Wouter MeuldermansSustainable Practice Advisor’s Office

Achieving stakeholder Engagement

An Otago polytechnic Engagement Strategy

1

Table of contents

Introduction....................................................................................................................................................1

Table of contents............................................................................................................................................2

Sustainability: definition, concepts and scope...............................................................................................4

General company description........................................................................................................................6

Strategic Recommendations chapter.............................................................................................................7

Strategic initiatives.....................................................................................................................................7

Self-sustaining/evaluating systems........................................................................................................7

1. AISHE – Evaluation and correction system................................................................................8

2. STARS (Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System)...............................................11

Specific Implementation Strategies.....................................................................................................12

1. HEPS (Higher Education Partnership for Sustainability) Strategy Evaluation tool...................12

2. GRI & ISO 14000 – series/ 9000 series / ISO – 26000 series....................................................15

Suggestions strategic implementation.................................................................................................18

Campus/infrastructural recommendations..................................................................................................20

Environmental Initiatives.........................................................................................................................20

Electricity.............................................................................................................................................20

1. Photovoltaic windows.............................................................................................................20

2. Adaptation of Light..................................................................................................................22

Waste Management Initiatives............................................................................................................23

1. Zero waste to landfill...............................................................................................................24

2. Food recycling..........................................................................................................................25

Water saving/management.................................................................................................................26

1. Grey water intake/distribution................................................................................................26

2. Replace flush toilets with waterless toilets.............................................................................26

Transport..............................................................................................................................................27

1. Active carpooling platform......................................................................................................27

2. Research MaaT/LTA air travel solutions..................................................................................28

Social initiatives........................................................................................................................................30

Internal.................................................................................................................................................30

1. Sponsored student housing.....................................................................................................30

2. Student energy support...........................................................................................................31

External................................................................................................................................................33

2

1. Corporate Social Responsibility training..................................................................................33

2. Sustainability Knowledge and experience centre....................................................................34

Economic initiatives.................................................................................................................................34

1. Spin-off company campus.......................................................................................................34

Personal/operational initiatives...................................................................................................................36

General awareness...................................................................................................................................36

1. Literacy testing........................................................................................................................36

2. (Voluntary) Debate competition..............................................................................................37

3. Unified/synergetic communication plan.................................................................................37

Environmental initiatives.........................................................................................................................39

Electricity.............................................................................................................................................39

1. Visual usage feedback.............................................................................................................39

2. Electricity reduction workshop/course...................................................................................41

Water Management.............................................................................................................................42

1. Visual Usage feedback.............................................................................................................42

Waste Management............................................................................................................................43

1. Waste reduction certification program...................................................................................43

2. Visual waste-creation feedback...............................................................................................44

Transportation.....................................................................................................................................45

1. Personalized travel feedback...................................................................................................45

2. Voluntary Travel Behaviour Change Project............................................................................46

Social initiatives........................................................................................................................................47

Internal.................................................................................................................................................47

1. Student Housing Quality Survey..............................................................................................47

Economic initiatives.................................................................................................................................48

1. Periodic Economic Speaker/debate events.............................................................................48

Implementation............................................................................................................................................49

Conclusion....................................................................................................................................................53

References....................................................................................................................................................54

Annex 1: AISHE 2.0 – manual.......................................................................................................................57

3

IntroductionSustainability is, anno 2015, an important element in most policies and decision making units. Most planning, managerial and other strategic level policies have one or more clauses regarding sustainable practices, sustainable operations and sustainable development. Educational sustainability became a major topic in Education when the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) accepted resolution 57/254, starting the ‘decade of education for sustainable development 2005-2014’ under the auspices of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (DESD; 2012), which later led to the initiation of the RIO+20 HESD (Higher Education and Sustainable Development) treaty, bonding several Higher Education facilities that signed the treaty together in the Copernicus Alliance (Copernicus Alliance; RIO+20; 2012).

As Otago polytechnic (OP) is aiming to be the standard for Polytechnic Universities around New Zealand, and one of the best on the international stage, sustainability is a subject they cannot neglect. In the last few years (starting 2009), Otago Polytechnic has incorporated a sustainability task unit. Several initiatives were taken, both by leadership and by the task force, significantly improving the overall sustainability aspects of a lot of the operations of OP and particularly in the Ecological Sustainability field. However, the initiatives taken by the Polytechnic were plagued by a certain apathy by other stakeholders than the directly-involved staff members and were mostly focussed on the ecological side of sustainability.

In order to rectify the situation, OP leadership team has ordered a report consisting of two main elements:

1. A literature study on worldwide best practices and initiatives2. An implementation plan for most desirable practices

The goal of this paper is to provide the implementation plan for the initiatives as described in the literature study executed by Wouter Meuldermans as part of the original internship assignment (see Annex 1). The aim is to provide a handy overview of how to incorporate the initiatives in Otago Polytechnic.

4

Sustainability: definition, concepts and scopeSustainability is often a very ambiguous concept, with a significant amount of aspects. Each of these aspects ideally is a part of the main definition. As such, a clear definition of what is understood by ‘sustainability’ is imperative for a good understanding of the purpose and goal of this paper.

Sustainability – on and by itself – is defined as the capacity of any entity to remain in existence. As the Oxford Dictionary defines it:

1. Ability to be maintained at a certain rate or level or

2. Ability to be upheld/defended.

In this paper, however, sustainability will be defined as the (ideal or desired) state in which sustainable development is achieved.

Sustainable Development is most often defined by the definition of the Brundtland report from 1987:

“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

The commission continued the definition by identifying three main fields of application in every organization (be it an entire society, a town, a company or – in this case – a higher education institution and its sub-divisions):

1. Environmental sustainability: the limitation, reduction and ultimate strife for an equilibrium between the resources needed and those used by the organization and the negative impact that has on the environment

2. Social sustainability: the reduction of poverty, stimulation of diversity and the general strife for social justice

3. financial/economic sustainability: the process of promoting fair trade, reduction of poverty, ecological responsible purchasing, production etc. (WCED, 1987)

It has to be noted that the fields have a significant overlap and are very intertwined, but in general, the categorical divisions hold up, as proven by several uses in HESD literature. (Johnston A.; 2007, Kagawa F.; 2007, Rusinko C.; 2010)

Higher Education Institutions are usually rather complex entities. Several branches of the institutions may have different priorities in terms of sustainable development implementations. In order to maintain an overview of which best practices are best implemented where and to understand their general position within the institution, this paper will utilize a division based on 4 levels of operation: Strategic, Campus-wide, Operational Unit and Curriculum. The original paper focussed on the first three levels, and considers ‘Curriculum’ as a part inherent to the teaching program – and as such this level was not analysed in the original report and will not be analysed here.

The Strategic level will cover all initiatives and implementations to be made on the highest decision making levels, and will attempt to suggest the groundwork for a single, comprehensive framework that

5

can create, execute, evaluate and correct the large-scale policies to be designed in the field of sustainability by the Polytechnic.

The Campus level will look at initiatives to achieve the goals set by the strategic level in infrastructural, large scale operational additions/alterations. For the purpose of this paper, it will be assumed that the Polytechnic will aim at the highest possible standard of sustainability by the suggested frameworks. This means that, while they may be mentioned in the practical implementation sub-chapters, practical limitations (such as budget availability, building limitations, room availability and legal considerations) will not be considered reason to not include an initiative in this paper.

Operational unit level initiatives will be comprised of initiatives that require a certain level of personal action and are targeted at the level of small, single person or limited size entities within the HEI. Most of these initiatives will be focussed on instilling personal awareness, adjusting behavioural patterns and providing adequate opportunity for personal units to execute the desired behaviour – as well as ways to stimulate desired behaviour and/or discourage the ‘Business as Usual’ behaviour.

A key term used throughout the rest of this report is ‘engagement.’ Engagement has an – at the very best – vague and somewhat subjective definition within sustainability literature (Borström M.; 2012). As such, it is necessary to specify the meaning of ‘engagement’ throughout this report and its annexes.

Engagement is, throughout this report, considered to be a stable state of positive cognitive consonance regarding sustainability, combined with the predominant emanation of sustainable practice within the subjects. This terminology is based on two separate theoretical elements, which are considered to collide within the sustainability discourse. The first of these elements is the attitude formation scheme as first put forward by Festinger in his 1962 ‘a theory of cognitive dissonance, (Festinger; 1962)’ but is since considered to be one of the benchmark theories in social psychology by, among others, professor Nuttin (Nuttin; 1996).

Simply put, Festinger’s theory considers that attitudes and behaviours are formed by an interaction and interdependence between three intertwined, yet distinct, psychological aspects: a cognitive aspect, an affective stance towards this cognition and a behavioural action. These three are, in an ideal situation, in line with each other – which results in cognitive consonance. If one of these three, however, is out of line with any of the others, cognitive dissonance occurs (Festinger; 1962, Nuttin; 1996).

The second element is the principle of ‘sustainable practicing’ - which is in essence behaving in a sustainable fashion. This principle is tremendously broad, as is illustrated already by the Brundtland report’s definition of sustainable development, and can be applied to several separate situations. However, one can act sustainably without thinking or feeling in any particular fashion, or one can actively think their actions through and decide to act sustainably for the sake of their beliefs.

In this latter case – the case that is envisioned by OP for their students to become – it is assumed that their attitude and cognition are the decisive factors which lead to the behaviour.

6

General company descriptionThe company at hand is called Otago Polytechnic (OP), a Higher Education Institution (HEI) with approximately 4000 EFTS (Equivalent Full-Time Students) and 1000 staff in 2013, of which half is teaching staff and the other half supporting services (Otago Polytechnic; 2014). In 2014, OP had 4269 EFTS – an increase that was mainly thanks to an increase in students in the short (non-full time) programs (Otago Polytechnic; 2015). OP has 2 main campuses, one in Cromwell and one in Dunedin, and a remote learning centre in Auckland.

Organizationally speaking, they have the following structure:

Figure 1: OP organizational structure per dept.

The turnover of OP was approximately 63million NZD, with a cost of 61million NZD in 2013 (Otago Polytechnic; 2014) and 69 million revenue, of which 4.7% ended up being operational capital (Otago Polytechnic; 2015. The former data places them among the small – to medium Australasian Polytechnics.

As a polytechnic, Otago Polytechnic is focussed on practical learning rather than academic, which translates in a more hands-on learning style. This style further translates into a very wide, yet oddly specific goal, which was phrased as follows in the annual report of OP from 2014: “ (Vision) achieving educational excellence. (mission) This goal means (that) our learners succeed well in their studies, our learners enjoy an outstanding experience; our graduates are capable, work-ready and future focused; our graduates can practise sustainability and make a difference to society; our graduates achieve employment or self-employment relevant to their studies (Otago Polytechnic; 2015).”

7

Strategic Recommendations chapterIn order to structure the recommendations and allow swift implantation, the chapter will be separated in 4 main sub-chapters. The first sub-chapter will be dedicated to strategic, long –term and high-effort initiatives that are recommendable for Otago Polytechnic. The second one will be dedicated to campus level. This means that all initiatives regarding building designs, campus infrastructure lay-out, etc. are captured in this chapter. The third chapter will be dedicated to operational initiatives on personal (or operational unit) level. This will concern initiatives that are focussed on the alteration of behaviour of a specific person or sub-group of people. The fourth and last chapter will be dedicated to initiatives that revolve around integrating sustainability in the several offered curricula.

The initiatives will each be structured around the three main parts of sustainability. More precisely, they will be organized according to which of the subparts they fulfil most. This does not mean that they do not serve the other elements of sustainability, simply that the author’s opinion was that they served one element more than the other two. On strategic level, this division between several subsets will not be made, as the strategic initiatives are meant to institutionalize the creation, evaluation and follow-up development of sustainability initiatives in all fields.

Strategic initiativesOn the strategic level, decisions are made, evaluations are done and corrections to current initiatives are devised. It is assumed that, in a standard organisation, these actions are executed more or less ad hoc, diminishing the overall impact. For all intents and purposes, Otago Polytechnic will be considered a standard organization that takes strategic sustainability decisions without input from all stakeholders on the sustainability field – resulting in a very top-down organized range of initiatives that lack general support amongst student population and staff. While this premises is almost certainly a gross generalization, it is believed that for the purposes of this paper, a worst case scenario point of view will be most constructive.

