Journal of Building Engineering 24 (2019) 100747
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Building Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe
Assessing sustainability on Chinese university campuses: Development of a
campus sustainability evaluation system and its application with a case
study
T
Chen Shuqina,∗, Lu Minyana, Tan Hongweib,c, Luo Xiaoyua, Ge Jiana
a
College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310058, China
Research Center of Green Building and New Energy, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092, China
c
School of Mechanical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092, China
b
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Campus sustainability
Evaluation system
China
Case study
With the vigorous promotion of national policies and funds, green campus construction is booming in Chinese
universities. It's in great need to develop an evaluation system, as a long-term mechanism, to assess and compare
the sustainability performance in different Chinese universities, and to guide the green campus revolution in
Chinese universities. Aiming at the characteristics of green campus evolution in China, a campus sustainability
evaluation system is developed, that contains five categories of Organization & Management (C1), Energy &
Resource Saving (C2), Friendly Environment (C3), Campus Culture (C4), and Social Outreach (C5). The indicators include mandatory indicators, all of which must be met in order to pass the evaluation, and optional
indicators, which take the form of scoring. The scores of all optional indicators should be accumulated to get the
final score. The achievements and shortcomings of sustainable campus development in a pilot Chinese university
were revealed by this system as a case study, and the results indicate more attention should be paid on C1, C2,
C4, and hence detailed suggestions were put forward. Discussions are made in terms of the potential contribution
and the limitation of this evaluation system, and the capacity building needed to generalize the evaluation in
China.
1. Introduction
The higher education in China has achieved a large growth in the
recent two decades. There were more than 2800 universities and colleges with 36.47 million students by the end of 2015 [1]. The development of education in China has brought the construction boom of
new campus buildings and the extension of old campuses, and the floor
area of campus buildings reaches to almost 900 million square meters
[1]. The large expansion of higher education has resulted in a rapid
growth in energy and resource demand [2]. According to the statistics,
the energy consumption and water consumption per student on campus
are four times and two times as large as that of Chinese residents respectively [3]. On the other hand, the low performance of campus facilities and the loose management during the operation, along with the
deficiency of energy-saving behaviors among staffs and students, lead
to a great potential for energy conservation [4]. Therefore, the application of green technologies and the effective management are expected to bring the big energy conservation on campus. In addition, as a
∗
place to impart knowledge, the formation of green campus humanistic
atmosphere and the advocacy of green ideas in universities and colleges
contribute to the enhancement of students’ sustainable development
conception and relevant scientific knowledge, and the popularization of
low-carbon lifestyle as well [5]. Therefore, aiming at the current situation, it is of great significance to develop the sustainable campus and
even make the university campus a live laboratory in China.
Different from the other countries where the universities made the
campus sustainability initiatives spontaneously, sustainable campus
construction in China was greatly promoted by both the central and
local governments [6–8]. Starting from the 2000s, Chinese government
made great endeavor to put green technologies into campus construction and operation, in order to realize the energy and resource conservation. A series of regulations and guidelines, such as “The Construction and Management Guidelines of Energy and Resource
Conservation Oriented Campus in Colleges and Universities (trial implementation) [2008] No.89”, “Technical Guidelines of Campus Energy
Management System Construction in Colleges and Universities [2009]
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hn_csq@126.com (C. Shuqin).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100747
Received 16 October 2018; Received in revised form 12 March 2019; Accepted 14 March 2019
Available online 18 March 2019
2352-7102/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Journal of Building Engineering 24 (2019) 100747
C. Shuqin, et al.
No.163”, “The Guidelines of Energy Consumption Statistics, Audit and
Publicity on Campus [2009] No.1163”, etc., were promulgated to
provide the technical guide for the construction of the energy and resource conservation-oriented campus in China [9,10]. It makes clear by
these regulations that the core ideas are to save energy, water and
material. The establishment of the campus energy management system
(CEMS) and the implementation of energy retrofit and water conservation projects are the two important approaches, which were advocated and also funded by Chinese government. Until 2016, more than
200 universities and colleges have successfully obtained the national
financial support to establish CEMS for the real-time monitoring of
campus building energy use, and the total funding amounts to approximately 0.6 billion RMB [6]. On this base, energy use statistics,
energy audits, and as well as energy efficiency publicity, have been
partly carried out in some universities and colleges, and energy use
quota has also been further implemented, under the promotion of
Chinese government as well. Energy-saving diagnosis and energy efficiency retrofit have also been undertaken accordingly. Some retrofit
projects of water saving, energy efficient street lamps, energy efficient
HVAC systems and renewable energy applications have been funded by
Ministry of Housing and Urban & Rural Development and Ministry of
Finance [11].
After the large-scale construction of energy conservation-oriented
campus, Chinese universities and colleges are experiencing the upgrade
to green campus now. Several Chinese universities and colleges, the
pilots of the green campus development in China, began to make the
initiatives in sustainable education, through setting up courses and
even majors for sustainability, and the incentive policies to stimulate
the participation of faculties and students. Meanwhile, the green
campus culture is being gradually created, by carrying out students’
activities and training seminars, establishing educational bases for the
themes of sustainability, and cultivating green campus life styles. In
addition, more and more researches in universities and colleges focus
on the topic of sustainability as well, and universities also make more
effort to extend the social outreach by industry-university-research
cooperation, and provide technical support to the government. Fig. 1
shows the main activities covered in the two stages of energy and resource conservation-oriented campus and green campus in Chinese
universities [6].
Due to the large-scale implementation of national policies with the
huge amount of funding for the energy and resource conservation-oriented campus, many universities have engaged in campus energy use
monitoring, energy efficiency retrofit, renewable energy application,
and hence there is urgent need to assess the effects of these specific
initiatives. Although energy audit, energy publicity and energy quota
are encouraged to be put into effect by the national regulations, they
have been executed in only few universities, and more incentives are
needed to stimulate these actions put in use. Besides that, another big
feature in campus operation and management for Chinese universities
is they have the collective boarding systems, in which all the students
live and accommodate on campus. In this situation, many facilities have
been installed to serve for their living life, and hence more particular
regulations should be formulated for the purposes of campus energy
conservation and the formation of the thrift life style. For example,
central bath rooms and central hot water rooms are constructed in
Chinese universities to provide the students with bathing and hot water
supply. In order to make the students save the hot water, an intelligent
billing card system is popularized on Chinese campuses to charge the
service based on the flow volume of hot water per time.
Considering the specific situation mentioned above, an appropriate
campus sustainability evaluation system, as a long-term mechanism,
can help to assess the achievements of sustainable campus construction
and its operation, to compare the sustainability performance across
different campuses, and eventually guide the full-scale green campus
revolution in Chinese universities [12]. Aiming at this, in this paper,
firstly, the existing evaluation tools in the world for assessing the sustainability in universities and colleges were reviewed and analyzed for
their merits and demerits, and as well as the reason to develop an
evaluation system for Chinese universities. On this base, A new evaluation system for campus sustainability in Chinese universities was
developed, considering the actual status of campus sustainability development in China. The progress of campus sustainability in a pilot
Chinese university was evaluated by this system, in order to validate the
feasibility of this tool. Final are the discussions and conclusions to explore the original and unique contributions and limitations of this
evaluation tool, and the capacity building to make the evaluation
among Chinese universities.
