Complete Campus Engagement via Embedding
Ecological Footprinting Curriculum
Richie Howitt
Department of Environment and Geography, Macquarie University
Sara Rickards
Department of Environment and Geography and Property, Macquarie University
Recommended Citation
Howitt, R. & Rickards, S. (2013). Complete Campus Engagement via Embedding Ecological
th
Footprinting Curriculum. Proceedings of the 13 International Australasian Campuses Towards
Sustainability (ACTS) Conference, Sydney, Australia.
Available at http://www.acts.asn.au/index.php/2013-conf/conference-proceedings/
th
Proceedings of the 13 International Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS) Conference 2013
Complete Campus Engagement via Embedding Ecological
Footprinting Curriculum
Richie Howitt
Department of Environment and Geography, Macquarie University
Sara Rickards
Department of Environment and Geography and Property, Macquarie University
A central sustainability goal in the tertiary sector is to equip and engage current and
future generations with an understanding of interdependencies between individuals,
society, environment and the economy, and to enable students to apply this
understanding to their own decision-making in a resource constrained world. The
Ecological Footprint has emerged as the world’s premier measure of humanity’s demand
on nature. This approach provides an understanding of how much supply is available,
how much is used and who uses what. In order to investigate environmental educational
outcomes, a four stage (Year 1, 2, 3 and alumni) two-tiered learning strategy has been
developed. The first tier engages students in a personal Ecological Footprint assessment
at commencement, which is repeated at intervals through the degree and into Alumni.
The second tier will engage students with a Campus Ecological Footprint analysis
whereby students evaluate a Faculty’s base-case and make recommendations to reduce
the impact of Faculty operations. This exercise will assist Macquarie University’s future
planning for a more sustainable campus. The research hypothesis is that this
pedagogical intervention will increase the students’ likelihood of taking conscious and
deliberate actions to mitigate the ecological impact of their personal and business
activities and show a permanent shift to this type of behaviour. This paper presents the
methodological approach, examples of the program’s design and promising early stage
results. Evaluation of outcomes will continue and provides the opportunity for a unique
longitudinal study of how such curriculum supports students to contribute to the one
planet goal.
Keywords: Ecological Footprint, Curriculum Effectiveness, Student Engagement, Campus, Faculty
Introduction and Background
Does tertiary environmental education change the behaviour of students? Faced with this key
question, Macquarie University’s Department of Environment and Geography teamed up with the
University’s Sustainability Team to embed ecological footprinting (EF) into the environmental
management curriculum. In turn, this will provide students with tools for understanding the value of
footprinting in a range of settings. The EF curriculum project is part of a wider research agenda to
investigate the effectiveness of the environmental management curriculum, in changing the
behaviours that increase students’ ecological footprints, and to better understand the institutional
footprint of the university as a whole. The pedagogical approach used in this project sees the students
involved in an investigation of and consideration of the transparency of campus operations in
environmental terms and examines the EF’s of individual Faculties. This approach uses the Campus
operations as a living laboratory and allows for cross disciplinary collaboration.
The 2001 Universities of Australian Ecological Development Charter declares that universities are
responsible to act as role models for the broader community. It is recommended that this is achieved
through the education of future generations about sustainability practices and incorporation of such
practices, into their own university operations (National Union of Students, 2001; McNamara, 2010;
Collins, 2012). Rather than pursuing these goals in isolation, Segalas, Ferrer-Balas & Mulder (2010)
argues that using universities as experimental laboratories, will create ecological learning
environments, and allow for monitoring of the effectiveness of universities in terms of ecologically
sustainable development (ESD).
Available at: http://www.acts.asn.au/index.php/2013-conf/conference-proceedings/
2
th
Proceedings of the 13 International Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS) Conference 2013
Environmental educators optimistically anticipate that their engagement with students will produce
sustained improvements in the environmental behaviours of their pupils. Graduates of the best
educational institutions, however, are amongst those responsible for leading the world down the
current unsustainable path (Cortese, 2003). It is widely acknowledged that intention is a key
determinant of behaviour (Austin & Vancouver, 1996; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Gollwitzer & Moskowitz,
1996; Maddux, 1999; Conner & Norman, 2005; Web & Sheeran, 2006). Empirical research on the
effectiveness of environmental education in actually changing the intentions of students and
subsequent personal & business behaviours over a sustained period of time is extremely limited. This
project is developing a long-term framework for investigating Macquarie students’ environmental
behaviours over time. Macquarie’s environmental management program has been characterised by a
curriculum that supports students in framing a professional literacy in reading the complex landscapes
of environmental decision making and offers them:
… opportunities to construct a conceptual toolkit relevant to their own professional needs and
include the development of their own capacities to see, think about and practice ‘better’
resource management. Students are guided beyond their comfort zones, with taken-forgranted technical and scientific facts put into new contexts through consideration of cultural
perspectives, alternative philosophical positions, ontological pluralism and unanticipated
outcomes. Through reading, discussion, role-plays and reflection on field-based experience
we challenge students with a range of learning experiences, which insist that they frame and
reframe key issues (Suchet-Pearson & Howitt 2006, p. 122).
