.0%
na
2713
na
170
4.22
4.94
0.56
0.60
15.4%
13.7%
732
758
98
3.84
4.81
0.65
0.68
7.7%
7.7%
556
702
95
99
10.07
9.47
0.93
0.93
0.0%
0.7%
1523
1445
140
141
Uni of Adelaide
VIC
Box Hill Institute of TAFE
Chisholm Institute of TAFE
Deakin Uni
Gordon Inst
4.04
2.12
0.54
0.48
11.7%
10.2%
830
404
111
91
Goulburn Ovens Inst
6.89
5.92
0.62
0.50
5.2%
12.0%
1063
926
95
78
Kangan Inst
4.72
4.97
0.50
0.53
5.1%
5.1%
730
782
78
83
La Trobe Uni
19.09
na
1.64
na
0.0%
na
1500
na
129
na
Monash Uni
139
14.85
14.51
0.99
0.97
4.6%
4.7%
1917
2069
127
RMIT Uni
6.54
na
0.86
na
10.9%
na
1198
na
158
na
Sunraysia Inst
4.20
4.39
0.46
0.50
7.4%
11.3%
872
943
96
108
Swinburne Uni of Technology
4.63
na
0.73
na
3.4%
na
836
na
132
na
Uni of Ballarat
5.35
na
na
na
11.4%
na
551
na
na
na
12.14
na
0.70
na
10.1%
na
2026
na
118
na
4.15
na
0.66
na
3.1%
na
655
na
105
na
Central Institute of Technology
2.77
2.81
0.35
0.36
0.0%
0.0%
563
575
72
74
Edith Cowan Uni
6.53
na
0.51
na
4.2%
na
1506
na
118
na
Uni of Melbourne
Victoria Uni
WA
Murdoch University
Average
92
na
9.11
na
0.84
na
13.6%
na
2036
na
188
Universities
9.05
12.02
0.85
0.85
6.8%
3.8%
1414
1,816
133
141
TAFEs
3.20
3.58
0.44
0.47
6.0%
6.9%
662
645
90
89
All
6.71
7.21
0.72
0.74
6.9%
4.5%
1114
1,233
119
123
Notes :
(a ) Per head i ncl udes both s ta ff and s tudents .
(b) Ins ti tutions that did not provide a fi gure for GFA ha ve been excluded from a vera ge ca l cul ati ons .
(c) Where no figures were gi ven by i ns tituti ons for green energy i t i s a s s umed tha t no green energy wa s purcha s ed.
However, thes e i ns ti tutions ha ve been excl uded from the a vera ge ca lcul ations .
(d) Cal cula ti on combines kWh purchas ed from the gri d, green power a nd genera ted through ons ite renewa bl es .
27
Table A 2.4: GHG emissions from facilities, air travel and automotive travel by institution
Auto
Air Travel (Net of Transport(b) (Net
offsets)
of offsets)
Facilities (Net of offsets)
State
Institution
Nat.
Aust. Catholic Uni
NSW
Charles Sturt University
t CO2-e/(staff +
students)
2009
2010
1.06
na
t CO2-e/m2
GFA(a)
2009
2010
0.13
na
t CO2-e/staff
2009
2010
1.93
na
t CO2-e/staff
2009
2010
0.26
na
na
1.99
na
0.19
na
4.01
na
0.83
Hunter Inst
0.77
na
na
na
na
na
0.00
na
Illawarra Inst
0.81
na
0.07
na
0.05
na
0.30
na
New England Inst
0.46
na
0.06
na
na
na
0.54
na
North Coast Inst
0.66
na
0.07
na
na
na
0.37
na
Northern Sydney Inst
0.64
na
0.10
na
0.26
na
0.15
na
South West. Sydney Inst
0.83
na
0.10
na
0.09
na
0.11
na
Sydney Inst
0.71
0.66
0.10
0.10
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.04
Western Sydney Inst
0.65
na
0.08
na
na
na
0.40
na
NT
Charles Darwin Uni
2.51
2.65
0.14
0.14
na
na
0.15
0.76
QLD
Brisbane North Inst
0.66
0.57
0.09
0.08
0.21
0.13
0.13
0.13
Sunshine Coast Inst
0.97
-0.25
0.15
-0.05
0.33
na
0.26
0.21
Flinders University of SA
1.10
1.09
0.08
0.08
na
na
0.18
0.20
Uni of Adelaide
2.58
na
0.16
na
6.79
na
0.19
na
Box Hill Institute of TAFE
0.83
0.90
0.11
0.11
na
na
-0.07
-0.06
Chisholm Institute of TAFE
0.74
0.95
0.13
0.13
0.52
0.55
0.41
0.41
Deakin Uni
2.30
2.16
0.21
0.21
3.68
0.00
-0.01
Gordon Inst
0.99
0.49
0.13
0.11
3.79
na
na
0.65
0.70
Goulburn Ovens Inst
1.46
1.14
0.13
0.10
0.16
0.17
1.74
1.47
Kangan Inst
1.00
1.09
0.11
0.12
na
na
0.08
0.00
La Trobe Uni
2.77
na
0.24
na
2.25
na
0.58
na
Monash Uni
2.77
2.98
0.18
0.20
3.55
3.99
-0.02
-0.02
RMIT Uni
1.46
na
0.19
na
2.34
na
0.13
na
Sunraysia Inst
1.11
1.16
0.12
0.13
0.41
0.31
1.07
0.96
Swinburne Uni of Technology
1.15
na
0.18
na
3.12
na
0.14
na
Uni of Ballarat
0.70
na na
na
1.62
na
0.52
na
Uni of Melbourne
2.53
na
0.15
na
na
na
0.11
na
Victoria Uni
0.93
na
0.15
na
1.91
na
0.24
na
Central Institute of Technology
0.57
0.57
0.07
0.07
na
na
0.18
0.15
Edith Cowan Uni
1.41
na
0.11
na
4.25
na
0.12
na
SA
VIC
WA
Murdoch University
Average
na
Universities
1.81
TAFEs
0.75
All
1.38
1.66 na
0.15
na
1.46
na
0.23
2.29
0.17
0.17
2.33
3.69
0.24
0.17
0.70
0.10
0.11
0.08
0.14
0.25
0.21
1.50
0.15
0.14
1.60
2.88
0.24
0.19
Notes :
(a ) Ins ti tuti ons tha t di d not provi de a fi gure for GFA ha ve been excl uded from a vera ge ca l cul a ti ons .