2. State of the art reviews of evaluation tools of campus
sustainability in the world
A great deal of tools and rankings systems have been developed for
sustainability assessment in international, national and university levels
[13–15]. A complete state of the art review was conducted on the topic
of evaluation tools and systems for campus sustainability in the world,
and the related literature and documents in the last 20 years were all
reviewed.
Green campus evaluation was begun from the attempts to assess the
sustainability in universities and colleges by public annual environmental reports of universities [16]. Some organizations made great
endeavor to do the surveys and questionnaires to reveal the process or
status in sustainable development (SD), and to identify the “best practices” on campus. The typical examples are Sustainability Assessment
Questionnaire and Nixon's Campus Sustainability Assessment Review
Project [17]. However, these reporting and questionnaires were limited
to the internal recognition of impact on environment and self-assessment by an individual campus, and could not be used to make the
comparison among different universities.
More indices evaluation systems have been developed since 2002
because the indices assessments are more easily measurable and comparable than the narrative assessments by reports and questionnaires
[18]. Among them, some only focus on the evaluation of sustainable
education (SD), which aims to reorient education systems to sustainability [19]. The Sustainability Tool for Assessing Sustainability in
Universities' Curricula Holistically, developed by Lozano et al. to assess
how universities’ curricula address SD, has been used for the Bachelor
and Master programmes in the Faculty of Environment and Faculty of
Business in the University of Leeds [20,21]. Some other indices evaluation systems mainly focus on the operational eco-efficiency. For
example, Campus Sustainability Selected Indicators Snapshot and
Guide gives the quick overview of campus operations and environmental influences [22]. GREENSHIP contains 6 categories, namely appropriate site development, energy efficiency and conservation, water
conservation, material resources and cycle, indoor health and comfort,
Fig. 1. The main activities covered in two stages of campus sustainability development.
2
Journal of Building Engineering 24 (2019) 100747
C. Shuqin, et al.
3. The development of an evaluation system of campus
sustainability for Chinese university campuses
building environment management [15]. Some assessment tools integrate a few aspects of SD [23]. The Unit-Based Sustainability Assessment Tool (USAT) and the Alternative University Appraisal project
(AUA) consider issues in environmental and economic aspects [24,25].
Finally, some systems attempt to cover all important issues of SD, including energy, water, food, land, transportation, built environment,
community, research, education, outreach, and decision-making [26].
The Sustainability, Training, Assessment and Rating System (STARS) is
a transparent self-reporting framework open for all Higher Education
Institutions to evaluate their performances of SD in different fields of
operation, education, research and outreach.
In China, Lv and Kan proposed a Chinese assessment indicator
system after reviewing and modifying international tools, covering the
issues in the areas of education, research, social service, and supporting
system [27]. However, some special fields such as the achievement of
energy-saving projects are missing and the values of some indicators are
too difficult to be acquired. Another one is “Evaluation Standard for
Green Campus (Draft for Comments)” proposed by a non-government
organization of Chinese Society for Urban Studies to evaluate green
campus construction of primary school, middle schools, and Chinese
colleges and universities as well [28]. The standard sets indicators in
seven categories of land-saving, water-saving, energy-saving, materialsaving, environmental protection, operation and management, education and promotion. However, there is a big problem for this evaluation
system is, similar to the “Evaluation Standard of Green Buildings (GB/T
50378-2014)” in China, it just focuses on green building evaluation,
while some important fields which green campus refer to, such as green
procurement, green transportation, campus resources (paper, electronic
waste) recycling, have been neglected [29]. Until now, none of these
schools or universities has been evaluated by this standard.
Based on the above analysis, although there are some important
assessment tools for campus sustainability in the world, some problems
exist for the evaluation of campus sustainability in Chinese universities,
which are as follows: (1) Many evaluation tools for the universities in
other countries are not suitable for the Chinese universities, considering
the specific characteristics in the evolution of green campus development in China and the operation of Chinese universities. As mentioned
before, the Chinese government promulgated a series of regulations and
guidelines and allocated large sums of funding to promote several
specific initiatives for green campus constructions, some new indicators
should be put forward to assess the achievements caused by these national regulations and initiatives which have greatly pushed the sustainable campus development in China, and to incentive the implementation of those regulations which are not put into good effect.
Furthermore, there is the absolute need to assess the effect of the energy
saving measures specially used by Chinese universities, such as the
application of intelligent billing cards for the hot water use. (2) Only
few of the evaluation systems have the weight for each indicator. Even
in these systems with the weights for indicators, many of them have the
same weight for each indicator, which neglects the difference in the
significance of each indicator. What is more, it is difficult to compare
the degree and quality of the completion among different universities
by the existing indicator systems, as the systems always aim to understand whether these measures have been done or not, rather than how
well these measures have been executed. (3) The thresholds of the indicators in developed countries are advanced for the universities in
developing countries, and hence become daunting for the universities in
developing countries, and hence discourage their participation.
Therefore, the limit values of the indicators should be set up according
to the actual situation of Chinese universities. Therefore, a more comprehensive and scientific evaluation system for campus sustainability in
Chinese universities and colleges is needed urgently.
3.1. The approach to develop the indicators and their weightings
After the art literature review, a large-scale questionnaire surveys
with the faculties and students and face-to-face surveys with the administrative officers were also done in 10 pilot Chinese universities of
energy and resource conversation-oriented campuses and 10 common
universities by the authors, in order to understand the current status
and existing problems of campus sustainability in China [30]. On this
base, a preliminary indicator system was firstly developed. This evaluation indicator system was then sent to 30 national experts for their
reviews and comments and finally decided after two rounds of modification. The 30 national experts came from the administrative divisions, architecture colleges, environment colleges, economy colleges
and sociology disciplines in different universities and research institutes. all of them have the long working experiences in green campus
development, and are all engaged in a national association of China
Green University Network, which is supervised by Ministry of Housing
and Urban & Rural Development, and has an influencing leadership in
green campus development in China.
Then the types and weights of these indicators were decided by
Delphi Method, in which the questionnaires were distributed to the
above 30 national experts, asking their opinions, and three times of
back and forth were done between the authors and experts to get the
final decision [31,32]. Two types of indicators named ‘mandatory indicator’ and ‘optional indicator’ were identified in the questionnaires by
the experts. Mandatory indicators were all compulsory to be met in the
evaluation, and authors firstly decided which indicators were the
mandatory ones and then sent to the experts asking for their opinions.
The optional indicators, which take the form of scoring, were rated
from 1 to 8 points by experts based on their importance. The weight of
each optional indicator was decided as the score which the most experts
chose.
As for some specific indices, the experts suggested assigning different scores for the different implement situations. Hence, similarly to
the way of weight decision, three ways have been put forward finally,
1) a fixed score is assigned where the evaluated university meets the
specific requirement of one indicator; 2) different levels of scores are
allotted for different implementation levels for one index (For example,
the indicator of E2.2 in Table 2 below, if more than 20% of the total
building area in the university has been retrofitted or being retrofitted,
5 score would be given. Otherwise, only 4 score for over 15%); 3) take
the full score multiplied by the actual implementation ratio to get the
final score of an indicator.
3.2. The evaluation indicators
3.2.1. The organization and management (C1)
A reasonable assessment tool always considers “systemic changes,
which include mission and goals statements, incentive and reward
structures, and other organizational decision-making processes” [22].