A central sustainability goal in the tertiary sector is to equip and engage current and future generations
with an understanding of interdependencies between individuals, society, environment and the
economy, and to enable students to apply this understanding to their own decision-making in a
resource constrained world (Cooper and Scott, 2009). Due to these issues transcending disciplinary
boundaries, the approach required to achieve this goal requires cross-disciplinary collaboration and
corporation (Cortese, 2003). To break down the disciplinary barriers created by the traditional
framework of universities, complete campus engagement for the common goal of a “one planet”
campus is proposed.
It is widely acknowledged that the environmental impact of human behaviours is unsustainable
(Haberl, Wakernahgel and Wrbka 2004; Kitzes et al., 2007;Reese 1996; McNichol, Davis & O’Brien
2011). Species extinction, deforestation and global warming indicate that humanity’s demand on
nature is exceeding the regenerative and absorptive capacity of the biosphere (Borucke et al., 2013).
In order to address overconsumption there is a need for practical approaches to measure how much is
consumed by people, products and services, and also determine what level of consumption is
sustainable at a variety of scales (Pearce and Uhl, 2003).
EF has emerged as the world’s premier measure of humanity’s demand on nature (Chikoti, 2012).
This approach provides an understanding of how much supply is available, how much is used and
who uses what (GFN, 2013). EF analysis is an easy-to-understand tool, which calculates a study
population’s demand on nature in terms of bio-productive land and water (Rees 1996; Wackernagel
and Rees 1996). The impact results are reported in terms of global hectares (gha) per annum, per
functional unit (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996). Using the National Footprint Accounts (NFA) to
measure human appropriation (EF) and the biosphere’s supply (biocapacity) humanity’s current
demand on the planet is 1.5 planets (in 2008) (Borucke et al., 2013).
EF methodology has been applied to University Campuses in China (Li et al., 2008) (Gu et al.,
2005) the US (Venetoulis, 2001; Conway et al., 2008; Klein-Banai & Theis, 2011) and Australia (Flint,
2001), just to name a few. These methodologies have largely been one off assessments focusing on
operational expenditure. Ongoing and more in-depth assessments have probably been avoided due to
the time consuming nature of reporting (Graymore, Sipe & Rickson, 2008). However, the recently
developed campus calculator by The Footprint Company™ has reduced the time and therefore cost
involved in undertaking these analyses and allowed Macquarie University to utilise the methodology in
both operations and learning and teaching.
Using a scaffolded approach to the undergraduate curriculum in the Environmental Management
major (available in the BA, BSc and BEnv), the EF curriculum project utilises footprinting at 100-, 200and 300-levels (first year, second year and third year) to measure individual footprints in students’ first
Available at: http://www.acts.asn.au/index.php/2013-conf/conference-proceedings/
3
th
Proceedings of the 13 International Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS) Conference 2013
and final years of undergraduate study and to undertake a campus-based building footprint exercise in
second year. The project will thus produce longitudinal information on individual’s footprints and
longitudinal information on institutional footprints, as well as an understanding of what impacts the
footprints of individuals, social groups, buildings and institutions. It is anticipated that work with the
program alumni will allow investigation of the extent to which reduced footprints are maintained over
time by graduates.
Through this pedagogical intervention, students explore and measure their own EF’s on entry to and
exit from their program of study, and create a database for student and staff research activities. In
addition, students will investigate the EF’s of each of the universities four faculties and model
scenarios to assist Macquarie University in determining the key drivers of their campus EF on both a
consumption category (biocapacity, energy, water, buildings, non-building items, operational items and
transport) and Faculty level. Overall, this pedagogical approach has been designed as a sustainable
on-going project.
Ecological footprint analysis (EFA) tools will improve student understanding and engagement with
environmental impact at several scales (personal, communal and institutional). The campus
environment and curriculum is responsible for shaping how students choose to live and in turn, how
they will change and shape work places, neighborhoods and cities as graduates (Hyuuan and Yang,
2012)
Overall, EF provides a powerful tool for illustrating, assessing and engaging students, staff, faculties,
campuses and communities, with the hope of achieving the common goal of “one planet”
consumption.
Methodology
The study site
Macquarie University Campus is 113 hectares located in North Ryde, Sydney. In the 2011 baseline
year, there was 3488 full time equivalent (FTE) academic and support staff and 27084 FTE students.
The university has four academic faculties (Arts, Science, Human Sciences, Business and
Economics). The campus currently has a “One Planet 2030 Masterplan” strategy in place. This
initiative has fueled the incorporation of EF into curriculum, to ensure complete campus engagement
of the project.
One Planet 2030 strategy
At present 30% of Macquarie University is ‘built-on land’, with plans for growth and development to
accommodate more students, as well as research and development partnerships. In order to achieve
this growth and ensure that the impact on the planet is kept to a minimum, Macquarie University has
teamed up with The Footprint Company™ to utilize their existing building calculators, in addition to
creating a campus calculator. Together these calculators allow Macquarie to measure its whole-of
institution impact upon the environment.
The initial stages of the project involved assessments (and recommendations for the future
management and development) of existing buildings and buildings in the design pipeline. This
progressed to the calculation of the campus EF and the individual primary buildings. In order to
implement the “One Planet Strategy” complete campus engagement was determined to be essential.