The strategic initiatives can be subdivided into two main categories: self-sustaining/evaluating strategic systems and specific application strategies.

The first category is normally spoken the most comprehensive category and is most likely the hardest to implement, but – so it would seem from the general literature – holds most potential for long-term change and upkeep of sustainable operations.

The second category is a lot more specific than the first category, and applies strategic models to single elements of sustainable development and practice. The implementation of these strategic models is usually a lot less time- and – resource consuming than the first category of strategic initiatives, but the gain is often equally specific and thus limited in scope and impact. Nonetheless, these models can provide some short term gain and/or complement larger strategic constructions.

Self-sustaining/evaluating systemsSelf-sustaining and/or evaluating systems are systems that either need only a one time start-up, after which they will continue to operate on their own, or systems that, once implemented will need very little to no maintenance afterwards. These systems are usually top-level management systems focussed on the designing, implementing and executing of further policies.

8

1. AISHE – Evaluation and correction systemAISHE – the Assessment Instrument for Sustainability in Higher Education – is a Dutch strategic evaluating system for sustainability in higher education. The system was designed by – the now professor – Niko Roorda in 2001, and an updated version was published in 2009. The AISHE 2.0 evaluation tool is a tool based on ISO’s (International Standardization Organization) Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle (see figure 1), and applies that principle to 5 main elements in every Higher Education Institution (HEI), based on the key functions of HEIs. Based on these elements, an evaluation of the sustainable situation of the institution can be made in comparison to goals set by the Institution that is being evaluated. (Roorda N., 2009)

Figure 2: ISO PDCA-cycle

The five key elements discussed are Identity, Operations, Research, Education and Society. For a visual representation, see figure 2.

Figure 3: AISHE 2.0 visual representation

9

ElementsIdentity is the main key element in all analyses, as every other element’s status is to be evaluated based on the goals and targets set by the Identity analysis. The identity module is thus to be considered as the desired situation for the HEI to be evaluated. Since the system is based on ISO’s PDCA cycle, the Identity module is divided into a Planning element, a Doing element and a Checking (or Evaluating) element. The correction (Acting element) is to be made after the analysis, and is to be made noticeable in the follow-up analysis. This Modus Operandi is universal within the AISHE evaluation.

The second element is Operations, which targets all practical initiatives and events regarding maintenance, acquisition, waste and water processing, heating and so on. Again, the division is made between the planning, acting and evaluation elements. In this case that means for planning the presence of a clear policy regarding acquisition, supplier guidelines, subcontractor quality standards, and other clear and/or explicit policies regarding the operations elements. For the acting element this begs the question whether or not the policies mentioned previously are being followed in practice. Finally, for the evaluating element the question is poised whether or not the policies and actions have the desired effect and how close that effect is to the organization’s goal.

The third element is Research, an inherent element to most HEIs. This element focusses on the sustainability demands set to the research (in all three areas) and on how well these demands are translated in the results of the research. Once again, the levels investigated are planning, acting and evaluating. The planning level checks what demands are set in terms of ecology, economy and social sustainability to research, the act-level checks to which extent researches and researchers fit the demands set and to what extent the results are. The check level evaluates whether or not these results are in line with the expectations and whether or not the goals have been met.

Fourthly, the educational element deals with how well sustainability is integrated into the curricula offered by the HEI. Again, the Plan - Act and check elements are to be considered: is there a plan for integrating sustainability? How is it integrated in practice? How does it behave to the goal of the institution?

The last element to be considered is Society. What is meant with this element is the interaction between the HEI and the surrounding societal groups and stakeholders. The key evaluated element here is the actual interaction and the way it’s structured around sustainability and sustainable practice. Again, the three main elements plan-act-evaluate are present.

Evaluation theoryAccording to Roorda, the analysis is to be executed by doing an Identity analysis in combination with one other element. The evaluation is to be executed by a specially assembled group of people, consisting of representatives for every stakeholder involved in the element to be analysed. For example: when evaluating the education part, a (or a few) representative(s) from the teaching staff, the students, the management, the involved government officials if applicable, the curriculum supervisors, the financial department and any other involved stakeholder(s), are assembled and will first discuss the ‘identity’ module in regards to the education module. This means that they analyse how important education is, what the mission, vision and strategy of the institution are and how they relate to education. The main focus is the question: (How) is sustainability integrated in the HEI’s identity?After that, they will move into the practical field of education and see whether or not a sustainability line can be drawn in educational decisions, how that line is being followed and being integrated and what the current vs. desired results are.

10

The analysis result is a representation of the situation on a 5 point scale, with the possible addition of a ‘zero level’ if no initiatives are taken in the field. Level one is awarded when there are initiatives being taken, but not in a coherent way and are mostly Ad-Hoc and by personal engagement. Level two means that there is a form of partial integration and coordination of the initiatives. Level three sees a full commitment from central planning throughout the HEI. Level four sees that commitment expanded to the immediately related operation chain. Level five not only includes the entire supply chain of the organisation, but includes a ‘societal responsibility,’ meaning that the HEI has a plan on how to implement Sustainable Practice and Sustainable Development on the level of society and effectively executes said plan. For every key element, a set of basic requirements per level are outlined and provided by Roorda.

Practical implementation – case studyRoorda’s interpretation of the AISHE 2.0 model is extremely rigorous and restrictive. Among others, he insists in the complete abolishment of voting in favour of full unanimity within the board, the board is to be considered managerial top-level and its recommendations to be followed to the letter.

The practical application is, however, slightly more flexible. In most cases, a more permanent evaluation board is set up, containing representatives from every group of stakeholders. This board has two main goals: evaluating the current situation and coordinating or consulting on the improvement efforts. This practice is adopted in several international universities, where the board has more or less actual steering power. One of the more successful implementations has been done by prof. Roorda in the university of Passo Fundo in Brazil. The university, with student numbers ranging into the several tens of thousands and a permanent staff of just over 2000 adopted the system in early 2008, and was part of the test group for AISHE 2.0.

In Passo Fundo, the initial analysis was done by a survey, executed firstly across the course coordinators. They scored their particular course on the AISHE 5-point scale, according to their own insights. Their findings were cross referenced with a campus-wide survey among students and staff.

The results were compared, and scores were appointed based on which one was most mentioned. It was observed that there was a huge discrepancy between the scores given by the professors, who scored the HEI overall better, than that of the Students, who overall refrained from offering scores – in a follow up research the appointed reason would be a lack of knowledge about the initiatives – and the external observers, who scored the institution overall lower, based on the AISHE requirements (Brandli L.L. et Al.; 2014).

Practical implementation – Otago PolytechnicThe implementation of the AISHE 2.0 model on the Otago Polytechnic is expected to be a somewhat time-consuming initiative. AISHE is one of the most comprehensive, and thus most difficult to implement, systems for self-evaluation. The difficulty for implementation goes so far that the consultancy company Hobéon - the successor of the original AISHE certification office DHO – decided not to offer AISHE 2.0 certificates, as it was to vast to be capable of implementing in most existing structures. Instead, they developed their own update on the AISHE 1.0 model, bringing it to the AISHE 2012 version. A new update of the tool is expected by 2016. This tool is, however, far less comprehensive and addresses only the implementation of sustainability in curricula.

Despite the vastness and extensiveness of the AISHE 2.0 model and the fact that there are no known cases of a practical (or successful) implementation, the basis of the model is not only simple enough, it is a general recurring pattern. The AISHE model is – both in the 1.0 and following versions and the 2.0 version – based on stakeholder involvement. The 2012 and 2.0 versions add an element that is key in

11

corporate consultancy frameworks since the original Shewhart cycle was created in 1939 (Moen R. & Norman C.; 2006) : the PDCA cycle. As such, this model is considered a perfect long term goal, and several elements of the model can be implemented virtually instantly.

The first element that can be implemented is the evaluator organ as sketched in AISHE 2.0. the sole requirement for the implementation of the organ as a second ‘think-tank’ like board, is that one or more, more or less permanent representatives for every group of stakeholders can be found and engaged. A basis for this board already exists in the sustainability groups hosted across OP. Unfortunately, the groups do not represent all stakeholders at this moment, as no students, suppliers, management or other societal stakeholders are represented in one group.

Secondly, a major pitfall experienced at Passo Fundo was the limited knowledge of the stakeholders concerning sustainability. This mostly translated into corrupted results through misunderstanding of terminology and inability to answer questions due to lacking knowledge about the measures taken.The pitfall can be avoided at Otago Polytechnic if all stakeholders get a crash course sustainability related terminology and/or voluntary specification courses before implementing the full think tank.

Finally, the board – by lack of a better term at the moment – can utilize the AISHE 2.0 model to evaluate the currently existing structures and develop the future follow-up projects without external certification and with certain alterations where the board sees fit, as long as the key division between ‘pillars’ remains and the PDCA cycle is generally considered the main goal to achieve.

2. STARS (Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System)

STARS is a system set up in 2010 by AASHE (association for advancement of sustainability in higher education). The system is a primarily adopted in the US, Canada and parts of the UK, and is an international scoring system. STARS is based on a public online peer-review principle and allows for four classifications: bronze, silver, gold and platinum. Each classification is based on a number of ‘points’ scored in one of 5 main areas. Every area is divided into topics, and every topic is subdivided into requirements. Every requirement has a designated, arbitrary and weighted score that is adjusted every year by the AASHE based STARS technical evaluation group. (AASHE, 2014)

In order to achieve a classification of the organisation, a report has to be handed in – following the (extremely stringent) STARS guidelines – with the claim to have completed a number of requirements (and thus to have earned the appropriated score). The report is published using the STARS online evaluation tool, and will be peer reviewed post-publication for the three first levels.When claiming a Platinum classification, a minimum score of 85 is required, making it obligatory to claim scores in all topics and for more than 5/6 of the total of requirements. In this case, a pre-publication review is done by a designated member of AASHE staff, that has to approve the near-perfect score. A second review is done after publishing the report, validating (or denouncing) the initial approval. After this last review, the report is open to peer reviewing.

The reporting tool for STARS is an online platform comparable to ‘LiFE,’ although there are significant differences in interface and supporting engine, as well as a different evaluation method. The STARS-platform allows you to upload a profile of the institution and start your scoring process.

STARS is currently used by 696 universities (at the time of writing), the vast majority of which is located in the US (AASHE; 2015).

12

STARS – implementation at OPThe implementation of the STARS process would be relatively simple, provided that the funds for the reporting tool can be cleared (roughly 1400 USD/annually) and a single responsible for the management of the reporting tool can be found.Obviously, an executive responsible will have to sign off on the reports before publishing. For efficiency’s sake, this is also preferably a single person.

After the purchase of the platform license and the appointing of the main managers (both the technical responsible and the executive level responsible), the main challenge will be bundling and maintaining the information and the information streams, as they come in, need to be approved and registered on-line efficiently, in order to sort the maximum possible effect from the implementation.

Another point of attention is the accuracy of the information. As most information will have to be provided by local heads of operation (course managers, purchasing managers, heads of campus, energy consultants etc.) the chance of diffused information or even plain wrong information is relatively large. Therefore, it would be smart to provide a second check of information in the system in the form of an unrelated second opinion or analysis of the taken initiatives.

Specific Implementation StrategiesThis subchapter includes 2 strategic models that are either very specifically targeted at a single or a handful of elements of sustainability. The first one is HEPS, which is a very operational tool, useful to check implementations and compare them to the policy at a glance. The second one is a dual implementation of ISO quality standards and the GRI reporting schedule, aimed at international recognition and communicability of the sustainable implementation process.

Both of them have been selected due to their strategic value, yet very specific approach to a single element. HEPS is a very down-to-earth evaluation in a heartbeat tool, whereas ISO is separated per category by its very nature.