Based on the investigations in 10 pilot universities by the authors, from
the university level in China, the development of campus sustainability
requires the inter-departmental cooperation and resource integration of
the Infrastructure Department, Resource Administration Office, Financial Department, Science and Technology Department, Graduate
School, Office of Academic Affairs and other administrative departments, and also needs the guidance of technical experts in various fields
as well. The top-level design which involves management organizations, and rules and regulations, etc., has already been worked out in
these pilot universities of energy and resource conversation-oriented
campuses in China [6]. The organizations usually comprise the management committee, consisting of vice president and directors in all
related divisions, the executive office, taking charge of the concrete
3
4
Investigation results [30]
Establish and perform the green procurement regulations for food, electronic
appliances and printing papers.
Establish and perform the waste recycling management regulations
Pass the ISO14001.
MS5
MS6
MS7
MS8
MS9
3 points
3 points
Compose and publish the annual report of the campus sustainable development.
Establish and perform the regulations for energy efficiency operation of facilities
O5
MS1
MS2
MS3
MS4
MM. Management
Mechanism (26 points)
O4
Mandatory indicator
3 points
4 points
Establish the management committee
Establish the executive office, responsible for the concrete work
Designate one person in each school or department to charge the implementation
of all the tasks set by university.
Have professional staffs in the positions of campus energy management and
logistics.
Establish the expert committee to provide technical support
Make medium-and-long-term plans for the sustainable development.
Set up and perform inspection regulations for green campus construction projects.
Establish and periodically perform the energy use audit for campus buildings.
Establish and perform the campus energy quota regulation each year
O1
O2
O3
O. Organization (1 mandatory indicator and 15
points)
Scores
Indicators
- Energy (E), which focuses on the assessment of the progress and
effectiveness of energy and resource conversation measures on the
whole campus. Because the building retrofit projects and the construction of Campus Energy Management System (CEMS) are the
main measures subsidized by Chinese government, corresponding
mandatory indicators and optional indicators are assigned to evaluate the effects of these measures. The authors also did some investigations in Chinese universities to reveal the effects of these
energy and resource conservation initiatives, and hence the limited
values of the indicators to assess the effects of campus energy conservation measures, such as E2.2, E2.3, E3.2, E5.2, are set based on
the investigation results [30]. For example, according to the investigation results, it is found that the ratio of floor area of retrofitted and retrofitting buildings to the total building area (E2.2) in
Chinese universities is normally between 5% to 15%, due to the
large retrofit cost, but it is encouraged to rise to larger than 20%. So
four levels of large than 20%, 15%, 10%, 5% and 1% have been set.
#
Table 1
Evaluation indicators in the category of Organization and Management (C1).
3.2.2. Energy and resource saving (C2)
With the stimulation of the national funding and special policies
from the national and local governments in China, Chinese universities
and colleges have carried out a series of energy and resource saving
projects, including energy efficiency retrofit of existing buildings, the
applications of renewable energy, water-saving appliances and grey
water treatment, energy-saving lighting, intelligent billing card for hot
water use, and clean energy vehicles, and so on. Therefore, indicators of
Energy and Resource Saving (C2) include five aspects of Energy (E),
Water (W), Land (L), Materials and Waste (MW), and Transportation
(T). There are eight mandatory indicators and optional indicators have
the total score of 87 points, as shown in Table 2.
Subcategories
- Organization (O), which recognizes the importance of establishment
of management committee, executive office and professional committee to form the effective administrative organizational structure
especially for green campus development.
- Mechanism System (MS), which covers a comprehensive set of
regulations, including medium-and-long-term plans, inspection
regulations for green campus construction projects, energy use audit
system, etc. The application of these evaluation indicators can incentive the universities to consummate the incomplete regulation
framework for campus sustainability in nearly all Chinese universities.
Enough
4
4 points
2 points
3 points
3 points
Fully performed, 3 points; Partly
performed, 1.5 points
3 points
Fully performed, 3 points; Partly
performed, 1.5 points
1 point for each item, and totally 3 points
Not Enough
2
None
0
[6]
Investigation results [30]
Sources for references
work in sustainable campus construction, and the expert committee,
providing technical support for the specific initiatives. Besides that, it is
very helpful to further designate one person in each college or department to take charge of all the tasks required by the university, and
to appoint staffs with professional knowledge in the positions of campus
management and logistics. In terms of the rules and regulations, referring to the current experiences at home and abroad, a set of management mechanism should be put forward including the medium and
long term plans which are very helpful but have been done by only a
few Chinese universities, energy use audit which has been implemented
by some Chinese universities but does not become a periodic regulation
yet, energy quota regulation which will be more and more popular in
Chinese universities, the annual SD report which is published by no
Chinese university but should be encouraged, energy efficiency operation which has not been put in a good effect, green procurement which
should be attracted more and more attentions, and environment management regulation ISO14001 which is a very meaningful approach but
not executed in Chinese universities right now.
Base on the analysis, the indicators of organization and management mainly involve the construction of organization and mechanism
system, as shown in Table 1. Two sub-categories with one mandatory
indicator and thirteen optional indicators of totally 41 points are proposed:
Investigation results [30,33]
Journal of Building Engineering 24 (2019) 100747
C. Shuqin, et al.
W. Water (1 mandatory indicator and
14 points)
E1
E2
E2.1
E2.2
E. Energy (4 mandatory indicators and
39 points)
The rate of buildings with end use monitoring to the total
buildings with energy use monitoring
The quality of daylight
The daylight factor of the living room in dormitories must conform
to the national standard of GB/T 50033.
The daylight factor of the main spaces in other buildings must
conform to the national standard of GB/T 50033.
Energy use reduction before and after the construction of energy
conservation-oriented campus
Energy saving rate (weight of 0.2)
Energy saving rate per floor area (weight of 0.3)
Energy saving rate per student (weight of 0.3)
Energy saving rate per research output (weight of 0.2)
Carbon emissions
Annual carbon emission inventory
Carbon emission amount of air travel of staffs
Other carbon emission amount
The utilization of nontraditional water source ≥ 10%
The usage rate of the water saving appliances to the total water
utensils
The percentage of main water use units (such as kitchen,
centralized bathroom, hotel etc.) with the online monitoring
There are the water saving measures in rain water collection and
gray water recycles.
Water reduction
The rate of water reduction on campus (weight of 0.6)
The rate of per student water reduction (weight of 0.4)
E5.3
5
E7.2
E7.3
E7.4
E8
E8.1
E8.2
E8.3
W1
W2
W5
W5.1
W5.2
W4
W3
E7.1
E7
E6.2
E6
E6.1
E5
E5.1
E5.2
Lighting efficiency
The ratio of energy-efficient lamps in exterior lighting
The ratio of energy efficient lamps in interior lighting
The ratio of lamps with smart control in interior lighting
There is smart control system for street lamps.
There is campus intelligent billing card for water and electricity
usage management
Campus Energy Management System (CEMS)
Establishment of CEMS
The rate of the buildings monitored by CEMS to the total buildings
There is any building with green building label for operation stage
Building retrofit
The implementation of building retrofit
The ratio of floor area of retrofitted and retrofitting buildings to
the total building floor area
The ratio of floor area of retrofitted buildings reaching the 50%
energy saving target to the total retrofitted and retrofitting
building floor areas
Renewable energy use
The ratio of renewable energy use to total energy use ≥ 3%
The ratio of renewable energy use to total energy use
Indicators
E4
E4.1
E4.2
E4.3
E4.4
E4.5
E3
E3.1
E3.2
E2.3
#
Subcategories
Table 2
Evaluation indicators in the category of Energy and Resource Saving (C2).