Therefore, future property developments will undergo EF assessments to ensure new buildings
achieve the same or more using less. While the design and construction of new and refurbished
buildings is largely a concern for the campuses property management department, the day-to-day
operations of learning and teaching are the responsibilities of the faculties. As such, a key target of
the 2030 strategy roll out was engagement with faculties with regards to operational activities and
consumption (Figure 1).
Available at: http://www.acts.asn.au/index.php/2013-conf/conference-proceedings/
4
th
Proceedings of the 13 International Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS) Conference 2013
Primary point
of engagement
Campus
= Overall EF
Faculties
= EF of campus
Sections
= EF of portions
of sections
Buildings
Figure 1: Conceptual image of implementation of One Planet 2030 Master plan via
Environmental Management curriculum
Pedagogical approach
In order to investigate environmental educational outcomes, a four stage (Year 1, 2, 3 and alumni)
two-tiered learning strategy has been developed for incorporation into the Bachelor of Environment
program, specifically students majoring in Environmental Management (Table 1). The development
and incorporation of EF modules, into the compulsory units of study has established a common thread
through the Environmental Management major curriculum.
Table 1: Summary of Embedding Eco-Footprinting into Curriculum
Year
Year 1
Year 2
Pedagogical Strategy
Lecture: Background
development, global
and Australian
contextualisation
Tutorial: Personal EF
calculation and
questionnaire
Lecture: Campus
contextualisation
Tier
Focus
1
Personal
2
Cross disciplinary
collaboration and
business context
1
Personal
Tutorial: Software
demonstration
Year 3
Alumni
(Currently proposed
for calculation at 3
years and 5 years)
Research Assignment:
Environmental report and
presentation
Lecture: Investigation of
EF system, limitations
and assumptions
Tutorial: Personal EF
calculation and
questionnaire
Web Forum: Personal EF
calculation and
questionnaire
1&2
Personal and business
self
Available at: http://www.acts.asn.au/index.php/2013-conf/conference-proceedings/
5
th
Proceedings of the 13 International Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS) Conference 2013
Tier one: Personal EF calculation
The first tier engages students in a personal EF assessment at commencement, which is repeated at
intervals through the degree (Year 1 and 2) and into Alumni. This process involved the introduction
and background to EFA and its global and Australian context, in the first year. In the final year
students are provided with a more in depth knowledge of how the EF “system” is modelled, which
allowed for assumptions and limitations to be discussed. Orr (1992) emphasises that environmental
graduates should be empowered with the ability to apply systems thinking, while also recognising
limitations and challenging the presented model.
At these designated times, students performed two tasks, which allowed for quantitative and
qualitative data collection. The first task involved using the Global Footprint Networks (GFN) personal
footprint calculator to determine the student’s current EF. The second task is a questionnaire, which
allowed for data tracking of the student’s own reported behaviours and contextual changes that might
affect their EF. This approach was chosen, due to raw data driven approaches without additional
qualitative insights having the potential to be less instructive of the situation (Eckel, 1999). It should be
noted that the study population changes from year to year due to enrolment and exchange etc.
Therefore, the students are tracked using their student number, to allow for the comparison of their
personal EF and behavioural reflections.
The Global Footprint Network personal calculator
The GFN personal EF calculator utilises data from the NFA’s and the calculator matrix methodology is
in accordance with the international EF standards (Borucke et al., 2013). In order to determine a
personal EF, different categories (food, shelter, mobility, goods and services) are allocated to land
types (forest, crop, grazing, energy, and fishing), resulting in a matrix, which utilizes a countries
average consumption profile. The personal EF calculator increases or decreases the personal EF
matrix, in response to answering questions related to the stated categories, relative to the national
average behaviour (GFN, 2013). For in depth details on EF methodology and calculations see
Borucke et al., (2013).
Tier two: Campus and Faulty EF calculation
The second tier will engage students with a Campus Ecological Footprint analysis whereby students
evaluate each Faculty’s base-case and make recommendations to reduce the impact of Faculty
operations.
The system boundary of the Faculty’s is represented by the physical site boundary of the buildings.
This assessment considers the capital formation (the base building materials and infrastructure) of the
Faculty and one year of operational requirements. Operational impacts per annum associated with
energy, water, transport, tenancy and operational consumption are considered within the system
boundary.
The aspects and activities within the dotted red line shown, define the system boundary considered
within the calculation methodology (Figure 2). The primary data coverage and boundary is highlighted
in Table 2.
Available at: http://www.acts.asn.au/index.php/2013-conf/conference-proceedings/
6
th
Proceedings of the 13 International Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS) Conference 2013
Stage 0 Upstream
Stage n Stage 0 + n Excavation & Primary Immediate production of production of raw materials components r eady for site
Complex Product Level
Ownership &
End-­‐of-­‐life
Operations & Operational Capex
End of Life Demo
Components e.g. windows; wall frames; fixtures; machinery
CREDIT Equal cycle complete component into n ew E.g. d oors; windows
Basic m aterials e.g. pre-­‐mix concrete; cement; brick; glass CREDIT
Down-­‐cycle into displace virgin basic material e.g. crushed concrete as a ggregate
Basic Material Level
D evelopment
Build
On-site
Building Level Primary
/Raw Material Level
SYSTEM BOUNDARY
Downstream
Extraction & primary processing e.g. Iron Ore; Timber etc
Figure 2: The Footprint Company™ calculator’s system boundary
Table 2: Primary Data Coverage and Boundary
Footprint Aspect
Developed Area
(Site area and usable floor
area)
Energy
Water
Coverage and Meaning
The ecological value of land
removed from service through
the construction of the building
net of any “credit” for on-site
ecological additions or
improvements.