1. HEPS (Higher Education Partnership for Sustainability) Strategy Evaluation tool

The HEPS system for evaluating HEI’s sustainable practice was designed in 2003, based on the principles of ISO 14001, by the UK based initiative Forum For The Future. While the initiative itself was only a three year effort, the evaluation tool designed by the academic team behind Forum for the Future is a rather simple and straightforward to use tool.

HEPS is significantly less comprehensive than for example the AISHE evaluation model, but is more of a practical and general checklist for sustainability in any initiative taken. Because it is to be adopted as a HEI – wide tool for just about every decision that is to be taken, it is to be considered a strategic implementation model.

HEPS is based on two completely separate evaluation grids: one long term – oriented, strategic goal evaluation system, and one short term, separate initiative evaluation grid.

HEPS – Long Term, goal-based gridThe first part of the HEPS evaluation tool is a framework based on 12 premises for a sustainable society. The key idea behind the premises is that they would be true in an ideal and fully sustainable society. The twelve are divided over 5 key areas of sustainability, that can in turn be appointed to the three main components of sustainability as defined by the Brundtland report (1987). These elements make up the vertical axis of the grid.

13

The horizontal axis of the grid is divided into three elements that each represent a function of a HEI. The three elements are Campus, Curriculum and Community, otherwise known as the three C’s.

By answering the twelve indicator questions in comparison to the 3C’s, an overall appraisal of the sustainability impact of any strategic plan can be made. As a central guideline, the grid gives twelve statements that are to be true in a perfect sustainable world. The questions to be set in the grid can be freely determined, as long as the central element is to contribute towards those twelve ‘perfect’ statements. A pre-made grid can be found in figure 3 (Johnston A., 2003).

Campus Curicullum Communityhow does the plan contribute to the reduction of use of non-renewable resources?How does the plan contribute to the reduction of persistent chemicals, waste and emissions?How does the plan contribute to the maintenance and enhancement of biodiversity?How does the plan contribute to human health?How does the plan contribute to the empowerment of individuals and the promotion of lifelong learning?How does the plan contribute to the encouragement of employability and creativity and recreation?

How does your plan contribute to ensuring trusted governance and justice systems?

How does your plan contribute to the increase of positive values and mutual respect?How does the plan contribute to the promotion of positive institutional change?How does the plan contribute towards the creation of a safe and supportive living and working environment?

Man

ufac

ture

d

How does the plan contribute to resource-use effi ciency through human innovation?

Fine

ncia

l How does the plan contribute to the valuation of all kinds of capital?

Nat

ural

Envi

ronm

enta

l

Hum

anSo

cial

Soci

ety

Econ

omic

Figure 4: HEPS - Long-term strategy matrix

14

HEPS – Short term initiative gridThe HEPS short term initiative grid is more or less a scorecard in which a HEI shows which initiatives are being taken and why they are positive in terms for sustainability. It acts as a simple check system of fields of sustainability where an initiative fits in and why it fits in there.

The main grid is divided into 15 fields. Five sustainability fields are confronted with three main functions of most HEI’s according to the forum for the future analysis. The five fields are considered to be environmental, social and economic ‘capitals’ that are to be utilized and replenished. The capitals are the same as the 5 divisions in the strategic evaluation – Natural, human, social, manufactured and financial. The three roles of a HEI are Business, Learning & Research Centre and Key Member of Community. The main question asked is “What can the university/initiative/project/plan do to enhance the ‘stock’ of the capitals?”

Every function requires a different approach. A business for example puts a lot more effort in process optimization, cost savings and even profit generation. The question will be how the HEI can impact the several ‘capitals’ and maintain at least a status quo by acting as a business. By ‘acting as a business’ is understood: by buying, selling, building, employing and generally operating.

The same question is to be asked from the point of view of a centre for research and learning (how do our curricula/researches/etc. contribute to the capitals?) and from the point of view as a leading example and community member (how do we utilize our knowledge leadership position to employ the community? How do we interact with the community? Etc.) (Johnston A., 2003).

Business Centre for Learning and research

Key member of community

NaturalResources and services provided by natural world

1 2 3

HumanEnergy, motivation, capacity for relations and intelligence of individuals

4 5 6

SocialSocial grouping that add value to individuals

7 8 9

ManufacturedTools and resources of human make that already existed (building, infrastructure,…)

10 11 12

FinancialMoney and stocks that allow valuing and transference of the resources above.

13 14 15

Figure 5: HEPS - short term initiative evaluation

HEPS – implementation exampleThe HEPS system is widely implemented in the UK and has been anchored in a relatively small but dedicated community consisting of 18 universities around the UK. The HEPS tool has proven to be very

15

easy-to-implement, since it is simply a checklist that is to be put next to everyday decisions. There is no need for expensive and/or time-consuming set-ups, and the tool is freely available from Forum for the Future archives.

Unfortunately, the tool is somewhat outdated as it was designed in 2003, and forum for the future no longer provides support on the matter. As an immediate result, the tool is no longer certifiable. However, this is offset by its simplicity and general usefulness. While it can no longer be used to obtain a certification, it is a more than useful quick-check and first indication of how sustainable an everyday operation is. In combination with a more up-to-date tool (such as AISHE 2.0 and STARS) it is a perfect quick check system for everyday problems and solutions.

2. GRI & ISO 14000 – series/ 9000 series / ISO – 26000 seriesISO – or International Standardization Organization – is a conglomerate of national or local standardization organizations. Founded in 1946 in London, and currently based out of Zurich, it started as an organization setting up international safety standards. However, with the rise of new areas of industry and new corporate concerns (such as sustainability), the organization broadened the scope of their operations and started to create international standards for quality in every economic field.

While ISO is primarily targeted at corporate institutions and companies, the guidelines and requirements are fairly universally applicable. As such, the ISO certification is widely recognised as a benchmarking system and offers a certain form of quality assurance in all the applicable fields.

GRI in theoryGRI – or the Global Reporting Initiative – is an organization that works closely with several other institutions, and that has developed a set of guidelines for reporting about sustainability in a standardized and to-the-point fashion. The element that makes the GRI method stand out from the rest of the reporting guidelines regarding sustainability, is the fact that it incorporates and bases itself on the quality marks from four other organizations, thus bundling and surpassing the minimum requirements of all. GRI bundles the sustainability frameworks and requirements of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), UN Environment Program, UN Global Impact and ISO (GRI; 2014).

ISO and sustainabilityFor sustainable development (and sustainable practice for that matter) the three most important guidelines In ISO’s set of guidelines are the classic 9000 series (currently being updated to the 9000:2015 version) which monitor quality through transparency, and communicability of ideas as well as stakeholder engagement, the 14000 series (latest applicable version is the 14000:2012 version) which monitor environmental impact and policy of an organization and last but not least the 26000 series (26000:2010 being the current applied version, but updating is expected soon).

All three ISO standards focus on two core elements: how and how well are the stakeholders engaged in the development of the strategies and how and how well are the processes thought through, developed, executed and reported.As such, the ISO standards join the list of initiatives that are valuing – if not demanding - the involvement and engagement of all stakeholders in the Sustainability story.

While the ISO standards are arguably not targeted at appraising qualitative performance but more at the reporting of strategies – even less than optimal ones – there is an undeniably vast range of advantages to the ISO reporting methodology as well.

First and foremost the certification allows a clear benchmark and acknowledgement of the efforts poured into the field to be certified. An ISO certificate is generally held in high regard and allows for several

16

marketing and communication initiatives. This can stimulate the awareness for sustainability with all stakeholders, regardless of their actual involvement in the certification process.Secondly, the process leading up to the certification can help an organization to identify strong suits and weak points in their overall policy and processes. Simply the fact that people are involved to discuss the different issues mentioned in the ISO guidelines can already turn up new, useful and/or important information about practices that are in line with or completely contrary to the general policy, and will allow correction of the flaws or additional support/communication about and to the stronger points.Thirdly, the engaging element of an actual external evaluation and score is not to be underestimated. By committing to one or more ISO evaluations, and being very open and clear about them, the sheer fact of being externally evaluated, will engage people to perform better in the selected areas.Fourthly, an ISO audit is per definition cross-disciplinary, meaning that all courses, faculties and/or campuses will be evaluated as a single unit and be scored accordingly. As such, the roots of the organizations beliefs will be standardized and structured and – most importantly – explicitly communicated to all parties involved. This will make communication about Sustainability easier and significantly clearer, enhancing in turn the rallying capacity of the policies.

The downsides to be considered are in this case primarily financial, time-based or practical in nature. An ISO analysis is usually led by an external analyser, which will expect a consultancy fee payment. The ISO process is also rather time consuming, as a lot of documentation is to be provided, manufactured, implemented, and discussed. Lastly, an ISO consultant may need to analyse practices in the field – in case of HEI, during class/meeting/student rally,…

ISO implementation – case studyThe International Pacific College (IPC) in Palmerston North, New Zealand, executed an ISO 14000 based analysis in early 2003. They used the ISO terms as a process guideline to try and create a clear line in their Environmental Management System and implement sustainability into their curricula.

The IPC started by letting the students execute a preliminary study. The study was cut into three phases and all phases were executed by students, albeit closely monitored by their lecturers. The first phase consisted of a secondary literature study on ISO implementation systems and sustainability in general. Every student was further invited to consider the initiatives taken by the university and compile a list of practices that were already executed, based on the ISO 14001 category guideline. Every student was subsequently granted one subject to add to their literature study. The results of the study were presented and scored as a presentation. The outcomes were sets of questions and general points of attention.

The second phase were interviews and practical research being conducted by the students. The interviews were done with key members of staff. Per subject, a key staff member (or – in rare cases – multiple staff members) were interviewed by the student with greatest demonstrated knowledge of the subject. The other students of that subject would act as scribes, providing record of the interview as well as follow up questions that arose during the interview. In most cases, the members of staff also came up with gaps in their data and knowledge about the systems, which the students noted.After the interview section, the students started collecting raw data in the area’s that were not yet explored. Examples included the search for wastewater flows, energy leaks, social policies that were set in place, supplier policies and practices and so on.

The final stage executed by the students was to bundle this information into a report, that was later ratified by the course director and presented to the management with the suggestions and conclusions of the students included as a distinct key element (Fisher R.M.; 2003).

17

An important note in this case is that, while the report was set up revolving around the ISO 14000:1996 requirements, a full certification was not executed, thus making comparison with other universities rather tedious.

ISO & GRI implementation in Otago PolytechnicThere are two ways in which the implementation of a full ISO-certifiable practice can be executed at Otago Polytechnic.

The first one is very simply put: an order from the management team downwards. In this case, the decision for implementation would be ordered by Management team and they would re-align the departments to become ISO-confirm. In this case, it would be a matter of assigning a consultant, project leader and set up a strict number of deadlines and requirements to be executed by the staff.

The advantage of this approach would be that it will be a relatively efficient and easily predictable process, that will have a more-or-less fixed and predictable cost on the implementation process. The board of responsible staff, necessary to align the practices to the policies and be capable of proving so, can simply be ordered to participate and will have to follow suit. The implementations and necessary alterations (if any) can be executed and implemented manu military – as a figure of speech.

The main disadvantage is that actual practice engagement will be at an absolute minimum, as the involved and participating stakeholders have been commandeered to execute the implementation. On a short term, this disadvantage will manifest as reports with little to no substance, as they have been executed as ‘an obligation’ and thus cover just the bare minimum, absence from evaluatory meetings and general disinterest in the implementation practice. The main cohort of participants will act in this fashion, as they have had nothing to say in the matter, and thus have very little reason to support the initiative.

The second way of implementation is bottom-up, and copy the situation as executed by the IPC.By letting the students run their own preliminary analysis and use that as a basis for implementing the ISO standards, the student engagement will be triggered, making it easier to count on the popular support. There will be a large amount of staff involved with this project, as the students will regularly need to touch base and check their progress. Ideally speaking, the staff most involved with the students (such as the coordinators of student teams, interviewees, key members etc.) will want to see the report translated into a practical result, making their attitude towards the report and ISO almost per definition positive.