≥10%
3
≥5%
3
≥8%
2
≥5%
2
≥3%
2
> 30%
1
≥10%
1
≥5%
1
≥1%
1
≥1%
1
≥40%
5
Ditto
< 40%
4
< 30%
3
< 20%
2
100%
≥70%
≥50%
≥30%
5
4
3
2
Rain water collection, 1 point; gray water recycle, 1 point
Mandatory indicator
1 point
1 point
Mandatory indicator
2 points are multiplied by the actual ratio
< 10%
1
≥10%
1
The score of each term below is multiplied by its weight, and then sum them to get the
final score.
> 20%
< 20%
< 15%
< 10%
< 5%
5
4
3
2
1
Ditto
Ditto
Ditto
2 points
2 points
≥60%
2
≥30%
2
point is multiplied by the actual ratio
point is multiplied by the actual ratio
point is multiplied by the actual ratio
point
points
Mandatory indicator
100%
3
≥60%
3
1
1
1
1
2
Mandatory indicator
≥13%
≥10%
4
3
Mandatory indicator
≥20%
≥15%
5
4
≥10%
≥8%
5
4
2 points
Scores
(continued on next page)
Investigation results
Investigation results
Investigation results
CHINAGBC, 2013 [28]
Investigation results
GB/T 50033-2001 [34]
Limit values were set based
on the
investigation results
CHINAGBC, 2013 [28]
Investigation results
Limit values were set by
investigation results
Sources for references
C. Shuqin, et al.
Journal of Building Engineering 24 (2019) 100747
T. Transportation (13 points)
MW. Material and Waste (2 mandatory
indicators and 18 points)
L1
L. Land (1 mandatory indicator and 3
points)
6
T8
T7
T6
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
MW9
MW10
MW10.1
MW10.2
MW10.3
MW6
MW7
MW8
MW5
MW1
MW2
MW3
MW4
L2
#
Subcategories
Table 2 (continued)
Mandatory indicator
The per capita building floor area should not exceed the limit
values of architecture planning of ordinary high education
institutes in Chinese standard.
The rate of underground space to total building floor area is larger
than 5%
The usage rate of the reusable building material ≥5%
The ratio of double-side printed paper
The usage ratio of the recycled paper
The ratio of electronic products with energy efficiency label to the
total electronic products used on campus
The percentage of the garbage bins with separate collection is
larger than 75%.
Develop and implement the kitchen waste compost program
The rate of per capita garbage reduction
The ratio of recycled electronic products to the total number of
waste electronic products.
The ratio of reused furniture
Management of separate collection
The separate collection of wasted battery
The separate collection of fluorescent tube
Take the strict management on the collection, temporary
storage, transmission, and process of dangerous chemicals.
The ratio of buildings with barrier-free facilities is over 75%.
Split flow of people and vehicles are considered.
Campus should have separate bicycle lanes
Enough bicycle parking space
The distance between the public transport site and campus
entrance is suggested to be less than 500 m.
Use clean fuel and high-efficient fuel driving vehicles for the
campus public transportation and other purposes.
The ratio of staffs with green transport (such as taking nonmotorized vehicle and public transportation).
Provide measures to encourage carpool among staffs.
points
points are multiplied by the actual ratio
points are multiplied by the actual ratio
points are multiplied by the actual ratio
points
points
point
point
point
2 points
2 points are multiplied by the actual ratio
2 points
2
2
1
1
1
1 point
1 point
Mandatory indicator
2 points are multiplied by the actual ratio
2 points
Ditto
Ditto
Mandatory indicator
2
2
2
2
3 points
Scores
Indicators
GB/T 50378-2014 [35]
GB/T 50378-2014 [35]
CHINAGBC, 2013 [28]
GB/T 50378-2014 [35]
GB/T 50378-2014 [35]
Sources for references
C. Shuqin, et al.
Journal of Building Engineering 24 (2019) 100747
7
MC. Micro Climate (2 Mandatory indicators and
19 points)
GB/T50034-2013 [38]
3 points
3 points
3 points
NC7
MC8
MC9
MC4
MC5
MC6
Measured wet global temperature in summer is less than 32 °C on campus
The ratio of the buildings which can meet the indoor thermal comfort requirement in the national design
standard.
The wind power amplification factor at pedestrian area is less than 2.
The number of days with air pollution index less than 100 is more than 90%
All the campus buildings can meet the indoor air quality requirements in the national standard of
indoor air quality.
The campus is the non-smoking campus
All the campus area can meet the requirement of the national standard of acoustic environment quality.
The ratio of campus area meeting the requirement in the related standards of lighting environment quality to
the total campus area is larger than 70%
MC2
MC3
2 points
All buildings, 3 points; Part of buildings, 2
points; Few, 1 point
3 points
Mandatory indicator
Mandatory indicator
GB/T 50378-2014
[35]
The native plant ratio is more than 75%
1
Average value of heat island intensity is less than 1.5 °C
EL2
EL3
MC1
2 points
2 points
2 points
Mandatory indicator
Campus greening rate is more than 30%
EL1
EL. Ecological Landscape (1 Mandatory
indicator and 4 points)
3 points
CS3
CS2
Mandatory indicator
Mandatory indicator
Campus construction should not destroy the local cultural relics, natural water, natural wetlands,
basic farmland, forests and other reserves.
Campus site should not have the potential threat of floods, landslides and soil containing radon.
Within the construction site, there is no harm of electromagnetic radiation and fire, explosive, toxic
substances and other hazards
Outdoor permeable pavement area ratio should be more than 30%.
CS1
CS. Campus Site (2 mandatory indicators and 3
points)
- Campus Site (CS), which aims to maintain the safety and quality of
the natural land. Two mandatory indicators related to campus site
selection must be met. Firstly, campus construction should not destroy the local cultural relics, natural water, natural wetlands,
farmland, forests and other reserves. Secondly, campus site should
not have the potential threat of floods, landslides and soil containing
radon. Within the construction site, there is no harm of electromagnetic radiation and fire, explosive, toxic substances and other
hazards.
- Ecological Landscape (EL), which mainly considers the ratio of
green space on campus, the proportion of native plants, as well as
landscape waste composting program. Referring to the national
standard of Evaluation Standard of Green Buildings (GB/T 503782014), campus greening rate is suggested to be more than 30%,
which is a mandatory indicator in this subcategory. The plantation
of native plants and landscape waste composting programs are encouraged to be implemented.
GB/T 50378-2014
[35]
GB/T 50378-2014
[35]
Sources for references
Table 3
The evaluation indicators in the category of Friendly Environment (C3).
3.2.3. Friendly environment (C3)
Indicators of friendly environment constitute an important part in
the evaluation. This part should be used to assess campus site, ecology
landscape, and micro climate environment, with totally five mandatory
indicators and optional indicators with altogether 26 points, as shown
in Table 3.
Scores
-
Indicators
-
#
-
Subcategories
-
Regarding the energy saving rate (E7), according to the current
status by surveys in Chinese universities and the related associations, nearly all the universities have the energy saving rate less than
20%, and many universities even have no total energy saving rate
due to the increase of floor areas or the number of students year by
year, but there is some energy saving rate per floor area or per capita
due to the application of energy saving measures. In addition, as
Chinese universities have paid little attention on campus carbon
emission, carbon emission inventory is encouraged to list, in order
to attract more endeavor from the universities on carbon emission
reduction.