The ecological value of carbon
emissions arising for stationary
energy
The ecological and carbon
footprint of water consumption
by source, arising from
operational requirements.
Buildings
The ecological impact of and
carbon footprint of all materials
required to
create the building as measured
finished in place.
Construction Materials*
The ecological and carbon
footprint of all materials required
to create the building as
measured finished in place.
Other Capital items
(Non-building Items)
The ecological impact of and
carbon footprint of all materials
required to
create the other capital items as
measured finished in place.
Operational Items
The ecological impact of annual
operational consumption.
Boundary and Inclusions
The ground plane footprint area of the
proposed building(s).
Base building energy requirements as
entered and covering scope 1, 2 & 3
emissions.
Incorporates all tenant / occupant use.
The ecological and embodied carbon
impacts from the site all the way
upstream to the point of extraction of
natural resources including all
intermediate processing and transport.
“Approximate” buildings are based on
Australian national averages
The ecological and embodied carbon
impacts from the site all the way upstream
to the point of extraction of natural
resources including all intermediate
processing and transport.
The ecological and embodied carbon
impacts from the site all the way
upstream to the point of extraction of
natural resources including all
intermediate processing and transport
Operational items such as IT &
electronics, paper & print services,
consumables, food & drink and
Available at: http://www.acts.asn.au/index.php/2013-conf/conference-proceedings/
7
th
Proceedings of the 13 International Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS) Conference 2013
cleaning.
Transport
Offsets
(Biocapacity)
The ecological impact of all
occupant and user related
transport to access the
site.
The ecological value of any
activity specific to restoring,
protecting or enhancing
biological capacity whether
on-site or off-site.
All tenants/occupants on the basis of trip
mode and vehicle kilometers travelled**.
Off-site ecological protection or
restoration activities are allocated to
Offsets. Energy offsets purchased from
3rd parties are noted in offsets.
*Not directly measured in the Campus/Faculty calculation. Construction materials were assessed in
the pre-assessment of campus buildings using The Footprint Company™ multi-use calculator.
** Data was only available for the campus, in following years differences between faculties will be
investigated.
The Footprint Company™ campus calculator
In accordance with the Global footprint Standards, The Footprint Company™ has developed a
campus Ecological footprint calculator, which is being used in this project as both a teaching tool and
as a way of measuring the institutional footprint of the campus. The university has adopted a strategic
commitment to a footprint of ‘One Planet by 2030’, and the class exercises in this project will provide a
useful input to evaluation of that strategy. Preliminary studies determined Macquarie University’s
campus and individual building footprints and students work with these data and models in their class
activities.
Within the calculators a hybrid life cycle assessment (HLCA) method was employed, which combines
lifecycle analysis (LCA) and input-output analysis, which increases study completeness (Crawford,
2008). This is in comparison to standard LCA methodology, which is typically imperfect due to
incomplete or unreliable data sources (Kim et al., 2008). In addition, input-output models in isolation
don’t have the ability to demonstrate the benefit of more sustainable (which can also mean more
expensive) materials (Majeau-Bettez, Strinnan & Hertwich, 2011). The HLCA used in this study, uses
actual life cycle cost quantities and where such quantities cannot be identified, the monetary value of
an item is used with a gross national carbon intensity of economic end-use substituted (York, 2008).
The methodology considers all impacts from cradle to gate, as well as incorporating all service and
consumption inputs through monetary consideration. The key limitation of this technique derives from
the use of the input-output model, which is where the monetary value of an item is used with a gross
national carbon intensity of economic end-use. For TFP™ methodology summary see Table 3.
Table 3: The Footprint Company LCA methodology summary
LCA Method Element
Valid for this Report
Principle Methodology
Hybrid LCA
Goal
Quantify anticipated ecological
footprint of the registered
project
Scope
Anticipated ecological footprint
as represented in the input
parameters for the registered
project.
Scope Exclusions
Boundary
Waste generated on site during
construction and operations
Site boundary and all materials
as finished in place for building
and fit-out in total terms
upstream to the point of
Available at: http://www.acts.asn.au/index.php/2013-conf/conference-proceedings/
Comment
Capital and one year of
operations
TFC™ can currently investigate
individual buildings and
campuses as a whole (or area
of a campus). Table 2 defines
scope
Not covered by footprint
methodology
Direct and indirect covered
8
th
Proceedings of the 13 International Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS) Conference 2013
extraction – unbounded.