This method would, however, require a lot of planning and organization. The students would have to be organized to effectively cover all ISO requirements selected – which would be a first point of discussion. The ISO requirements for sustainability can be interpreted very narrowly as the ‘environmental ISO standards,’ in which case the ISO 14000 series requirements will suffice. If sustainability in all aspects will be integrated, however, the 14000 series alone will not be sufficient, and an implementation of the 26000, 14000 and 18000 series (respectively CSR requirements, Environmental requirements and workspace and health requirements) would be the bare minimum.

It would be recommendable not to put too much of a limit on the scope of the preliminary analysis and allow the students to explore the meaning of the requirements and the way they can be implanted on own accord. This would make the project a personal ‘pet project’ like for the students as well as for the staff, thus further increasing the involvement and engagement for the project, and providing a more substantial trigger for personal interest.

18

Next to the issues that may arise around organization of the project and determination of ‘who-does-what,’ this form of implementation would introduce a certain element of uncertainty in the monetary planning, the practical planning and the long-term time planning.

It is further to be noted that the division in practices as stated above is highly artificial and will not often – if ever – occur in the manner as stated above. The ideal state to find is a mix of the top-down enforcement and a bottom-up implementation method. This would account for the guarantee of popular support – without compromising the management’s decision capacity.

Suggestions strategic implementationThis subchapter will address the general conclusion for the whole chapter, and voice an overall method of implementing all suggested methods into a single operational system on their respective fields.

The first issue to address is the engagement of all stakeholders (most notably staff and students). In order to bundle the engagement of all and guarantee result, a forum has to be set up, comprised of members of all stakeholder groups that act as representatives for that particular group. This forum is suggested to have formal authority to some extent, as is usually implemented through the AISHE evaluation schedule. This schedule can be used as main discussion and structuring scheme, thanks to its rather complete and holistic view on sustainability. The forum is to be presented as a board of stakeholders, discussing the general sustainability profile of OP and acting in accordance with the PDCA-cycle, as presented through AISHE. The level of authority to be instilled can vary according to the management team’s demands, but some authority as advisory committee or expert consulting board is most recommendable. This board or forum will monitor, evaluate and adjust the sustainability initiatives across the polytechnic or at least offer expert opinion in the matter.

As a report- and communications method, as well as a means of international comparison, the STAR – system is suggested. A single member of the executive board – preferably the same member that organizes or represents management at the evaluation forum/board – will be assigned as the pivotal member for the entire system. The additional required information and reports can be passed through the sustainability forum/board as described above, and the results of the final reports can be fed into the STARS platform, allowing for an immediate certification and a central sustainability management system.

Thirdly, a mildly adjusted HEPS system (the precise scope of specification is to be determined by the board/forum) can be provided to every operational unit to conform the plans, purchases, actions and in general day-to-day operations to the main goals and strategy, as outlined by the evaluative board/forum. The HEPS tool can simply be distributed and a submission of a filled out HEPS form for every decision larger than a certain benchmark has to be provided to management and the board/forum for evaluation. Non-conform actions can immediately be altered and a clear, efficient and sustainable line will become clear through the use of the documents.

Finally, when all of the previous elements are in place, it is suggested to execute at least a partial ISO certification process. In order to conform with the international standards of reporting, the GRI guidelines can be followed, and students can be given the task to start the data collection on the ISO baseline measurement. The actual certification is – in a best case scenario – a mere formality after that, but will allow the school to be recognised as a leader in the fields of environmental care, social justice and economic sustainability. The process of becoming certified will communicate the earnest with which OP looks towards sustainability and add an additional engaging factor towards both students and staff, as they will become actively, hands-on and very practically engaged in the field of sustainability in real life, and the effects it has on the organization. Additionally, those who had not yet been engaged with the sustainability efforts up until that point will be forced to partake in the initiatives and the scores, lest they

19

be branded a ‘negative element’ by the auditors – which can be used in personal evaluations and cut out the ‘corrupted’ elements.

20

Campus/infrastructural recommendationsIn this part of the chapter, recommendations are made regarding potential initiatives on an infrastructural, campus based level. Recommendations will not consider any financial, legal, or other practical limitations in the initial selection. In the actual implementation recommendations, these elements will be pointed out, and allow for a swift compare with the actual capabilities of OP at the time of implementation.

For optimal clarity and the allowing of focusing on a single sub-element of sustainability should the need arise, this chapter will be subdivided into three sub-chapters. Every subchapter shall match one of the three fields of sustainability. The fields are, in that order, Environment, Social and Economic. The selected initiatives will be divided across these three main elements. The fact that one initiative is placed under one of these headers does not mean that it does not have a positive impact on any of the other elements – sustainability is too intertwined to make that division perfectly – it simply indicates that the primary effects of an implementation will be felt in that area.

Environmental InitiativesThese initiatives will be primarily focussed on either reducing the negative impact of HEI operations on the environment and ecology or generating/increasing a positive impact from HEI operations on environment and ecology.

The environmental topic can be subdivided again into four main topics: electricity, waste, water and transport. This subdivision can prove useful when deciding on which infrastructural element needs additional focus. For every topic, at least two initiatives will be formulated.

Electricity1. Photovoltaic windows

Solar energy is one of the most durable, sustainable and high-impact green energy sources known to date. The main limitation to harnessing of solar energy is the simple fact that a significant surface is required. The surface is to be covered in solar panels which, in turn, have to be placed under an optimal angle in order to generate a significant amount of energy. The main practical consideration in this field is the optimal placement of the panels and the amount of solar exposure they receive.

A significant amount of the limitations is lifted by the implementations of Grätzel (Graetzel) Cell window strips in the design of buildings. A Grätzel cell window is a window strip that has a Titanium dioxide (TiO2) dyed filter placed between electrode strips. The result when exposed to sunlight is a chemical reaction producing electricity.

The development of Photovoltaic windows is in a relatively early stage (generation three was launched in 2008), but the initial results so far are extremely encouraging. Photovoltaic strips are among the cheapest solar power solutions, due to the fact that the main element is TiO2 coating, and TiO2 is one of the most widespread colouring chemicals in the world, used in everything from coffee whitener to white paint.The generation 1 and 2 cells are fully fluidic, and as a result extremely flexible. The downside with them is the fact that some extremely hazardous chemicals are used that are prone to overheating and freezing in extreme weather conditions, ruining the cells and production in the process, not to mention the ever existing risk of direct human exposure. Generation three replaced some of the most hazardous chemicals with solid components, increasing the lifespan, reducing the frailty and increasing efficiency.

21

Unfortunately, these cells are no longer flexible and thus require a certain rigidness in implementation. (Grätzel M. 2008)

Grätzel cell window implementationsThe école Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (Lausanne Polytechnic Federal School) started building a new convention centre in 2012, with the aim to be entirely carbon neutral. One of the main elements in the building was the implementation of Grätzel cell windows (generation 3) along the entire western wall, accounting for more than 300 square meters of solar panel windows. The amount of electricity to which this amounts is, on a cloudy day, enough to provide full heating and lighting for the building.A second, more incidental advantage is the fact that – due to the windows being tinted – the need for air cooling is reduced. Similarly, due to the thickness of the windows and their composition out of at least three layers, the windows are excellently insulated, reducing heating requirements. (GULF 2014)

Grätzel cells in OPThere are many advantages to the general implementation of Grätzel cell windows in OP, but one very large disadvantage: the fact that the technology as of yet is in an early public production phase, makes that the purchasing of the cells may prove somewhat problematic, although at least 5 companies offer Grätzel cell placement as commercial means of placing windows.

Aside from the purchasing capacity of the cells, the current cell efficiency is relatively low in comparison to that of traditional solar cells (4% for generation 1’s, around 7% for generation 2’s and an early report of a top performance at 10% for a generation 3)(Grätzel M. 2008). This means that more TiO2 cells will have to be placed to gather a similar effect to that of a traditional solar power cell.

The advantages are, however, that the implementation of Grätzel cells can be done virtually anywhere where there are windows, as it simply looks like a standard tinted glass window. furthermore there is no efficiency loss from vertical placement and barely any from diffuse daylight in comparison to direct daylight. The excitability of the compounds is so high, that the angle or intensity of light is a secondary factor to electricity production, as long as there is some light.

Provided the amount of windows at OP and the rather low cost of Grätzel cells, a simple phased plan could be adopted to change the standard tinted glass with Grätzel cell induced glass.

The phase plan could, ideally, consist of building-age based classification, combined with the electricity needs for every building. While the information regarding these requirements is, as of yet, rather sketchy, the general principle should apply that older, less insulated windows are replaced first. This can be done by implementing the requirement for Grätzel cell windows standardly in every new building that is constructed by OP, and scheduling the replacement of a number of windows (ideally a number of floors/buildings per year) as a standard running expense.

In a second stage of implementation, smaller Grätzel cells could be implemented to re-use a portion of the inside lighting. The high reactivity of the compounds used in all Grätzel cells to diffuse or indirect light sources makes them ideal as feedback systems for superfluous lighting in buildings and indoor situations, recuperating at least a portion of the ‘wasted’ electricity used to light buildings and offices. The low cost of production and the high performances measured in slightly elevated temperatures make indoor deployment rather logical.

22

2. Adaptation of LightLights are one of the largest energy consuming factors in any building, and often the lights in offices, corridors and other public spaces are older, cheaper or simply larger lamps than the most efficient varieties, making the lighting in HEI, standardly spoken, highly inefficient. In any attempt to reduce energy waste, lighting plays a vital role.

Two elements are important when considering a new lighting installation: the times that lights are on and the types of lights used. These two factors translate into a number of measures that are to be implemented in order to reduce energy use. Considering the fact that a permanent consultant is already working on this project, at the time of writing, this report will limit itself to initiatives that have not yet been started by OP.

The primary focus of the permanent consultant at the moment is to map where energy can be saved by seeing where excessive peaks lie. One of the first implementations he has executed is the development of ultra-cheap power mapping systems.

A situation to aspire is the Oxford University’s Beaumont street campus. The campus is home to the university’s institute of archaeology and all related services (such as institute student service, administration, museum and library). The campus consists out of three regency-era buildings (1811-1820) and was – until shortly – one of the most energy consuming buildings of the university. After a short study, it was found that the energy spikes in the building were due to the inefficient lighting used in the halls, offices and other spaces. Most lights were high-intensity spots and classic light bulbs.

The university decided to give the entire lighting grid a once-over. It is to be noted that no other changes were made, than solely the alteration of the lights. The university replaced all traditional fittings with new light-fittings, supporting indirect LED lighting. Where possible, they introduced mirrors for natural outside lights. A third implementation was a light intensity detector, that was set to an optimal light distribution system. This meant that the lights would adjust intensity according to the outside light and the optimal light division. After implementation, the electricity consumption dropped with nearly 50% campus-wide (GULF 2014).

Implementation at OPOP has an expert in the matter on staff, and thus no suggestions will be made, as they may contradict a clearly more expert opinion in the matter from OP staff.

However, it stands to reason that lighting gets a prime role in the design of any building alteration policies and new to be constructed buildings by OP. The success of Oxford University in cutting energy consumption with this – relatively simple and cheap – alteration should serve as a more than sufficient motivator for the implementation of an OP wide lighting system overhaul.

In order to engage students and staff, it would be recommendable to let students do a part of the technical installation. The IT-oriented classes can be deployed to create the smart adaptation system, and couple it to the monitoring systems. The increased communicability of the power-distribution throughout OP itself is a plus, the fact that the students are challenged to think on how to report on environmental impact and to have access to the results of their implementation will serve as a life-long reminder of the power of minor tweaks.

The technical and engineering classes can be engaged to replace the lighting system itself and research even more efficient methods of reducing lighting-related energy consumption. Provided the cooperation between the classes runs optimally, the results will be rather similar to that of the first class, especially if some leeway is given to the classes to develop their own solutions for the provided problems.

23

Similarly, design students could be tasked with the aesthetic side of energy management. By giving them a chance of using their design skills to integrate the energy management systems into the room, their attention will be fixed on the energy-saving capacity of aesthetic elements (wooden elements as additional insulation, LED light designs etc.).