Water (W), which aims to evaluate the effect of water-saving appliances, nontraditional water sources, and online monitoring to
eliminate water waste. According to the investigation results in
Chinese universities, and about 50%–70% of main water use units,
such as the dining rooms, central bathrooms, are monitored online
(W3) in Chinese universities, and the water saving measures in these
demonstration universities work better than the energy saving
measures, leading to the higher rate of water reduction, reaching to
approximate 40% (W5). Therefore, the corresponding limit values
have been set for these indicators based on the actual situation, to
assess the water saving effect and even to stimulate the higher effect.
Land (L), which aims to encourage the universities to explore the
underground space and reduce per capita building floor area, in
order to achieve intensive land use.
Materials and Waste (MW), which is set to assess the use of recyclable building materials and recyclable papers, and to promote
waste reduction, garbage composting and recycling, waste electronic equipment and furniture recycling, as well as campus hazardous waste management. These countermeasures are rarely used
in Chinese universities, but are quite popular in the countries
abroad. Considering their importance to realize the campus sustainability, related indicators should be set to incentive the adoption
of these countermeasures.
Transportation (T), which is used to guarantee the safe riding and
convenient parking in universities, which are the problems in many
Chinese universities. Enough bicycle parking spaces, separate bike
paths and convenient public transport network are encouraged to
set; besides that, clean fuel vehicles are also suggested for the public
transport on campus, under the social atmosphere to advocate the
clean energy transportation in China.
PHCCO, 2014 [36]
GB/T18883-2002 [37]
Journal of Building Engineering 24 (2019) 100747
C. Shuqin, et al.
Journal of Building Engineering 24 (2019) 100747
C. Shuqin, et al.
indictors cover the number of influential activities to support policy
making for the local and national governments, such as participating in
the compilation of standards and guidelines, the number of awards
coming from the effective collaboration among industries, universities
and research institutes, and the ratio of the colleges which have students participate in sustainable activities in communities or cities. The
detail evaluation indicators and their scores are listed in Table 5.
- Micro Climate (MC), which covers the evaluation of campus thermal
environment, wind environment, air quality, and light environment.
Thermal environment evaluation includes heat island intensity, wet
global temperature in summer on campus, and the ratio of buildings
which can meet the indoor thermal comfort requirement in the
national design standard. Considering more and more campus
buildings have been installed the air conditioning systems and the
indoor thermal environment becomes much better than before, it is
encouraged all the buildings can meet the indoor thermal comfort
requirement in the national design standard, and less score can be
gotten if only part of them can meet the requirement. Indoor and
outdoor air quality is important for the health of students and faculties on campus, so it is required that all the campus buildings
should meet the indoor air quality requirements in the national
standard, and the number of days with air pollution index less than
100 is more than 90%, which are the two mandatory indicators. It is
also encouraged to construct non-smoking campus. The limited values are set for the indicators in the aspect of micro climate, as
shown in Table 3, by referring to the related national standards for
the acoustic environment quality, air quality, lighting environment,
and thermal environment in China, and the investigations in Chinese universities done by the authors as well.
3.2.6. The total scores of five categories
In summary, there are total 14 mandatory indicators and 69 optional indicators of altogether 256 points, as shown in Table 6. The
mandatory indicators mainly locate in two categories C2 and C3 because of the importance of energy & resource saving and friendly environment, and great attention and incentives from the Chinese government in the two fields. More Optional indicators have been proposed
in the categories C2 and C4, which account for 34% and 30% of the
total scores respectively, followed by C1 (16% of the total points).
That's due to the importance and so many evaluation contents of energy
saving operation and carbon emission reduction, and green education
and students cultivation with sustainable ideas and behaviors. In this
way, the final score of an evaluated university can be achieved by the
sum of the weighted score of each category.
3.2.4. Campus culture (C4)
Table 4 lists the indicators of campus culture and their scores. The
indicators of campus culture are used to assess the progress and implementation of green education, green scientific research, and green
humanities, with optional indicators of 77 points.
4. The evaluation of campus sustainability in a Chinese university
as a case study
In order to verify its feasibility of this evaluation system, it is applied in a Chinese university, called University A, to evaluate the current status of campus sustainability. This selected university is among
the best candidates in the green campus development in China and
launched the demonstration project of energy conservation-oriented
campus since 2009. The advantages and disadvantages of sustainable
campus construction in this university have been revealed by this
evaluation system, and corresponding plan and countermeasures can be
made to stimulate its progress towards campus sustainability, based on
the evaluation results.
- Green Education (GE), which is mainly used to measure the effectiveness of sustainability-oriented courses and programs, green
education bases, and the matched incentive mechanism. The authors
also did the investigations to get a general understanding about the
green education in Chinese universities. The ratio of undergraduate
courses in sustainability to total courses in the indicator of GE1 is
commonly lower than 10% with best practice of 20% in these investigated universities. Meanwhile, the ratio of the schools with the
graduate courses in sustainability is relatively higher, and the
average value is from 60% to 80%. Hence the corresponding limit
values of these indicators are set based on the actual situation of
Chinese universities.
- Green Research (GR), which aims to assess the research achievements in the areas of sustainability, and the policies set to support
the research. The similar investigation was also done in Chinese
universities in order to set the limit values of the indicators in Green
Research. The ratio of research projects in sustainability to total
projects is commonly among 10%–20%, while the universities with
excellent performance have the values between 20% and 40%,
therefore five levels of 50%, 30%, 20% and 10% were put forward to
assess the ratio of research projects in sustainability
- Green Humanities (GH), which involves the evaluation of training,
seminars and other promotional initiatives to form an atmosphere of
sustainable campus, and related student association activities and
student competitions in the theme of sustainability, which attract
more and more attention and funding from the national and local
governments year by year. Similar investigations were done to understand current activities and initiatives in green humanities in
Chinese universities so as to set the limit values for the indices.
4.1. Results in C1
Fig. 2 indicates the final results of indicators in the category of C1
(Organization and Management), with the achievements of 21 scores
which account for almost half of the total target points in C1. University
A has the board management committee and an executive office to lead
and manage the work in campus sustainability development, and as
well as the expert committee to provide the technical support. Fig. 3
shows the current organization structure in this university. However,
there is no full-time staff in each college or department with the sole
duty to take charge of the implementation of the specific work, and the
work related to green campus is regarded as the extra work load for the
faculties in schools and departments. Besides that, there are not enough
professional staffs in the positions of campus energy management and
logistics.
Generally speaking, this university takes the leading role in the
green campus mechanism construction among Chinese universities, and
many related regulations, which are still missed in most of the Chinese
universities, have been formulated and partly or fully implemented,
such as medium and long-term plans, campus energy quota regulation,
green campus annual report. However, some regulations are not put
into real effect, such as regulations for energy efficiency operation of
facilities, and few regulations are still waiting to be worked out in this
university, such as green procurement regulation, waste recycling
management regulation, which become more and more generalized in
the universities abroad, but still attract little attention in China.
3.2.5. Social outreach (C5)
Aiming at current different social activities in Chinese universities,
the evaluation of social outreach mainly relates to green technology
training and consultation provided to the community, policy support
for the government, the collaborative projects among firms, universities
and research institutes, as well as students participation in community
sustainable practices, with optional indicators of 25 points. The main
8
9
GH. Green
Humanities (24 points)
GR. Green Research (11
points)
GE1
GE. Green Education (32
points)
GH5
GH5.1
GH5.2
GH6
GH4
GH3
GH2
GH1
GR3.2
GR3.1
GR2
GR3
GR1
GE8
GE7
GE5
GE6
GE4
GE2
GE3
#
Subcategories
The ratio of undergraduate courses in sustainability to
total courses
The ratio of graduate courses in sustainability
The ratio of the colleges with the undergraduate courses
in sustainability to total colleges
The ratio of the colleges with the graduate courses in
sustainability to total colleges
Establish green campus demonstration bases.