Functional Unit
Geographic and Temporal
Relevance
Principle functional units
include;
• Global hectares
absolute (gha)
• Usable floor area (UFA)
• Global meters square
2
absolute (gm )
• Gha and gm2 per meter
square of lettable area
2
2
2
(gha/m ) or (gm /m )
• Planet Equivalent
•
•
•
UFA as define by Australian
Institute of Quantity Surveyors
(AIQS’s)
EF National Footprint
Accounts, 2011 (GFN)
GHG AGO Workbooks,
2011 / 2012
Materials sources
including; CSIRO, 2005
(Balancing Act); BPIC
database; CSIRO; TFC
custom datasets.
Results
At this point of the Macquarie project, only preliminary results from a small-scale pilot project carried
out in 2013 are available. These were seen as indicative of the value and workability of the approach.
In previous years, a first practical activity allowed students to calculate their own footprints using a
range of calculators, to discuss the outcomes and consider why results from different calculators
diverged. Class discussion also considered what sorts of activities and measurements might be
‘scaled up’ to produce significant and sustainable change. Initial student trials using TFC™ calculators
to explore how design, construction and operational matters affect building footprint, and how
administrative structures affect the ability to influence sustained changes in behaviour and outcomes
has suggested the suitability of this approach for classroom use.
Tier 1: Personal EF calculation preliminary findings
It should be noted that presented data is representative of early stage results from the Year 3, 2013
module trial. Personal EF calculations were determined for a 39-student study group, in the study unit
‘ENV300 Environmental Decision Making’. The class average EF was 5.7 gha, which is lower than the
Australian average of 6.68 gha (WWF, 2012). Assuming the current global population is 7 billion
people, and the biocapacity is 13.3 billion gha, if everyone lived like the third year Environmental
management class, we would still need 3 planets to sustain their current lifestyle.
Summary of key findings:
• 81% of students had calculated their EF before (Figure 4)
• 50% of students expected their EF to be equal to what the GFN calculator calculated(Figure 4)
• 32% of students found their EF to be larger than they anticipated (Figure 4)
• 69% of student said they will try to decrease their EF (more than a little bit)(Figure 4)
• 93% Students found the exercise interesting (more than a little bit)(Figure 3)
• 49% would be willing to participate in the 5-year follow up study (Figure 4)
• Greatest impact categories were food and mobility.
Available at: http://www.acts.asn.au/index.php/2013-conf/conference-proceedings/
9
th
Proceedings of the 13 International Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS) Conference 2013
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
Not at all
A little bit
Somewhat
Quite a bit
A tremendous
amount
Figure 3: Student survey question “Was this exercise interesting?”
Is your EF what you expected it to be?
Why, why not?
Will you try to track your EF in the future? Yes.
Extremely likely No. My Ecological Footprint
was much smaller than I
expected.
No. My Ecological Footprint
was smaller than I expected.
Very likely Moderately likely No. My Ecological Footprint
was larger than I expected.
Slightly likely No. My Ecological Footprint
was much larger than I
expected.
Not at all likely Would you be willing to participate in a Live-­‐year follow-­‐up to this study in 2018? Will you try to decrease your EF? Not at all Yes A little bit Somewhat No Quite a bit A tremendous amount Figure 4: Summary of key findings from EF student survey 2013 pilot
Tier two: Campus and Faculty EF calculation preliminary findings
Prior to the determination of the Faculty EF’s, campus and individual building assessments were
carried out to determine a 2011 baseline case for Macquarie University. The campus planet footprint
was determined to be 1.44 planets, which is an annual measure. The primary drivers of Macquarie
University’s EF were determined to be operational items (34%), buildings (33%) and energy (18%).
Biological capacity (0.2%) and water (1%) consumption had the least amount of ecological impact
(Figure 5 and Table 4). In addition, the relative importance of operational (energy, water, transport and
other operational expenses) and capital aspects (buildings and non-building items) reflects that the
operational features of the campus are higher in impact (Figure 6). Due to operational items being of
larger overall impact, this supported the curriculum’s structure in targeting the Faculty level of the
campus to engage the University, to target reduction of campus EF and individual building EF.
Available at: http://www.acts.asn.au/index.php/2013-conf/conference-proceedings/
10
th
Proceedings of the 13 International Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS) Conference 2013
Table 4: Macquarie University campus EF results summary
2
Footprint Aspect
Gha Absolute
Gm /EFT
Biological Capacity
139.9
45.8
Energy
14318.7
4683.9
Water
72.7
23.8
Buildings
26368.9
8625.2
Non Building items
3268.8
1069.2
Operational items
27264.3
8918.0
Transport
8043.7
2631.1
Figure 5: Macquarie University EF vs. Macquarie 2030 one planet goal
The graph shows the estimated EF of all activates for
the period of study in absolute global hectares by
major consumption/impact category. This graph will
be used as an indication of the major driving areas
with respect to EF, in order to determine the degree of
change required to approach sustainability.
Available at: http://www.acts.asn.au/index.php/2013-conf/conference-proceedings/
11
th
Proceedings of the 13 International Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS) Conference 2013
Figure 6: Macquarie University EF by life cycle assessment
Graphical representation of the relative
importance of operational and capital aspects
and the benefit achieved through the
investment of offsetting activities (if there were
th
to be any). Note that capital is shown as 1/25
of its impact
Complete Faculty assessments for Arts, Science, Human Sciences, Business and Economics
Faculties are currently being carried out, using the 2011 baseline year and results will follow in time.