(b) Emi s s i ons a re ca l cul a ted from fuel us a ge a nd do not i ncl ude ta xi s or hi re vehi cl es .
28
Table A 2.5: Mains water purchased per capita and per gross floor area by
institution
State
Institution
Water per head
(kL/(staff + students)
2009
2010
Water per floor area
(kL/m2)
2009
2010
Nat.
Aust. Catholic Uni
2.4
na
0.30
na
NSW
Charles Sturt University
na
22.5
na
2.12
Hunter Inst
4.5
na
na
na
Illawarra Inst
3.3
na
0.27
na
New England Inst
2.2
na
0.30
na
North Coast Inst
0.0
na
0.00
na
Northern Sydney Inst
4.1
na
0.61
na
South West. Sydney Inst
3.8
na
0.45
na
Sydney Inst
3.4
3.3
0.49
0.48
Western Sydney Inst
4.6
na
0.55
na
NT
Charles Darwin Uni
0.0
51.9
0.00
2.77
QLD
Brisbane North Inst
1.9
1.9
0.26
0.27
Sunshine Coast Inst
3.1
2.7
0.48
0.48
Flinders University of SA
12.0
10.7
0.87
0.81
Uni of Adelaide
17.2
na
1.08
na
Box Hill Institute of TAFE
1.9
2.1
0.25
0.26
Chisholm Institute of TAFE
2.0
2.8
0.33
0.39
Deakin Uni
4.3
4.0
0.39
0.39
Gordon Inst
2.1
1.1
0.27
0.25
Goulburn Ovens Inst
9.5
6.5
0.85
0.54
Kangan Inst
2.9
7.0
0.31
0.75
La Trobe Uni
9.3
na
0.80
na
Monash Uni
8.3
7.2
0.55
0.48
RMIT Uni
3.4
na
0.45
na
Sunraysia Inst
9.3
7.1
1.03
0.82
Swinburne Uni of Technology
2.5
na
0.39
na
Uni of Ballarat
3.4
na
na
na
Uni of Melbourne
8.8
na
0.51
na
Victoria Uni
2.1
na
0.34
na
Central Institute of Technology
5.9
6.0
0.76
0.77
Edith Cowan Uni
8.9
na
0.70
na
SA
VIC
WA
Average
Murdoch University
na
9.8
na
0.90
Universities
6.1
11.6
0.57
0.91
TAFEs
3.7
3.5
0.51
0.49
All
5.2
7.6
0.57
0.76
Note: Ins ti tuti ons 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 ti ons .
29
Table A 2.6: Waste to landfill per capita (staff + students) and per gross floor area
by institution
State
Institution
Nat.
Aust. Catholic Uni
NSW
Charles Sturt University
Waste per head
(kg/head)
2009
2010
Waste per floor area
(kg/m2)
2009
2010
41.0
na
5.1
na
na
234.0
na
22.0
Hunter Inst
29.2
na
na
na
Illawarra Inst
86.0
na
7.1
na
0.0
na
0.0
na
New England Inst
North Coast Inst
132.4
na
13.3
na
Northern Sydney Inst
64.8
na
9.6
na
South West. Sydney Inst
68.9
na
8.2
na
112.1
112.0
16.3
16.0
Sydney Inst
0.0
na
0.0
na
NT
Western Sydney Inst
Charles Darwin Uni
143.2
90.0
7.8
5.0
QLD
Brisbane North Inst
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.0
Sunshine Coast Inst
117.7
251
18.0
44.8
Flinders University of SA
55.6
54.0
4.0
4.0
Uni of Adelaide
32.5
na
2.0
na
Box Hill Institute of TAFE
30.4
23.0
4.1
3.0
Chisholm Institute of TAFE
79.2
113.0
13.4
16.0
SA
VIC
Deakin Uni
40.6
48.0
3.7
5.0
Gordon Inst
96.3
51.0
12.8
11.5
Goulburn Ovens Inst
38.5
39.0
3.4
3.3
Kangan Inst
59.1
60.6
6.3
6.0
La Trobe Uni
70.3
na
6.0
na
Monash Uni
76.5
63.0
5.1
4.2
RMIT Uni
64.7
na
8.5
na
Sunraysia Inst
42.2
45.9
4.7
5.3
Swinburne Uni of Technology
43.2
na
6.8
na
Uni of Ballarat
20.7
na
na
na
Uni of Melbourne
24.2
na
1.4
na
0.0
na
0.0
na
Central Institute of Technology
12.2
19.0
1.6
2.5
Edith Cowan Uni
12.6
na
1.0
na
na
343.0
na
32.0
Universities
50.5
110.9
4.4
8.6
TAFEs
68.6
74.4
9.5
10.3
All
57.9
92.7
6.0
9.2
Victoria Uni
WA
Murdoch University
Average
Note: Ins ti tuti ons tha t di d not provi de wa s te da ta or GFA fi gures ha ve been excl uded from
the a verage cal cul a ti ons .
30