Have the initiatives to encourage teachers to set
sustainable courses and make curriculum reform.
Have the initiatives to set the discipline or program in
sustainability
Have the initiatives to encourage students to attend
sustainable courses and programs.
The ratio of research projects in sustainability to total
projects.
The percentage of the research funding in sustainability
The initiatives to encourage to do research in
sustainability
Have initiatives to encourage teachers to do the research
in sustainability.
Have initiatives to encourage students to do the research
in sustainability.
Provide green campus orientations for both new students
and faculties.
Colleges provide the periodic lectures and workshops in
sustainability.
Establish and implement incentive mechanisms for green
movement and green behavior
Have measures to propagandize green campus among
students and faculties
Student associations and corresponding activities
The number of student associations in sustainability
The number of activities held by student associations.
The student competition award above the municipal
level in sustainability.
Indicators
Table 4
The evaluation indicators in the category of Campus Culture (C4).
< 10%
2
< 5%
1
< 30%
5
< 20%
3
< 60%
3
< 10%
1
< 40%
2
< 20%
1
0.5 point for one student association, top 2 points
Once per semester for each association, 0.5 points; top 2 points
International award, 4 points; National award, 3 points; Provincial award, 2 points; Municipal
award, 1 point, top 4 points
Brochures, 1 point; Website, 1 point; Posters, 1 point; Other measures, 1 point; top 4 points
Fully implement, 5 points; Partly implement, 3 points; Just establish, 1 point.
Once for each semester in each school, 1 point; twice, 3 points; above 3 times, 5 points.
2 points
2 points
3 points
< 50%
8
Ditto
2 points
3 points
1 point for one base, top 5 points
2 points
< 80%
4
Limit values were set based on
investigation results
Limit values were set based on
investigation results
Limit values were set by
investigation results
Investigation results
Investigation results
Investigation results
< 15%
3
≥20%
5
Ditto
≥80%
5
Ditto
< 20%
4
Sources for references
Scores
C. Shuqin, et al.
Journal of Building Engineering 24 (2019) 100747
Journal of Building Engineering 24 (2019) 100747
Investigation results
4.2. Results in C2
≥20%
1
Fig. 4 shows the evaluation results in the category of C2 (Energy and
Resource Saving), achieving 39.45 scores out of 87 scores. University A
put into effect the campus energy management system in 2009, and also
conducted some initiatives in energy and water conservation year by
year since 2009 with the incentive of national funding, including the
energy efficiency retrofit of historical buildings, demonstration projects
of PV system, solar water heater systems and geothermal heat pump
systems in buildings, and the intelligent billing cards for water and
electricity usage management, water saving sanitary appliances in the
toilets and the non-traditional water use in the irrigation and landscape.
With these efforts, high scores are achieved in the subcategories of
Energy (E) and Water (W). As a result, small reductions of per capita
energy use and energy use per floor area were accomplished after the
year of 2010 (as shown in Fig. 5a), while the annual campus energy use
keeps the increase until 2011 (as shown in Fig. 5b), due to the increase
of floor areas of campus buildings and the improvement of teaching and
research capacity. Besides, even though the carbon emission of campus
energy use is calculated every year, there is no data for carbon emission
amount of staffs’ air travelling, as there are no such records or it is very
troublesome to get the original copies from the administrative departments, or the current database does not support the data retrieve right
now.
There are very few resource saving measures in terms of material
and waste, and hence there is no distinct achievement in this field.
Comparing with gradual generalization of reused or recycled material
and waste in universities abroad, there is little use of reusable building
material, recycled paper, recycled electronic products, reused furniture,
and garbage compost as well [7,8]. This shows that more initiatives in
this field are in great need in this university. In terms of the transportation, due to the old campus planning, there are not enough bicycle
parting lots, and no separate bike lanes, which are badly in need of
improvement.
≥40%
2
≥60%
3
≥80%
4
100%
5
4.3. Results in C3
Fig. 6 reveals the results in the category of C3 (Friendly Environment), with final scores of 16. As for campus site, the mandatory indicators of no damage of the local environment and no potential treat of
natural hazard can be met by this university. However, the data of
outdoor permeable pavement area is difficult to get and hence no score
was gotten for the indicator of CS3. In terms of ecological landscape,
the university has done a good job in campus greening and the growing
of native plant, but there is no effort in waste composting. Regarding
the micro climate, the wind environment, acoustic environment and air
environment are good, while the outdoor thermal environment cannot
meet the requirements of the related standards.
4.4. Results in C4
Fig. 7 shows the evaluation results in the category of C4 (Campus
Culture), achieving 52.5 scores in totally 77 target scores. The university made great effort in the green education, and accordingly got
the good results. The university set minor programs for graduate students in sustainability, including six majors of sustainable buildings,
sustainable economics, sustainable environment management, sustainable transportation, environment policy and sustainability, and international relationship and sustainability. The university has some regulations to incentive the students to choose the minor programs, such as
setting the scholarship and exempting tuition free, etc. The professors
will also get double salary for teaching in these minor programs.
However, in the major programs, although there are about one third of
the colleges setting some courses in sustainability, the ratios of both
undergraduate and graduate courses in sustainability to total courses
are still very low, with the values of only 1%, and these courses mainly
SO4
1 point for 2 awards; top 5 points
SO3.2
5 points
SO3
SO3.1
SO2
1 point for two influential activities, top 5 points
1 point for two times of consultation or training, top 5 points
The number of consultation and training of green knowledge for the community, offered by the
university.
The number of influential activities to support policy making for the government, in the theme of
sustainability.
Support to social innovations
Provide support to encourage staff and students to set up the company in the field of
sustainability
The number of awards above the municipal level in one year, which come from the collaboration
among industries, universities and research institutes.
The ratio of the colleges, which have students participate in sustainable activities in communities
or cities.
SO1
SO. Social Outreach (25
points)
Scores
Indicators
#
Subcategories
Table 5
The evaluation indicators in the category of Social Outreach (C5).
Sources for references
C. Shuqin, et al.
10
Journal of Building Engineering 24 (2019) 100747
C. Shuqin, et al.
Table 6
The scores of indicators in five categories.
First Level (Categories)
C1(Organization & Management)
C2 (Energy & Resource Saving)
C3 (Friendly Environment)
C4 (Campus Culture)
C5 (Social Outreach)
Total
Third Level (Indicator)
The number of Mandatory Indicators
The numbers/scores of General Indicators
The weight of the first-level categories
1
8
5
0
0
14
13/41
25/87
10/26
17/77
4/25
69/256
0.16
0.34
0.10
0.30
0.10
1
the chances to take part in the competitions and research programs in
sustainability, with the supervision of professors.
In addition, there are also many initiatives to cultivate the green
campus humanities, such as providing lectures and workshops for the
faculties and students, making green campus posters, brochures and
official website to introduce the green campus progress to the public,
setting related regulations, holding the activities by student associations, and taking part in the competitions in international, national,
provincial and municipal levels.