The preliminary findings have been that the Science Faulty buildings are of the highest impact in terms
of global meters squared required per meter squared of UFA (Table 5). This measurement only
considers the ‘base building’, which includes the materials of the building’s physical form only. The
energy usage with respect to FTE population was largest for the Science Faculty, followed by Human
Sciences, Arts and Business and Economics, respectively. It should be pointed out that the Science
Faculty used the least amount of Energy with respect to UFA (Table 6). Therefore more efficient use
of the area, through the establishment of collaborative learning space will be a primary
recommendation for this Faculty.
Table 5: Summary data collection Faculty ecological footprints in 2011
FACULTY
Useable floor Area
2
(m )
Site Area (Hectares)
Academic and support
population (FTE)
Student Population
(FTE)
Energy
•
Electricity
(kWh/yr)
Water (kL/yr)
Buildings
•
Impact
2
2
(Gm /m )
Non Building items
Transport
ARTS
BUSINESS
AND
ECONOMICS
HUMAN
SCIENCES
SCIENCE
14767
5878
13929
33730
1.9
0.2
0.8
1.6
361
275
445
524
6112
10732
4341
4323
1853244
1237040
2903512
3158894
19672
7576
13116
10175
377
179
318
892
NA
Campus
Report
NA
Campus
Report
NA
Campus
Report
NA
Campus
Report
Available at: http://www.acts.asn.au/index.php/2013-conf/conference-proceedings/
12
th
Proceedings of the 13 International Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS) Conference 2013
Table 6: Faculty preliminary findings
FACULTY
2
UFA (m ) per person
(FTE)
BUSINESS
AND
ECONOMICS
ARTS
2
HUMAN
SCIENCES
2
2
SCIENCE
2
2.28m /
person
0.53m
/person
2.9m
/person
6.96m /
person
Annual energy (kWh)
per person (FTE)
286 kWh/
person/year
112 kWh/
person/year
607 kWh/
person/year
652 kWh/
person/year
Annual energy (kWh)
2
per UFA (m )
125 kWh/m
2
210 kWh/m
2
208 kWh/m
2
93 kWh/m
2
Discussion
A primary challenge for organisations wanting to implement changes to an entire campus, isn’t
necessarily determining what needs to be done, but how to capture the attention of those whom action
is required for the change to occur (Ekcle, 1999). Despite EF not taking into account land erosion,
eutrophication, impacts of non-biological resources and future technological advances (Wiedmann &
Barrett, 2010). It is still a valuable tool for providing a way to scale sustainability, instead of just
guessing what practice is best. By quantifying the effects of consumption patterns, highlighting the
categories with the greatest impact, it is easier to determine where it is most appropriate to apply
mitigation measures (McNichol et al., 2011).
After the students carried out their personal EF calculations they were asked ‘why was your EF not
what you expected it to be?’ A large amount of students responded that they didn’t realise the food
(type, amount & source) they consumed had such a large impact on their EF. Therefore, despite the
stated shortcomings of EF methodology, it has proven to be an effective educational tool in illustrating
the key drivers of increased EF, while at the same time, allowing students to see the benefit (or
impact) of changing their behaviours, via hypothetically changing their consumption patterns within the
calculator, with the intension of consuming less of the planet’s resources.
It is currently not known what the impact of the students’ contextual changes will have on their EF. For
example what will happen when the student transitions from student life to business life and their
gross salary increases? It is acknowledged that increased income generally leads to increased EF,
due to increased disposable income for consumption (Lensen and Murray, 2003). Segalas et al.,
(2010) state that it would be of interest to track how sustainability education affects graduates
professional activities into alumni, which will be one of the outcomes of this study, in addition to the
tracking of the graduates personal activities, as an supplementary investigation.
When comparing citizens of high and low income countries, the higher income countries use as much
as 20% more Biocapacity. In addition to this, the countries with the greatest EF also have the highest
levels of education (Rees, 2003). Therefore just like undertaking individual and campus EF
assessments to determine the key drivers of EF for these assessments, when understanding EF
analysis on a global scale it is obvious where the mitigation needs to focus. As cited by Rees (2003)
(the inventor of the EF):
The depletion and pollution of the planet is not the work of ignorant people.
Rather it is largely the result of work by people with BAs, BSs, LLBs, MBAs and PhDs.
(Orr 1994, p. 7)
In previous EF studies of other schools and Universities electricity has usually be found to be the main
contributor to their EF (Conway et al., 2008; Flint, 2001; Venetoulis 2001; Li et al., 2008; Wright and
Drossman 2002). However, due to Macquarie University’s EF calculation also investigating the EF of
the capital or embodied cost of its land and built form, it became transparent that the base buildings,
which support the operation of the university are of higher impact than energy consumption. It is worth
mentioning that due to different EF methodologies campuses adopted, which use different models,
campus results aren’t currently comparable on a gha or planet scale. However, in time when the use
Available at: http://www.acts.asn.au/index.php/2013-conf/conference-proceedings/
13
th
Proceedings of the 13 International Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS) Conference 2013
of the campus calculator is utilised for other campus assessments, this will allow for comparison and
benchmarking of campus EF’s.