A one-time project following the given outline would already sort some effect, but a regular/permanent project would allow OP to engage new classes in a more-or-less experimental situation regarding energy consumption/saving. Ideally, this is a form of ‘sub-optimally’ outfitted room, and the students are given a limited timespan to optimize the energy-consumption of the room or environment. A competitive element can be introduced by dividing classes into smaller groups and provide rooms with similar outputs. Within a limited time span, the groups have to optimize the rooms. The group to sort most effect in energy saving wins. A project like this can easily be combined with other projects such as optimal functionality projects, tool development, coding projects, design assignments etc. and fitted into the standard curriculum of at least three schools.

While no case studies in this particular field could be found, a test project could be run with a minimal budget, backing from the energy consultant and a single room/floor on which carte-blanche is given to let the classes to do their thing. It stands to reason that the results are similar to or exceed the previously mentioned ISO-project.

The scale of the project has to be sufficiently large to make clear projections for follow-up projects and make the students feel as if they did something useful and lasting, yet small enough not to be capable of damaging OP should the project go awry.

The first time set-up of this project may hit some countering from the responsible teachers, as it will be mostly a trial-and-error set-up.

The practical implementation of this project can be executed in several forms. The first form is a simple theoretical study where students are given a room to analyse and offer suggestions to reduce the environmental impact of that room. A second option is to outfit a (number of) room(s) as ‘experimental rooms’ where practical implementations can be made by the students. This can be rooms where the wiring is worked open, the lights are not encased and where the students can start their projects in real life. After completion of the project, another (number of) room(s) is prepped for the next batch of students, or the original room is reset to its barren state. A third option (and possibly the most extensive option) is where the students are unleashed upon private OP partners’ buildings. They then have to assess the best optimization with regard to the function of the partner and the demands from OP to incorporate (such as sustainability issues). This can go from redesigning the council chambers, a production line, the railway station,…

Waste Management InitiativesThis part is based on the principle of ‘zero waste to landfill’ and is closely tied to several personal level initiatives. In the first place, however, this part is focussing on all forms of infrastructure-based waste management with a special focus on the inclusion and mobilization of stakeholders.

1. Zero waste to landfillThis principle is a principle adopted by many HEI’s across the globe. One of the most successful to date is the university of Southampton. The UK based university adopted a phased waste-management

24

integration plan as early as 2004. They decided to create an optimized waste collection and processing system, in which they would reduce the waste to a near-zero point (Zhang N.; 2011).

The first phase consisted out of two elements: the new private waste contract and the adoption of wheeled, lidded and microchipped bins. The microchips were designed to automatically weigh the bin upon collection, allowing for a ‘pay by weight’ system to be implemented.This contract was relatively novel in 2004 UK, and required a private contractor to process the waste. The new bins allowed for the mapping of which bins were most frequented, and which ones weren’t, allowing to identify the key locations for bins and general recycling efforts to focus on.

The second phase retained the pay by weight system, but upgraded the bins to a solid waste recycling system. Solid waste was to be divided between paper & cardboard, plastic & cans and landfill waste. A paper compacter was purchased by the university and all cardboard and paper was compacted by the university itself, minimizing the need for collection. The separation of materials and the location tracking through the microchipping allowed for a relatively accurate mapping of which type of waste was generated in which location. In addition, the university provided bins and waste pick-up for the student dormitories, allowing an increase in waste recycling of campus and – subsequently – a reduction of landfill waste.

The third phase focussed on offices and student dorms with the integration of a ‘co-mingled’ system. This system allowed to increase the volume of recyclable waste, as it takes less effort, training or awareness to deal with, and is more efficient in the processing – provided there is no contamination of the ‘dry’ recyclables.

Contamination of the recyclables proved to be the first real hurdle in this phase, as the system still required some form of pre-pick-up separation, which is an element that often recurs in recycling programmes (Cooley A.; 2001). The problem of contamination was overcome by a mandatory 2 hour class at the beginning of the academic year for all staff and students. A group of volunteers was set up, acting as recycling champions and raising awareness amongst their friends and co-students/co-workers.

Phase four targeted food waste from the several campus related fast food counters and restaurants. The main elements included a composting program, a strict set of purchasing requirements, minimizing solid waste in the purchased products and a food recycling program.

All of these phases cash in on the awareness and engagement from staff and students on campus, as well as on the availability of the contractor. However, the infrastructure is absolutely necessary in order to guarantee the continued engagement and support of the students and staff. The provision of opportunity is the first step towards sustained engagement from the stakeholders (Zhang N.; 2011).

Implementation at OPA similar system can be set up at Otago Polytechnic, considering the fact that a private contractor is used at the moment and a partial recycling program is already being implemented by the polytechnic.

While the phased system is already outdated (due to the somewhat ad hoc implementation of recycling bins), a significant rethinking of opportunity can be made within the polytechnic. The first step would be to map which type of bins are being utilized(recycling bin or general landfill bin) and where they are. Next, mapping how much waste is captured by each bin is optional, but would be an excellent opportunity to see which areas are most waste-intensive, and – consequently – where the recycling efforts should be focussed.

25

A second step would be to agree on an upgraded contract with the private contractor for a pay-by-weight system, contracted over a prolonged period of time. This would make the price paid dependent on the amount of waste generated in absolute weight, not taken space. Obviously, this might mean switching from contractor and investigating alternative processes.

Thirdly, removing all ‘general’ bins and replacing them with recycling bins is an absolute must. By doing so, the opportunity to throw just anything out is removed, forcing all people on campus to recycle on a superficial level at least. In addition, clear, uniform signs should be designed to indicate the presence of recycling bins, as well as clear instructions on what form of waste can be thrown in which bin. By placing the bins on strategic, well visible locations, with the signs clearly in sight, awareness about the recycling program can be triggered. According to Pike, Shannon et all. (2003), recycling is best carried when opportunity is combined with education and repeated triggering. It is therefore recommended to create a visual representation of the waste generated in every area. The feed could be visualized in real time by adding a small screen on every information plaque regarding recycling on the campus. The screen can be coupled to the weighing database, allowing for a live representation of the amount of waste generated, brought to landfill and how much is actually recycled. Similar initiatives can include a colour coding of areas based on their ‘average’ performance, or general information plaques around campus.

This entire chapter is to be coordinated with a voluntary or mandatory learning curriculum regarding recycling which will be further discussed in the personal/operational-unit level.

2. Food recyclingA second main source for landfill waste is food waste. All organic material can be composted, provided a suitable bulking agent is made available. In order to reduce the waste to landfills, it would be recommendable to provide a composting solution for kitchen-based food waste (waste created during the preparation of meals and leftover/unsold foodstuffs), and a separate composting solution for consumer-based food-waste (Abdullah N. et al. 2013).

Otago polytechnic already has a partial composting solution in the form of a worm farm, but no compost project has been set up that is open to the consumer campus users. Most of the kitchen staff and students know and utilize the compost area rather consistently, but the everyday student lacks the opportunity to compost their food leftovers. It would therefore be recommendable to implement separate ‘food bins’ in the recycling schemes that have as a sole purpose to capture compostable waste and food remains. These remains can be added to the composting area either by utilizing staff or volunteers to regularly empty the bins in the area.

Again, the bins should be clearly marked by a sign, indicating the location and capturing the key information, such as what can and cannot be thrown in the bin. Consequently, moreover, the amount of waste composted can be added to the general information about waste. This information can be displayed and serve as a repeated trigger for raising awareness about the impact of waste on the environmental aspect of sustainability.

Water saving/managementAlthough very little best practices could be procured, water is a key element in almost every environmental plan and of special interest to Australasian countries. Water is, much like waste and electricity, rooted in both personal awareness and engagement and in infrastructural opportunity and

26

capacity. Once again, full potential of one of both elements cannot be reached while the other is not in place.

A lot of the research regarding water management focusses on the saving of water through the implementation of all sorts of automated, sensor based faucets, taps, flushing, and reduction measures of water used in heating, kitchen appliances and other infrastructural water mains, as a way of saving water at the point of origins (GULF; 2014, Anon.; University of Queensland). Very little attention is granted to the point of exit (usually the sewers or nearest river). As such, this paper pays specific attention to the initiatives that are already in place in other locations, but suggests special attention is granted to the capturing and treatment of the leftover wastewater.

1. Grey water intake/distributionGrey water is in essence perfectly clear water, but not suitable for human consumption. The main sources are rain, tap water that has been used in sinks and unfiltered groundwater reserves. On a daily basis, humans waste a lot of potable water in toilets, watering flowers, through cleaning processes etc. All of these tasks can be performed with non-drinkable, ergo grey, water. As such, it would be recommendable to capture and (re)distribute the grey water throughout the Polytechnic’s buildings.

The uses of grey water may vary, going from faucets and taps for outdoors use, toilet flushing water and even as heating fluid for the central radiator system, the main element is that all mains are to be separated, effectively allowing for the use of grey water and reduce the potable water wasted. The grey water is to be captured in a separate well/basin, and is to be redistributed from there – the best technical solution for this matter is to be researched per building, as it may vary. The Greenwich University, for example, paid special attention to the separate water systems and even treatment in the construction of their new residential campus (GULF; 2014).

The engagement elements to be implemented are once again primarily focussed on raising awareness of the issues and indirect support for more hands-on engagement initiatives. Most of this can be executed by adding information plaques or screens on strategic locations (e.g. in the toilets, near the filters/sinks, on the dishwasher, near the outdoor faucets, near spraying installations etc.) demonstrating the use of grey water in a visually appealing way, as well as some facts and figures regarding water usage. The provided information in the boards is suggested to be activity specific (e.g. grey water in toilet flushing in the toilet stalls, use of grey water in window cleaning near the glass walls etc.).

2. Replace flush toilets with waterless toiletsOne of the main posts of water usage in public structures is the bathroom, and – to be more precise – the toilet. As such, it would be best to replace the flush toilets with less water-consuming alternatives. A great start is the limitation of the amount of water a single toilet can use to flush, as is common practice among public buildings in the US, where the amount of water used in a toilet per flush is limited by federal law (FEMP; 2015). Even better would be the structured replacement of all toilets on campus with completely waterless toilets. The effect of this measure, in combination with the greywater reuse, could be tremendous, as is demonstrated by the case study of Muthukumaran, Kanagaratnam and Sexton in a residential setting in Victoria, Australia (2011), where the use of potable water was reduced with approximately 77% after waterless toilets and a greywater usage plan were implemented in a residential test environment. On a larger scale, the German government has sorted major successes with their implementation of waterless technology in public sanitary facilities, and have received the due praise from the UN on the several projects taken in that area (UN ESA; 2002).

27

Implementation at OPThe implementation of this particular piece of equipment at the OP would take a significant amount of financial investment, since the technology is not particularly cheap (ranging between 2000 – 5000 dollars per piece for most solutions available in New Zealand). However, a large part of that investment will be earned back by the water savings in the years after the implementation. The exact amount of time for the breakeven point is further to be calculated.

However, after the implementation, several systems can be connected to the waste processing system of the waterless toilets, as the human waste is captured in separate waste tanks, allowing for the tapping of the natural methane gas produced in the tanks. This gas can be deployed on a medium to large scale, depending on the precise method of implementation, further saving on electricity and heating (C2ES; 2012).

Transport1. Active carpooling platform

While one can argue the correctness of the term ‘carpooling’ – as technically ‘ridesharing’ or ‘mutual commuting’ would be more accurate – the principle of sharing a car between several people headed in the same direction is a rather well known and old one. Nonetheless, it is a principle that holds a lot of potential for any organisation and is part of many a mobility policy – both on governmental and on corporate level (NZTA, 2009; Vanoutrive T. et al., 2012). Carpooling offers a significant set of advantages in financial terms for the organisation and the participating individuals, next to an obvious efficiency upgrade.

A good case study for a successful implementation of a carpooling initiative is the Let’s carpool initiative from Wellington, NZ, launched by the university of Victoria. The department of psychology set up an online carpool platform and made it freely available, on the condition that the participants filled out a survey stating their transport preferences. At the end of the research period, the amount of commuters stating they used carpooling as primary way of getting from and to work had risen significantly. More interesting was the fact that most of the commuters stated that the primary barrier to carpooling was the search for a person with the same or a similar trip. The online platform significantly lowered this barrier, increasing the number of people partaking in a ride-sharing and carpooling solution (Abrahamse W. & Keall M., 2012).