4.5. Results in C5
The results of the evaluation in C5 (Social Outreach) show that
University A has the very good performance in this field, with the
achievement of 24 scores accounting for 96% of total target scores, as
shown in Fig. 9. The Material College, the Institute of Environment for
Sustainable Development and some research and training centers provide periodic trainings and consultations in the field of sustainability
for the related stakeholders, such as engineers, land agents, manufacturers, and governmental officers at home and abroad. Some colleges
have a close relationship with their technical counterparts in the government, offering the policy making support, by the means of expert
consultation, the compilation of national and local standards, etc. The
university also has R&D industrial bases and Science and Technic Parks,
and motivates staffs and students to set up companies by providing
some preferential policies, such as tax reliefs, offering office places free
Fig. 2. The scores achieved in the category of C1.
focus on green buildings, sustainable environment, energy and resources conservation, and general introduction of sustainability.
There are also some approaches to encourage students and faculties
to do the research in sustainability. For example, the university periodically set special funding for the faculties, to promote the multidiscipline research in sustainability. Besides that, more and more faculties have their research interests in the fields of sustainable
environment (accounting for 53% of total projects), green buildings and
urban planning (22%), energy saving vehicle (10%), mechanics (7%)
and green agriculture (2%), and hence the projects and funding in these
fields increase year by year, as shown in Fig. 8. The students also have
Fig. 3. The current organization structure in University A.
11
Journal of Building Engineering 24 (2019) 100747
C. Shuqin, et al.
Fig. 4. The scores achieved in C2
Fig. 5(a). The energy consumption per unit area and energy consumption per capita from 2008 to 2012. Fig. 5(b) The total annual energy use on campus from 2008
to 2012.
C3(Friendly Environment), C4(Campus Culture), and C5(Social
Outreach), but still needs to make more endeavors in C1 and C2.
Regarding the subcategory level, almost full achievements have been
made in L (Land) and SO (Social Outreach), followed by O
(Organization), MC (Micro Climate) and GE (Green Education), in
which the achieved points account for more than 60% of the total target
scores, as shown in Fig. 10. Some critical thinking for University A to
develop sustainable campus in a long term could be proposed based on
the evaluation results as follows:
of charge, providing low-interest loans and even initial funding. In this
situation, many achievements have come out fast from the collaboration among firms, universities and research institutes. In addition, more
than 80% of the colleges hold social practices and the extracurricular
activities for the students to participate in sustainable activities in the
communities and the society.
4.6. Critical thinking in the sustainable campus development in university A
The results show that the university meets all mandatory indicators
in the five categories and has done a good job in the categories of
12
Journal of Building Engineering 24 (2019) 100747
C. Shuqin, et al.
Fig. 6. The scores achieved in C3.
Fig. 9. The scores achieved in C5.
(C4), and Social Outreach (C5), after a comprehensive literature review
of a great deal of evaluation tools in the world. University A, who is
among the best candidates in the green campus development in China,
was selected and evaluated by this system. The results clearly showed
its achievements and shortcomings of the campus sustainability in this
university, and corresponding suggestions were made to guide the work
in the next step.
In this evaluation system, the pertinent indicators were put forward
based on a full consideration of green campus evolution in China, and
the limit values and thresholds of all indicators were reasonably set up
based on the current progress of campus sustainability in Chinese universities or the national standards. In this way, the system can be expected to effectively assess the consequences of these important initiatives taken by Chinese universities or funded by Chinese
government. Meanwhile, some indicators in the international systems
are localized and introduced into the system, which can lead the directions in campus sustainability for Chinese universities. For instance,
the garbage composting programs, such as kitchen waste composting
and landscape waste composting, furniture reuse, and the use of recycled paper are popular in the universities abroad, but seldom adopted
in most Chinese universities. The indicators to assess the effect of these
measures are set into the system, which can drive the universities to
make more endeavors in these aspects. Therefore, the application of
Fig. 7. The scores in C4.
5. Discussion and conclusions
Aiming at the current situation and its own characteristics of green
campus development in China, an evaluation system especially for
Chinese universities has been put forward to fully assess the initiatives
in five categories of Organization and Management (C1), Energy and
Resource Saving (C2), Friendly Environment (C3), Campus Culture
Fig. 8. The ratio of main research fields in sustainability.
13
Journal of Building Engineering 24 (2019) 100747
C. Shuqin, et al.
Acknowledgement
This research is funded by the China National Key R&D Program
“Solutions to heating and cooling of buildings in the Yangtze river region” (Grant No. 2016YFC0700301) and National Natural Science
Foundation of China No. 51508500, and 51561135002.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100747.
Fig. 10. The scores achieved in all subcategories.
References
(1) The university set up a management organization and a relatively comprehensive series of regulations to develop the sustainable campus.
However, more focuses should be put on the engagement of professional
staffs especially for sustainability development and scientific regulations for
green procurement and waste recycling management.
(2) The potential of campus energy and resource conservation should be further
excavated. Even though University A has made great efforts to conduct
different kinds of energy conservation initiatives, e.g. building retrofit, the
usage of renewable energy, water saving appliances, etc., the application
rate of energy and resource saving appliances in the university level is relatively low. For example, only 15% of water appliances are energy efficient
(W2) with the achievement of 0.3 points in 2 target points. Furthermore,
the conservation measures in the subcategories of W (Water) and MW
(Material and Waste) should be more frequently put into use in the future.
(3) The sustainability development in C4 (Campus Culture), including GE
(Green Education), GR (Green Research), and GH (Green Humanities), is
just in the beginning stage. The rate of undergraduate and graduate courses
in sustainability should be increased, and as well as research projects focused on sustainability. What is more, more attention should be paid on the
promotion and publicity of sustainable activities in the university and in the
communities.
[1] Ministry of Education of China, Bulletin of National Education Statistics 2015,
(2016) http://www.moe.edu.cn/srcsite/A03/s180/moe_633/201607/t20160706_
270976.html 06.07.16.
[2] Ministry of Education of China, Statistical Bulletin of National Education Career
Development, (2014) 2013 http://www.moe.edu.cn/publicfiles/business/
htmlfiles/moe/moe_633/201407/171144.html 30.07.14.
[3] X.L. Yuan, J. Zuo, D. Huisingh, Green Universities in China e what matters? J.
Clean. Prod. 61 (2013) 36–45.
[4] B. Xu, G.Q. Qi, N. Wang, Managing efficiency and construction of energy - saving
behavior in Institutions of higher education in the new era, J. Northeast Agric. Univ.
8 (4) (2010) 122–124.
[5] E. Barata, L. Cruz, J.P. Ferreira, Parking at the UC campus: problems and solutions,
Cities 28 (5) (2011) 406–413.
[6] H.W. Tan, S.Q. Chen, Q. Shi, L.L. Wang, Development of green campus in China, J.
Clean. Prod. 64 (2014) 646–653.
[7] Kyoto University, Kyoto University Environment Report, (2014) available at:
http://www/kyoto-u.ac.jp/ja/profile/environment/report/index.htm/.
[8] The University of Pennsylvania, ISCN-GULF Sustainable Campus Charter Report,
(2013) Available at: http://www.international-sustainable-campus-network.org/
downloads/reports/university-of-pennsylvania/309-university-of-pennsylvania2013-iscn-gulf-sustainable-campus-charter-report/file.
[9] MOHURD (Ministry of Housing and Urban and Rural Development), and MOE
(Ministry of Education), The Construction and Management Guidelines of Energy
and Resource Conservation-Oriented Campus in Colleges and Universities (Trial
Implementation), (2008) [2008]89 http://www.mohurd.gov.cn/zcfg/jsbwj_0/
jsbwjjskj/200805/t20080519_168885.html 13.05.08.