The results of investigation into each Faculty’s EF will not be used primarily to compare one Faculty to
another, as this could be likened to comparing apples to oranges. Instead, it will be used to highlight
each Faculty’s EF drivers, and allow appropriate improvement to occur in the context of the specific
Faculty’s needs, and within the appropriate decision-making and control structures that govern
administrative and operational oversight at the university. It will be valuable tool for tracking the
longitudinal EF of each Faculty, determining the impact of changes achieved annually within individual
Faculties and result in cross disciplinary collaboration through learning from the campus Faculty’s
existing short comings and modifications. Similar to the whole-of-campus EF, this will also allow for
investigation of Faculty benchmarks for universities, and help set guidelines for running more
sustainable Science Faculties for example. This will mean no more guessing what is best, and
assuming the same rules apply for different areas of a Campus.
Conclusions
The EF curriculum activity reported on here offers a foundation for assessing the impact of tertiary
environmental education on the medium-to-long term behaviour of students in environmental
programs. Preliminary evidence from a pilot exercise undertaken in 2013 confirms the short-term
value of the EF exercises in increasing student understanding of the drivers of unsustainable footprint
patterns in their own lives. The initial pilot work done using The Footprint Company™ tools to consider
the EF of individual buildings within the University’s operating processes and of individual Faculties
within its administrative structure, suggests that student involvement in this work will increase
understanding of how to conceptualise relationships between personal EF and the EF of institutions
and structures in which they participate, and to better understand the drivers of and opportunities to
intervene in EF of larger-than-personal EFs. A full trial of the classroom activities for the faculty EF
calculations is underway in second half of 2013, and there will be a review of the curriculum activity in
early-2014. Evaluation of outcomes will continue and provides the opportunity for a unique longitudinal
study of how such curriculum supports students to contribute to the one planet goal.
Acknowledgments
The research presented in this article was funded by a Macquarie University department and learning
and teaching grants. The development of the personal EF modules would not have been possible
without the free and publicly available personal EF calculator provided by The Global Footprint
Network. In addition, the time and effort put into the project by The Footprint Company™ to develop a
campus calculator for this project. This project was would not have been gotten off the ground without
the endless help and support of Department of Environment and Geography, Property Sustainability
Department and Macquarie’s Finance team. A special thanks to Sandie Suchet-Pearson, Frank
Thomalla, Tim Ralph, Hilary Bekmann and Caroline Noller in particular, for their time wisdom and
guidance and everything else they contributed to the project.
References
Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and
content. Psychological bulletin, 120(3), 338.
Borucke, M., Moore, D., Cranston, G., Gracey, K., Iha, K., Larson, J., . . . Galli, A. (2013). Accounting
for demand and supply of the biosphere's regenerative capacity: The National Footprint
Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework. Ecological Indicators, 24, 518-533.
th
Chikoti, I. (2012). The ecological footprint. Economics for ecology. Proceedings from the 18
International scientific conference (p.23-24). April 27-30, 2012. Sumy, Ukraine. Retrieved June
10, 2013. http://iscs.fem.sumdu.edu.ua/data/ISCS_Materials_2012.pdf
Th
Collins, L. (2012) Sustaining Policies: A case study comparison. Proceedings of the 12 Annual
Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS) Conference, 26-28 September 2012.
Brisbane, Australia. http://www.acts.asn.au/index.php/2012-acts-conference/proceedings/
Conner, M., & Norman, P. (2005). Predicting health behaviour: Berkshire, England: Open University
Press.
Available at: http://www.acts.asn.au/index.php/2013-conf/conference-proceedings/
14
th
Proceedings of the 13 International Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS) Conference 2013
Conway, T. M., Dalton, C., Loo, J., & Benakoun, L. (2008). Developing ecological footprint scenarios
on university campuses: a case study of the University of Toronto at Mississauga.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(1), 4-20.
Cooper, T., & Scott, R. H. (2009). Sustainability, survival and engagement: implications for curriculum
and pedagogy in social professions. eCULTURE, 2(1), 16.
http://ro.ecu.edu.au/eculture/vol2/iss1/16
Cortese, A. D. (2003). The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future. Planning
for Higher Education, 31(3), 15-22.
Crawford, R. H. (2008). Validation of a hybrid life-cycle inventory analysis method. Journal of
Environmental Management, 88(3), 496-506. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.03.024
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich
Eckel, P., Green, M., Hill, B., Mallon, W. (1999). Taking charge of change: A primer for colleges and
universities. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Flint, K. (2001). Institutional ecological footprint analysis-A case study of the University of Newcastle,
Australia. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2(1), 48-62.
Global Footprint Network (GFN), (2013). Footprint basics: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved June
16,2013.http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/frequently_asked_questions/
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Moskowitz, G. B. (1996). Goal effects on action and cognition. In E. T. Higgins &
A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.),Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles(pp. 361–399). New
York: Guilford Press.
Graymore, M. L., Sipe, N. G., & Rickson, R. E. (2008). Regional sustainability: How useful are current
tools of sustainability assessment at the regional scale? Ecological economics, 67(3), 362372.
Gu, X. W., Li, G. J., Wang, Q., Liu, J. X., Ding, Y., & Liu, J. Z. (2005). Ecological Efficiency of High
Education——Ecological Footprint of University Campus. Journal of Glaciology and
Geocryology, 3, 014.