A side note to the success of the Wellington initiative is that the initiative was not limited to one organisation, although it was organised and spearheaded by the Victoria University. This following the concern voiced by the New Zealand transportation agency that a significant number of people is required to operate an effective carpooling scheme (NZTA 2009).

Implementation at OPConsidering the focus of OP at reducing carbon through the reduction of transport and regular traffic, setting up a carpooling program may be one of the quickest gains possible, and offers the possibility to create ties with other community members.

The precise method of implementation is to be decided by the management team, as several formulae are available. The easiest method of implementing a carpooling initiative at OP would be to put up a whiteboard where everyone can put up their times of driving from and to OP and their starting points, allowing those who wish to join the trips to contact the drivers.Downside of this system is the informality of the rides, the lack of control and the general unavailability

28

of data on the trips. However, during the original set-up phase, it would be a commendable effort to start with.

A more structured and efficient solution would be to set up a virtual platform – possibly with a mobile application - where people can register and log their drives with starting time and routes, allowing a more comprehensive tool for car-poolers to join. In a first phase, the system can be limited to OP staff, but expansion can be made to students and external parties after the groundwork has been upgraded. This would allow people to merge similar routes together and allow for cooperation with the university, city council and other institutions in the greater Dunedin region.

In the same spirit, it would be recommendable for OP to standardly log drives from and to the several campuses, since traffic between the campuses is – at the moment – organised in an ad hoc and personal fashion, greatly increasing the carbon creation from traffic between the several campuses. At the very least, a system should be made available where people travelling between the Cromwell and Dunedin campus can advertise their drive well in advance, allowing others to log their meetings and appointments on those days. Ideally, OP foresees a shuttle going back and forth between the several campuses on set days during the week, thus allowing staff to plan their trips accordingly.

A similar principle can apply to flights, where it is communicated when a (number of) member(s) of staff is taking a flight, thus enabling the rest of the staff to centre their efforts around the date of the flight as stipulated on the platform, thus reducing the need for several flights to (a) certain location(s).

2. Research MaaT/LTA air travel solutionsLTA – or Lighter Than Air – vehicles (or airships, as they are more commonly known) have long been banned from the skies as an effective means of transport of goods and people – mostly due to a number of disasters in the beginning of the twentieth century. However, due to the rising awareness surrounding the effects of fossil fuels and the tremendous amount of fuel needed to propel a standard jet plane, LTA solutions for commercial transport are becoming increasingly interesting, as the main reason for staying airborne is no longer the propulsion of the vehicle, but it’s use of LTA gasses – and the possibility of gaining propulsion through electric methods.

This last element makes the principle one of the most interesting innovative ways of transport in general. While most aerial transports rely heavily on the speed built up to stay airborne, an LTA-ship needs no speed whatsoever, has very limited environmental requirements (no need for long runways, expert control towers etc.) and every drop of fuel they do use can be appropriated to the actual propulsion of the ship.

At the time of writing, the LTA principles are primarily being investigated by space organisations as an alternative pick-up system (Melton J.E. & Hochsetler R.D.; 2012) or government agencies as an alternative cargo transport (MAAT; 2015) and – as such - hold a large potential for corporate implementations. As most projects at the moment are focussed on reducing the limitations of LTA-based transport, there are – unfortunately enough - only very limited options for accessing LTA-related transport methods (Aeros; 2014, TAA; 2014). Each of those methods is, however, very interesting in the ecological and experience way.

Implementation at OPThe OP alone does not have the knowledge, facilities or budget to set up an LTA project on its own. However, in collaboration with other universities and polytechnics, it would have the option to set up an LTA research and developing its own answer to the European Council’s MAAT-project and the American renewed NASA research into LTA recovery balloons. The project can be funded through private

29

investment from within New Zealand and in collaboration with international partners (such as the MAAT alliance, NASA, ESA, Aeros, E-Green, Zeppelin Luftshifftechnik,…). While the project will be very cost and time intensive, the result will almost certainly be rewarding.

This project will offer several options for engagement – amongst others due to the pioneering challenges offered - but will fit in more closely with the core sustainability branch responsibility of reducing air travel. If the unavoidable air travel gets valid green and sustainable alternatives, the impact on carbon emission from said air travel will be significantly lower. Secondly, the economic ROI from this initiative is not to be understated. While the development and implementation process can take significant time and effort, all research can later on be sold. Despite the need for a collaboration with other research institutes, there is an almost certainty that profit can – and will – be generated from the project.

At the very least, students of different schools can get hands-on experience with a practical and rather large scale research and development project, the staff can be involved in the spearheading of the project, and – in time – the majority of OP’s air travel can be rerouted form the cost and carbon intensive jet flights to the partially OP owned LTA airships and their advantages.

30

Social initiativesThe social initiatives outlined in this section will be infrastructural initiatives supporting equality, empowerment and general social justice as understood in the meaning of the Brundtland report (1987), which entails the eradication of poverty in all its forms, preservation and protection of traditional societies and equality among all. This definition is extremely broad and barely workable. As such, the specification as made by Magnus Boström from the university of Södertörn, Sweden (2012), as shown in the table below, will be followed as guiding measure.

Figure 6: social sustainability definitions (Boström M. 2012)

Since ‘social sustainability’ can be applied both to the internal organization and the external environment, this chapter will divide the bulk of the initiatives into either of these categories.

InternalThis chapter will focus on social sustainability for stakeholders that are directly linked to the organisation’s internal operations. In case of OP, a lot of action is already taken in the fields of staff development and security, several state initiatives focus on the minority inclusion and OP has a very specific policy in place for minority employment. Given the previous facts, this chapter will focus on students and student accommodations.

1. Sponsored student housingAttending higher education on and by itself is a significant investment for most students. The attendance fees alone are often extremely high, and can set a person back several thousands of dollars – for example, an arts education at the university of Otago costs at minimum 5406 NZD, a dentistry education can amount up to 33000 NZD (University of Otago; 2015). For less fortunate would-be students, these are tremendous amounts of money. On top of these fees, there is the cost of living which easily amounts to an additional 25000 NZD per Annum, made up for the most part out of housing (University of Auckland; 2015).

31

The UN considers higher education a basic necessity for social sustainability (our common future; 1987), and as such, it should be made available to as many people as possible. While the tuition fees are only marginally controllable by the institutions themselves, the housing and living expenses are not – as proven by most Belgian universities, among which the University of Leuven.

The KU Leuven is one of the oldest and most respected universities in the Benelux and – upon expansion – the European Union. The university has several residences in property and offers the student chambers in these residences to people with the lowest incomes (both international and domestic), with a special reservation for students on student grants. The cost of a fully equipped student chamber in one of these residences is significantly less than the private chambers. A second tier in the support ladder is the private-public collaboration project creating publically supported residences on the private market, which are reserved for international students, students on welfare or social support. These chambers are slightly more expensive than the first tier, but are still far below the full private chamber’s prices. The third tier is the certified private market, meaning that private house owners can rent student housing, but these owners have to fulfil certain minimum requirements which are set up in collaboration between the city of Leuven and the university (KU Leuven; 2015).

Implementation at OPOP would, at the very least, have to set up a system of ‘trusted house owners,’ where the prices are set between an OP set minimum and maximum, based on the available accommodations. Ideally, this system is set up in collaboration with the University and city council, thus reducing the amount of exceptions to the rule. Every house owner that wants to rent his location to students will have to conform itself to certain minimum standards to be ascertained by OP, Otago University and/or the City Council.

The most complete sponsoring of student housing, however, would be an OP owned residential campus – either as an apartment/tenement building, a number of owned student houses throughout the city or an entirely new city block, as done by the university of Greenwich (GULF; 2014). The available apartments would be rented out by OP to students with lower-than-average income levels for lower-than-average prices. Additionally, the ownership of the housing could contribute to the environmental areas, as OP itself can decide how to manage the buildings and which environmental standards the houses should comply with. This initiative can further be linked back to the strategic chapter and fall under the strategic evaluation board.

2. Student energy supportThe housing in New Zealand is, by international comparison, rather poorly regulated and organized (Grant L., 2015). Until 2004, no regulation surrounding energy efficiency and insulation was put in place. Only after the building code amendment 2004, a minimum requirement for energy efficiency, insulation and minimum room temperatures was set in place (NZMBIE; 2004). These new regulations barely dented the root problem however, as in 2011 New Zealand still had a 16% excess winter mortalities, 8% excess winter hospitalizations – which were directly related to the indoor temperature - and nearly a quarter of the NZ households are estimated to be unable to afford the fuel needed to heat their home to the legal minimum temperature of 16° Celsius (Howden-Chapman P. 2012).

While no indication was found on how many students in the Dunedin area fall into that category, it seems a strong point of attention nonetheless. Low indoor temperature is directly linked to several health issues, and is as such a very undesirable given. Given the general sub-par construction standards and lack of regulation for indoor heating in constructions meant for rent, it stands to reason that a significant – although unknown - group of students are living in housing that is unable to be heated to the legal minimum temperature.

32

The solution to this problem is dividable into several elements – many of which are already discussed in the previous suggestion. However, on the financial front, three main elements can be identified:

1. Reduction of purchasing price of electricity for students2. Provision of financial support for heating fuel purchase3. Set minimum standards in energy use for student housing + certification

Implementation at OPThe first element is quite easy to put forward, but slightly harder to execute. A price reduction of electricity can be obtained in several ways and on different levels. On the highest policy making levels, OP could utilize its position as a respected HEI to put the issue in the spotlight. However, OP will not be capable to act as more than a catalyst in that area for public opinion. Much more realistic is setting up a network of group purchasing of electricity. The main logic behind this is that there is an economic power position for the seller of a service towards individual purchasers. By combining the purchasing power of these individuals, better terms and conditions can be negotiated. While a relatively novel concept in New Zealand, there are plenty of successful implementations to be found in the rest of the world, most notably in the Netherlands and Belgium (were the practice is very commonplace), the UK and Australia (Allport P.; 2014).

This group purchase system could take several forms, depending on the electricity provider selected, yet some elements will always remain similar – if not the same. The prime element is that OP will have to rally as much as possible energy consumers to the initiative. As an indication, the number of student houses related to OP can be taken. To improve the size even further, it is suggested to cooperate with Otago University in setting up the group purchase. If both HEI’s already combine their electricity use, they will form a group of consumers not to be taken lightly. A single contract is to be negotiated for the entire usage of both HEI’s. In a second phase, students should be capable of signing up, provided that an accurate measuring of their usage can be made. OP’s new measurement devices may be useful as a central management tool. It is recommendable in this case that OP and the university receive one invoice for the total contract, and charge the students their personal due. While this will make an entirely different cash flow regarding energy and an additional administrational branch is to be organized, this will be offset by the financial savings throughout the organisation.

The second element is a pure financial funding for students with the lowest incomes. This form of hands-on support is not stopping the root cause of the problem, but helps mitigate the social and health related issues from being unable to purchase sufficient fuel to heat up the housing. Systems regarding this form of support are to make sure that as few as possible students (preferably none) live in inhumane conditions, without giving opportunity for abuse. While no existing initiatives could be found, it is recommendable to at least investigate the current effects of the indoor temperature on the student’s lives.

Thirdly, the minimum standard setting ties in with the previous recommendation regarding the provision of subsidized student housing. At the very least, a set of requirements is to be issued by OP, setting the bar for house owners regarding the minimum performance expected in matters like electricity utilization, heating and minimum temperature. If these requirements are not met, a warning can be issued throughout the student community to avoid said house owner’s property. Similarly, if the bar is met, the housing the owner provides can be certified and OP can use their network to recommend the owner’s property to their students.