[10] MOHURD (Ministry of Housing and Urban and Rural Development), Notice on
Printing and Distributing the “Campus Construction Guidelines of Campus Energy
Management System in Colleges and Universities” and Relevant Management
Measures, (2009) [2009]163 http://www.mohurd.gov.cn/zcfg/jsbwj_0/jsbwjjskj/
200911/t20091110_196722.html 15.10.09.
[11] MOHURD (Ministry of Housing and Urban and Rural Development) and MOF
(Ministry of Finance), Notice on Further Promoting the Energy Efficiency of Public
Buildings, (2011) [2011]207 http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2011-05/11/content_
1861716.htm 11.05.11.
[12] L. Cole, Assessing Sustainability on Canadian University Campuses: Development of
a Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework, M.A. Environment and
Management, Royal Roads University, 2003.
[13] M. Shriberg, Institutional assessment tools for sustainability in higher education:
strengths, weaknesses, and implications for practice and theory, Int. J. Sustain.
High. Educ. 3 (3) (2002) 254e270 https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370210434714.
[14] F.U. Gomez, et al., Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education,
J. Clean. Prod. 107 (2015) 75–485 33\d.
[15] A. Lauder, et al., Critical review of a global campus sustainability ranking,
GreenMetric. J. Clean. Pro. (2015) 852–863 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2015.02.080 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.080.
[16] M. del M. Alonso-Almeida, et al., Diffusion of sustainability reporting in universities: current situation and future perspectives, J. Clean. Prod. 106 (2015)
144–154.
[17] A. Nixon, Improving the Campus Sustainability Assessment Process. Campus
Sustainability Assessment Review Project, Undergraduate Honors Thesis Western
Michigan University, 2002.
[18] R. Lozano, A tool for a graphical assessment of sustainability in universities (GASU),
J. Clean. Prod. 14 (9e11) (2006) 963e972 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.
11.041.
[19] J. Boman, U.P. Andersson, Eco-labeling of courses and programs at university of
gothenburg, J. Clean. Prod. 48 (2013) 48e53 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2011.10.024.
[20] R. Lozano, Diffusion of sustainable development in universities' curricula: an empirical example from Cardiff University, J. Clean. Prod. 18 (2010) 637–644.
[21] R. Lozano, W. Young, Assessing sustainability in university curricula: exploring the
influence of student numbers and course credits, J. Clean. Prod. 49 (2013) 134–141.
[22] M. Shriberg, Institutional assessment tools for sustainability in higher education:
strengths, weaknesses, and implications for practice and theory, Int. J. Sustain.
High. Educ. 3 (3) (2002) 254e270 https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370210434714.
[23] N. Roorda, AISHE: Auditing Instrument for Sustainable Higher Education: English
Text, Dutch Committee for Sustainable Higher Education, Netherlands, 2001.
such an evaluation system can promote the communication and understanding about campus sustainability among faculties, staffs and
students, assess and compare the sustainability performance across
different campuses; and the evaluation results can also provide the
references for the emphasis of both the universities and the government
in the next step [12].
However, there are still some limitations and further research which
should be done to make it available in the country level. Data collection
is difficult for some indicators. For example, there is very huge workload to get the carbon footprint of staffs’ air travelling based on the
original copies of all the air tickets in the university. It is also difficult to
get the accurate values of the rate of per capita garbage reduction and
the usage ratio of the recycled paper. In order to improve this system,
one of the most important issues is that more case studies should be
done in the next step so as to check the operability of this system. Hence
the sensitivity analysis can be also done based on more case studies.
Besides that, the application of such an evaluation system implies
the capacity building which should be done in China as soon as possible. Green campus management and evaluation put forward the
higher requirement for the interactive work among different administrative departments and colleges in Chinese universities, but there is no
much overlap among these departments right now. Also, it definitely
costs huge labor power to get and calculate the data for the evaluation,
while this is the extra work for the staffs in the departments right now,
and they have no impetus to do such arduous work. Therefore, similar
to the green building evaluation, it is urgent to set up a series of organizational mechanism by the government to popularize the campus
sustainability evaluation in China. Besides the evaluation methodology,
the third-party certification body and authentication mechanism for the
evaluation on behalf of the government should be established, and as
well as the staffs with the special duty to collect the data in the universities.
14
Journal of Building Engineering 24 (2019) 100747
C. Shuqin, et al.
[24] M. Togo, H. Lotz-Sisitka, Unit Based Sustainability Assessment Tool. A Resource
Book to Complement the UNEP Mainstreaming Environment and Sustainability in
African Universities Partnership, Share-Net, Howick, 978-1919991-09-2, 2009
(Artwork by: Tammy Griffiths).
[25] AUA, Alternative University Appraisal. Model for ESD in Higher Education
Institutions, (2012), pp. 0–35.
[26] AASHE (The Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher
Education), Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System STARS 2.0
Technical Manual: Draft for Public Comment, (2012).
[27] B. Lv, J.J. Kan, Research on campus sustainability assessment indicators system and
implications in China, Urban Planning International 27 (1) (2012) 44–52.
[28] CHINAGBC (China Green Building Council), Evaluation Standard for Green Campus
(Draft for Comments) (CSUSGBC04-2013), Chinese Society For Urban Studies,
Beijing, 2013.
[29] MOHURD (Ministry of Housing and Urban and Rural Development), Evaluation
Standard of Green Buildings, (2014) GB/T 50378-2014). Available at: https://
wenku.baidu.com/view/05ef163c9b89680202d82554.html.
[30] S.Q. Chen, S.W. Zhu, H.W. Tan, N. Zhang, Current situation and problems of energy
efficiency management in Chinese universities and colleges, Construction Science
and Technology 12 (2015) 34–38.
[31] H. Sackman, Delphi Assessment: Expert Opinion, Forecasting and Group Process",
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
15
R-1283-PR, April 1974. Brown, Thomas, "An Experiment in Probabilistic
Forecasting, (1974) R-944-ARPA, 1972.
Harold A. Linstone, Turoff Murray, The Delphi Method: Techniques and
Applications, Reading, Mass, Addison-Wesley, 978-0-201-04294-8, 1975 archived
from the original on 2008-05-20.
C.X. Luan, Z.X. Zhu, S.Q. Chen, H.W. Tan, Research on green campus of colleges and
universities in China, 10th International Conference on Green Building and Building
Energy Efficiency, 2014, pp. 87–94 Beijing.
MOHURD (Ministry of Housing and Urban and Rural Development), Standard for
Daylighting Design of Buildings, (2001) GB/T 50033-2001). Available at: https://
wenku.baidu.com/view/487be4d1195f312b3169a56b.html.
MOHURD (Ministry of Housing and Urban and Rural Development), Evaluation
Standard of Green Buildings, (2014) GB/T 50378-2014). Available at: https://
wenku.baidu.com/view/05ef163c9b89680202d82554.html.
Patriotic Health Campaign Committee Office (PHCCO), The National Healthy City
Standards, (2014) Available at: https://wenku.baidu.com/view/
c961601b2b160b4e767fcf90.html.
Ministry of Environment Protection, Indoor Air Quality Standard, (2002) GB/
T18883-2002.
MOHURD (Ministry of Housing and Urban and Rural Development), Standard for
Lighting Design of Buildings, (2013) GB/T 50034-2013.