Haberl, H., Wackernagel, M., & Wrbka, T. (2004). Land use and sustainability indicators. An
introduction. Land Use Policy, 21(3), 193-198.
Huyuan, L. & Yang, J. (2012). Overcoming organisational resistance to sustainability innovations in
Australian univerisites. Proceedings of the 12th Annual Australasian Campuses Towards
Sustainability (ACTS) Conference, 26-28 September 2012 .Brisbane, Australia.
http://www.acts.asn.au/index.php/2012-acts-conference/proceedings/
Kim, B., Houser, L. P., Rosenthal, A., & Neff, R. (2008). Literature Review of Methods and Tools for
Quantifying the Indirect Environmental Impacts of Food Procurement. The Johns Hopkins
Center for a Livable Future, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.
http://sustainability.universityofcalifornia.edu/documents/jhufoodprint_rpt.pdf
Kitzes, J., Peller, A., Goldfinger, S., & Wackernagel, M. (2007). Current methods for calculating
national ecological footprint accounts. Science for environment & sustainable society, 4(1), 19.
Klein-Banai, C., & Theis, T. L. (2011). An urban university's ecological footprint and the effect of
climate change. Ecological Indicators, 11(3), 857-860. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.11.002
Lensen, M., & Murray, S. (2003), The ecological footprint – Issue and trends. ISA Research Paper 0103, The University of Sydney, Australia. Retrieved 20 June 2013.
http://www.isa.org.usyd.edu.au/publications/documents/Ecological_Footprint_Issues_and_Tre
nds.pdf
Li, G., Wang, Q., Gu, X., Liu, J., Ding, Y., & Liang, G. (2008). Application of the componential method
for ecological footprint calculation of a Chinese university campus. Ecological Indicators, 8(1),
75-78.
Maddux, J. E. (1999). Expectancies and the social cognitive perspective: Basic principles, processes,
and variables. In I. Kirsch (Ed.),How expectancies shape experience(pp. 17– 40). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Majeau-Bettez, G., Strømman, A. H., & Hertwich, E. G. (2011). Evaluation of process-and input–
output-based life cycle inventory data with regard to truncation and aggregation
issues. Environmental science & technology,45(23), 10170-10177
McNamara, K. H. (2010). Fostering sustainability in higher education: a mixed-methods study of
transformative leadership and change strategies. Environmental Practice, 12(01), 48-58.
Available at: http://www.acts.asn.au/index.php/2013-conf/conference-proceedings/
15
th
Proceedings of the 13 International Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS) Conference 2013
McNichol, H., Davis, J. M., & O’Brien, K. R. (2011). An ecological footprint for an early learning centre:
identifying opportunities for early childhood sustainability education through interdisciplinary
research. Environmental Education Research, 17(5), 689-704.
doi: 10.1080/13504622.2011.572161
National Union of Students. (2001). Universities of Australia Ecological Development Charter.
Relaunch for Sustainable Universities Campaign. Retrieved June 17, 2013, from RMIT
University website, http://rmit.com/browse;ID=wge5iqekxdr3z
Orr, D. (1992). Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern World.Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Orr, D. (1994). What Is Education For? Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human
Prospect ( pp.7-15)Washington, D.C.: Island Press
Pearce, J. M., & Uhl, C. F. (2003). Getting It Done: Effective Sustainable Policy Implementation at the
University Level. Planning for Higher Education, 31(3), 53-61.
Rees, W. E. (1996). Revisiting carrying capacity: area-based indicators of sustainability. Population
and Environment, 17(3), 195-215.
Rees, W. E. (2003). Impeding Sustainability? Planning for Higher Education, 31(3), 88-98.
Segalas, J., Ferrer-Balas, D., & Mulder, K. F. (2010). What do engineering students learn in
sustainability courses? The effect of the pedagogical approach. Journal of Cleaner Production,
18(3), 275-284.
Suchet-Pearson, S., & Howitt, R. (2006). On Teaching and Learning Resource and Environmental
Management: reframing capacity building in multicultural settings. Australian Geographer
37(1),117-128.
Venetoulis, J. (2001). Assessing the ecological impact of a university: the ecological footprint for the
University of Redlands. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2(2), 180197.
Wackernagel, M., Rees, W.E., 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth.
Gabriola Island, BC. New Society Publishers.
Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change?
A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological bulletin, 132(2), 249.
Wiedmann, T., & Barrett, J. (2010). A Review of the Ecological Footprint Indicator—Perceptions and
Methods. Sustainability, 2(6), 1645-1693.
World Wildlife Fund (WWF), (2012). Living planet report 2012: Biodiversity, biocapacity and better
choices. Retrieved June, 11, 2013.
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/2012_lpr/
Wright, E. P., & Drossman, H. (2002). The ecological footprint of the Colorado College: An
examination of sustainability. Environmental Science, 5(1), 23.
York, R., Rosa, E. A., & Dietz, T. (2004). The ecological footprint intensity of national
economies. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 8(4), 139-154. doi: 10.1162/1088198043630487
Available at: http://www.acts.asn.au/index.php/2013-conf/conference-proceedings/
16