33

ExternalThis particular part of the chapter will make suggestions for the improvement of OP’s external operations in the social sustainability field. Considering the role of OP as a tertiary education facility and a general knowledge centre, several of the elements mentioned by Borström are inherent to the function and organization of OP (Borström M.; 2012). However, one of the main functions that is left unexplored is the support for SME’s in the larger Dunedin area. Provided the previously mentioned functions, following initiatives seem appropriate for further exploration:

1. Corporate Social Responsibility trainingThe current economy is dominated by two types of corporations: on the one hand, there are large, multinational industrial conglomerates, on the other hand, Small and Medium Enterprises. The former garners a lot of attention in most media and are usually very aware of and formal in the creation of CSR policies. SME’s, on the other hand, are usually less formal in their CSR operations. However, SME’s make up the bulk of most countries’ economic activity (Tseng Y.F. et al.; 2010). It is argued that HEI’s should incorporate CSR elements – targeted at SME’s - in their standard business course (Gao Y.F.; 2009, as cited in Tseng Y.F. et Al.; 2010). It is further noted that SME’s tend to mimic, copy and learn from other SME’s within their network in several fields – including CSR (Tseng Y.F. et Al.; 2010).

As such, it seems logical to set up a platform for local SME’s to exchange CSR initiatives. Such a platform is ideally formalized in a series of networking events, combined with a speaker series and a formal workshop-with-certification program for company owners and employees.

Implementation at OPCourses and Seminars such as the one described are limitedly available in private training enterprises. However, no courses could be found within the greater Dunedin Area. As such, OP could attempt contracting an external trainer to set up a CSR course in Dunedin, and make it available through OP channels. The main drawback in this case would be the fact that OP is not being paid to run the courses, instead the private contractor is taking the earnings. OP further has very limited influence over the contents of the course given, and will thus be supporting a service they have very limited control over.

A second option is to organize a fully in-house course, and make it available at a competitive price for SME’s from New Zealand. This will require a higher initial investment – as at least one member of staff is to be trained in CSR to the fullest, a program is to be drawn up and the course is preferably to be ratified by an international quality organ (such as ISO or GRI).

A good program for this course will focus on three elements and certificates:

1. CSR policy development2. CSR practical implementation3. CSR policy and result reporting

How these elements are presented is up to the lecturer that is appointed to execute the series of lectures and/or courses. In a perfect situation, all three elements are required to get a full OP CSR certification. Nonetheless, the option to separate the three elements and form separate courses surrounding the three may be a more economically viable alternative.

Provided OP’s role and function, this course should be made available to students and staff, as well as the SME’s it is originally designed for – preferably at no or very low admission fee for the students and staff.

34

2. Sustainability Knowledge and experience centreUp to this date, sustainability is a concept that is very loosely defined. Academic works about sustainability mostly focus on high-level infrastructural initiatives (GULF;2014), definition and clarification of the concepts (Borström M.; 2012) or the creation of policy evaluation systems (AASHE; 2015). However, most researches happen in parallel, and very little organisations are trying to bundle said knowledge. Those that do make that knowledge available, but in most cases only to members (e.g. ACTS, Copernicus Alliance,…). As such, it would be recommendable to create an open platform that bundles sustainability knowledge and showcases its practical applications to all.

An example of a similar project in a different field of development is the Brussels based company ‘living tomorrow,’ that bundles several cutting edge technological applications in a showcase centre that doubles as a convention centre and interactive museum (Living tomorrow; 2015). The centre regularly updates the collection of technologies and focusses on day-to-day applications of the cutting edge tech.

Implementation at OPA similar set-up can be implemented at OP in the form of a show-case centre of sustainability technology, combined with a highly specialized library offering, that is to be developed. While several methods of setting up the centre can be explored, the most comprehensive method is to construct a new, stand-alone implementation and convention centre where a special area is prepared for swift implementation of new technologies regarding sustainable constructing, day to day objects and tools, and a showcase area for technology that is only on the drawing board. A second requirement is the expansion of the current library offer in sustainability literature, and a driven purchasing strategy regarding sustainability literature.

The advantages of the implementation as mentioned above are legion. The centre would generate a steady source of income in the form of admission fees, visitors would get very down to earth examples of measures to be taken in order to improve their sustainability profile and a secondary source of income can be generated by letting private partners rent space for showcasing their technologies. At a second level, the indirect motivation might generate more sustainability oriented companies to emerge in the area and through students starting up.

Economic initiatives1. Spin-off company campus

Provided the function of OP as a Tertiary Education and research facility, there are several marketable and commercially valid ideas created and communicated on a daily basis. Some of these ideas may grow out to products or services provided by the students. However, not all of these students possess all the know-how, knowledge, capacity or determination to start a company or create a sellable product. As OP’s budget is largely defined by their number of students, it is smart to have a secondary source of income to guarantee budget health and availability.

Both these issues can be addressed through the start-up of a spin-off program. In a Spin-off program, a knowledge producer assists its researchers in the creation of an economically viable company through a number of investment measures, consultancy on original set-up, administrational assistance throughout the set-up process, Intellectual property management and provision of incubator infrastructure.

A working example of such a program is the KU Leuven Spin-Off project, including a 13 hectare high-tech campus, investment program and over 100 registered spin-off companies to date (KU Leuven R&D; 2012).

35

Implementation at OPThis element is playing on several areas at once, and will thus take some time to initiate. The first requirement is the set-up of an active investment fund into student and staff research ideas, as well as an active administrational support and clear guidelines on the ROI for OP itself. The primary goal for OP should be the stimulation of the spread of ideas and knowledge, but this cannot be done at the financial expense of OP. Within the legal restrictions, it should be possible for OP to and support their students/staff and research and create a positive financial return on investment.

In a second phase, labs, office spaces and development areas should be made available for the spin-off companies. Ideally, this is done in the form of a separate campus, owned and maintained by OP but rented out (or given access to under certain conditions) to the spin-offs.

The most successful way of gaining a positive ROI in this matter is no doubt through the acquisition of shares in the start-up phase of the companies, and then the collection of a part of the profits. Obviously, this approach entails the danger of losing a part or all of the original investment in some cases. It is therefore recommended to spread investment across several start-ups as soon as possible, limiting the risk of a total budgetary crash.

For optimal deployment and results, it is highly recommended to collaborate with the Otago University in order to spread the costs, increase availability of new research towards OP and the availability of highly trained and practically skilled personnel towards the University’s spin-off candidates.

36

Personal/operational initiativesThis chapter will focus primarily on initiatives aimed at personal and operational unit levels. De facto this means that most initiatives in this chapter are focussed on changes in behaviour, mind-set, knowledge or awareness regarding all aspects of sustainability. While the chapter will be divided once again into the three main categories of sustainability (environmental, social and economic), the division is not perfect. As with the previous chapters, most initiatives can serve more than one field, but it is the authors opinion that they could be put to best use in the mentioned category. As such, several initiatives in this chapter can be used for more than one purpose. The proposed initiatives will be subdivided into subchapters in accordance with the previous chapter, effectively linking them to infrastructural initiatives where possible. In addition, a general awareness initiatives segment will be added, focussing on initiatives that are aimed at increasing personal knowledge, raising concerns and/or focus on increasing engagement for sustainability as a whole, and are not focussed on one element within the sustainability canon. The initiatives mentioned in this segment, however, will have to be specific enough to be considered effective, and cannot be based on loose presumptions or vague descriptions regarding sustainability.

General awareness1. Literacy testing

In the light of the RIO+20 initiative, the UNEP (United Nations for Environment Programme) collaborated with UNESCO (United Nations Educational, scientific and cultural organization), the Copernicus Alliance and several other third party organizations to create the UN sustainability literacy test (SuLiTe). This test is aimed at testing the knowledge about sustainability in international context for graduate students or equivalent. The test is comprised of 50 randomly selected questions from a database of over 2000 questions. 2/3 of the test is aimed at international/global issues regarding sustainability, 1/3 is aimed at local/regional issues regarding sustainability. The definition of sustainability used is the one from the Brundtland report (WCED, 1987). The questions are updated annually in collaboration with the general board, comprised of representatives from all partners.

As such, the test is one of the most general and complete sustainability literacy tests in the world. As it certified and organized by the UN, it is a great measurement for international and local comparison. At this moment, only the University of Auckland is registered in New Zealand to implement the test, although participation is free and requires minimum effort.

Implementation at OPIn order to get a comparison between OP and the international community, it would be suggested to make the test obligatory at the end of all graduate programmes. If a larger comparability is desired, it is suggested to use the test at the very beginning of the graduate programme as well, and measure the average improvement in sustainable literacy.

A simple test project can be set up, by becoming part of the SuLiTe community and having a single class first year students take the test. Phase two will be a monitored debate with the students about the least successful or known topics. The test will then be administered again, testing for the improvement of the students (if any can be observed). Simultaneously, the same principle can be applied with a third or last year’s class to see if any difference can be observed.

By taking the test this way, a preliminary zero-point measurement can be obtained.

37

2. (Voluntary) Debate competitionThe voluntary debate group is to be interpreted as a form of role play for interested students. The key element is a structured debate where the participants are divided into teams. Every team receives a role to play. This role can be interpreted as a broad set of principles that are to be followed, a position/opinion that has to defended or presented or the profile of an actual stakeholder (such as a country, a company, an NGO,…).

The example to be followed is the model UN initiative – and to be more precise, the UN Diplomacy competition. This competition places teams of students in the shoes of their countries in a competition to press a resolution. Every team has to prepare their own resolution and prepare for counterarguments, the other teams score the resolution propositions by content, style, topic and vote for it after a verbal presentation (UN diplomacy competition; 2015).

This approach puts students on the spot and forces them to think as their appointed country, rather than as their personal opinion. It further urges them to find out all pros and cons of certain measures, all information regarding certain topics and teaches them how certain political decisions are being made.

Implementation at OPOtago Polytechnic is suggested to set up a similar, albeit slightly differently focussed competition. OP could try to set up a cross polytechnic debate competition on several ‘hot topics,’ including several sustainability topics.

The easiest way to create this group is to appoint every school as an ‘expert committee’ in their field of study, provide a list of topics, and have the school-based teams defend their solution to a certain problem. The teams share their ‘resolutions’ and have them scored by the other teams and a jury board of teachers. After a verbal defence of their solution, a voting session is held. The winner of the voting session wins a prize.

A bit more difficult, but arguably more rewarding, would be to set up student teams with students from every school in a single team. These teams then compete in the same fashion, but now have to present an entire solution for a single topic. While the topics do not have to be limited to sustainability topics, the integration of sustainability topics into the debate curriculum is highly recommended. In a perfect situation, the actual agenda of an actual government body can be copied for the competition.

3. Unified/synergetic communication planTo talk and communicate about problems, is to begin solving them. One of the main elements of the sustainability issue is the raising of awareness, which is done through the creation of a unified and synergetic communication structure. This means a communication structure that spreads one central message across several platforms, that each support and reinforce the core message (Janssens K.; 2014; De Pelsmacker P., Geuens M., Van den Bergh J.; 2013).

In this case, the message to be spread is rather complex and contains at least two elements that are inseparable, yet very distinct. The first is a call for thought and awareness, stressing the importance and necessity for a change in behaviour. This call can and will be treated both as a negative statement (what happens if you don’t change your ways) and as a positive story (what happens if you do change your way), combined with more direct, personal and material gains (how much money/time/space you will save by changing your ways). The second element is the showcasing of how well the institution is doing in the fields they talk about. This is meant to act as a ‘leading by example’ strategy.

A case study executed by Djordjevic and cotton in a new (post ’92) UK university, saw several key focusses and hurdles within the communication trajectory (Djordjevic A.; Cotton D.R.E.; 2011).

38

The first hurdle identified was the lack of a unified and well-communicated definition of sustainability. This problem was twofold: at first there was no unified, generally accepted or used definition of sustainability. This led to misunderstandings between several divisions (an example given was that all communication regarding ‘sustainability’ was forwarded to a purchasing manager, because the services believed it related to the – solely economic – sustainable triple bottom line.) Some divisions made their own definition of sustainability, and this is where the second element kicked in: even those who adopted a centralized definition did not succeed at spreading it throughout their separate divisions.

The second hurdle identified was a general lack of interest and urgency given by either high-or middle management. Quite often, so they observed, the middle management would put a single person in charge and consider sustainability ‘treated,’ despite the clear connection sustainability has with all operations within every part of a HEI.

Thirdly and finally, Djordjevic and Cotton observed that there was a problem with dispersed information. This problem manifested on two levels: the means of communicating and the type of information spread.The first level manifested because most communication regarding sustainability in the analysed institution was done through electronic means in the form of e-newsletters, internal bulletins and social media posts. Due to the sheer amount of e-mails and notifications people had to process on a daily basis, however, a lot of the sustainability related communications went lost in masses or were simply not paid their due attention – leading to even more uncertainty about what the institution actually meant with ‘sustainability.’

The second level manifested due to the fact that sustainability is an extremely broad concept – even in some of its most clear-cut definitions. It is often defined as so broad, that the topics to which it relate are seemingly completely unrelated – especially provided the fact that most people think of ‘sustainability’ as a synonym of ‘ecology.’ It was indicated several times that the staff and students didn’t think of ‘ecology’ as a topic they should be concerned about and thus dismissed the entire notion of sustainability without further investigation (Djordjevic A. and Cotton D.R.E.; 2011), as was also noted in several other sources (Brandli L.L., Frandoloso M.A.L., Roorda N., et al.; 2009, Franz-Balsen A., Heinrichs H.; 2007).

Djordjevic and Cotton continue with suggesting some interventions. The key pillar of these interventions is a synergetic, single topic focussed set of face-to-face sessions specially designed for staff, as student education is to be integrated into almost every course in the standard Curriculum. These face to face sessions are to be complemented by permanent topic reminders, as long as these reminders are short, to the point and relate to the practices of the group of people targeted (e.g. implementation tips for building sustainably to campus services, sustainable bookkeeping to finances and so on).

Implementation at OPImplementing a communication plan taking into account the hurdles mentioned above at OP is a relatively high effort, low resource activity. The effort will have to be poured in setting up the demarcations for sustainability per OP division. De facto this will be a separation per school and program for the students and a separation per branch of staff and service.The separation per branch of staff will divide the message between the academic staff and the non-academic staff, the latter of which can be subdivided per service, such as campus services, finance, marketing, international office, customer services, etc.

First, all sustainability communication should be put in a single, premade format in order to guarantee the recognisability of the sustainability unit. This would best be obtained through a logo and letter template that can serve as a branding element for sustainability’s communications.

39

Secondly, a single definition of sustainability is to be chosen and to be communicated across the Polytechnic. The author is highly recommending the use and communication of the Brundtland report definition (Our Common Future; 1987), because of the opinion that it is the original, most comprehensive, least constrictive, yet most clear-cut and properly worded definition of sustainability in most of the literature found. As a bonus, the definition is written and wielded to date by the UN and all its subchapters, making it a perfectly communicable definition in the international field as well.

Thirdly, it is recommended to coordinate the communication initiatives with the others recommended in this report, and create a circular communication system. Ideally all staff and students see every part of the communication campaign at least once. For example, a system could be developed where a three year cycle is created. The first year, messages are being spread focussing on environmental initiatives. The first three months of this year deal with waste and recycling and see an intense campaign on that subject. The second three months deal with waste water. The third three months deal with electricity, the last three months with transport and fuel. The second year focusses on social sustainability communication, four key social issues are chosen and communicated about (for example: electricity availability, housing quality, emancipation and social justice). The third year economic sustainability is highlighted and a consistent messaging is set up surrounding that field.The end result would be that every student has seen a full cycle during his/her career at OP. The staff would see similar themes pop up every three years, thus keeping the awareness alive without losing the nuances of the different aspects of sustainability.

Environmental initiativesElectricity

1. Visual usage feedbackAt first glance, this suggestion will seem contradictory with a suggestion in the previous chapter: ‘subsidizing student heating fuel.’ It is important to note that, while both initiatives revolve around the utilization of electricity, this particular initiative is aiming to make students aware of the amount of electricity they are utilizing and what electricity is going to waste, not discourage the use of electricity as a whole. Where the energy support initiative is aiming at giving students the possibility at using electricity specifically for heating, the visual feedback is meant to urge them to do so wisely.

For most regular stakeholders, electricity usage is a very abstract and distant concept that has no real impact on reality. The main reason for this, is that there is no real feedback available. Most households only get a periodical power invoice, which is a very limited form of feedback on the usage at best. Most students don’t even have this marginal feedback, as power is either paid for through periodical rent and not specified or paid for by the parents/caretakers/… The nature of the power bill further only provides a minimal check with reality, as the only real indicator or comparative factor is the price of the power in comparison to the previous bill, which may evolve independently from the actual power usage.

Knowledge is one of the three main components of Attitude according to the cognitive dissonance theory of Festinger (1957), and is as such one of the most powerful stimuli for behaviour change according to modern day social psychology (e.g. Nuttin; 1996). Providing live, visualized feedback on power utilization is a trigger for a cognitive dissonance process. In this case, it is assumed that the majority of the campus population – student and otherwise – has some familiarity with the values related to sustainability, and the majority of that majority is convinced of the importance and necessity of these values. As such, their cognitive triangle is assumed to look as follows:

40

It is assumed that most stakeholders are not aware of the conflict between their cognition and their behaviour. Therefore, introducing the element of the feedback will cause a breakdown in the consonance process they experience, leading to a situation of dissonance, as shown below:

As the dissonance builds, the subjects will attempt to reduce the unease following the dissonance, and will do so by the easiest path possible: changing the behaviour, at least marginally.

Initiative case studyIn 2006, the Oberlin College starting rolling out an experimental program revolving around the measurement and provision of feedback in student houses owned by the institution. They started to monitor the by-room electricity and water use. At first, they set a baseline in electricity and water use per

Cognition (sustainable behaviour is nescessary)

behaviour (perceived sustainable behaviour)

Affective (feel medium to strongly positive about

environmental/social/economic sustainability)

Cognition (sustainable behaviour is nescessary)

behaviour (perceived sustainable behaviour)

Affection (feel medium to strongly positive about

environmental/social/economic sustainability)

Cognition 2 (Visual feedback on electricity

use)

Attitude(considered to be consonant)

Attitude(dissonant state,

leading up to behavioural

change)

41

building. In stage two, an online visual feedback was presented. In practice, this was an online platform that could be accessed through the university’s webpage and through logging in. The student would then get an evolution chart of his/her water and electricity use, compared to the carbon that produced and the financial cost of the electricity.

There were three test categories: buildings where the feedback was provided in real-time and per room, buildings were the feedback was provided per hour and per floor and buildings were no feedback was provided.

The first category showed a drop of nearly 55% electricity use, the second 33% and the third – logically – showed no change. Despite the phenomenal results in electricity usage, however, there was only a 3% drop in water usage. No explanation was found for this failure in the field of water, although it is theorized that the main reason was the lack of control the inhabitants had over the largest water-consuming elements in the building (such as toilets, laundry-rooms and heating.) (Petersen J.E. et al. 2007).

2. Electricity reduction workshop/courseOnce the dissonance is achieved, a follow-up program is to be set in place. This program can take any form, as long as it puts the emphasis on the subjects altering their behaviour in a more sustainable fashion. The follow-up program should therefore contain practical suggestions on how to stop wasting electricity and reduce electricity usage in different situations.

The program is suggested to take the form of a workshop or a voluntary after-hours course. Potentially the provision of an ‘energy consultant for students’ can be included in this program. This can be interpreted as a member of staff with sufficient knowledge of electricity consumption and use to go and inspect students homes, use of machines and so on, and make on-the-spot recommendations or implement them in the next workshop/course.

The initiative could be student driven after a short launching period, in which student consultants are trained and qualified to handle the workshops themselves, as a form of ‘best practice recommendations workshop.’ After the workshops have become student-driven, all that is needed to keep them going is the regular training of new student coaches and the regular provision of meetings with the existing coaches to keep track of the development.

Initiative – case studyA great example was the Irish Office of Public Work’s ‘optimising power @ work’ initiative, where all state-owned buildings were audited and refurbished, and a large scale 7 year awareness plan was set up (Clarke C.; 2015). The plan was set into motion after the ‘quick gains’ of the first savings (through infrastructure retrofitting) were completed. After that, the OPW set up energy boards in every building, and set them strict 5-year targets. The teams were ordered to set up large scale lectures for all staff on the premises, explaining the target, presenting the evolution, and explaining where more effort could be made. The lectures were mandatory for all staff in the selected buildings.

The target set was 20% saving of electricity per building between 2007 and 2010. Buildings that made that grade got an additional target of 5% reduction between 2010 and 2015, the others got additional attention in the form of more intensive training, more obligatory lectures, more regular energy meetings and generally more hammering of the message. By the end of the program in 2015, all targets were achieved.

42

Implementation at OPOtago polytechnic can utilize the same rigorous measures in the form of mandatory staff development in the field of electricity reduction, as soon as the on-site expert has completed the initial mapping of a certain area. All personnel in the mapped buildings can be ordered to attend a monthly staff briefing regarding electricity use, the targets set and the progress made since the last briefing. It would be recommendable to communicate the targets, results and measures taken towards the students on a very regular basis, in class and offer voluntary seats on the monthly evaluation meetings with the staff.

A double positive incentive can be offered to the staff on a building or floor level. The first incentive is the set-up of a special mention for the best performers on the evaluation meeting, with the inclusion of a prize. This can be something rather symbolic – such as a challenge cup – or a more physical prize – such as a free lunch for the block/floor/…

Similarly, a student competition can be set up, with commendations for best performing class(es), schools or students. The selection of a commended team can be done through the monthly evaluation session, where all members of staff can put someone forward to get a personal commendation and receive the prize.

The second incentive could be one based on which team shares its experience with other teams best (such as through regular reports, voluntary briefings, etc.). the team that is voted to have most impact can get a second challenge cup/free lunch or otherwise positive incentive. Along the same lines, a competition for the students can be once again put in place.

Once in place, these monthly meetings can double as think tank and volunteering board, effectively tying the engagement module in with the strategic board meetings.

Water ManagementWaste water is a key focus for any sustainability program, and attempting to reduce the potable water wasted is the main element in any reduction of waste water. While one can argue about whether to reduce the waste at intake or improve the re-use of wasted water and which one is more effective, both require a significant shift in practical operation. In this case, a lead-by-example strategy is to be designed, as stakeholders are more likely to take the message to heart if they see it executed on a day-to-day basis.

1. Visual Usage feedbackMuch like the electricity visual feedback, a feedback system regarding the use of water can be put in place. However, in the electricity feedback the goal was the immediate alteration of behaviour, whereas in case of water use, the behavioural changes will be marginal at best (Petersen J.E. et al. 2007).The goal is instead to provide a clear and objective measurement instrument for water used per living unit/building/floor. The usefulness of this tool lays in the raising of awareness regarding personal use – even if said use is on an absolute minimum.

Knowledge is – after all – one of the first and most important steps towards engagement. As such, raising the knowledge regarding water impact and water usage will allow for some student to immediately become engaged, a far larger number will have a slightly raised awareness.

Implementation at OPThis project can be rolled out simultaneously with the electricity initiative, although the focus should be mildly shifted towards the raising of knowledge levels and awareness rather than the actual changing of behaviour. As such, the follow up for the project should defer significantly. The visual feedback project, however, can be rolled out using the same platform which can be linked to a mobile system.

43

The only real difference to be had during the rolling-out of this project are the water measurement detectors. Ideally, the students are provided with a measurement system per room, but the availability of affordable systems may put this in some jeopardy.

It is recommendable to complement the existing virtual feedback systems with additional, more creative, passive and ambient systems, as the attention drawing factor is quite large for the effectivity of the feedback. One great example is a coloured light on faucets and taps, that glows red when certain conditions are met – such as, for example, exceeding the ecologically desirable maximum for that day (Froehlich J., Findlater L. and Landay J.; 2010).

Waste ManagementWaste Management is, much like water and electricity, a key point in every sustainability plan. The key goal is always to try and reduce the amount of ‘waste-to-landfill.’ Some argue that the processing and separation of created waste is key in order to sort the most effect (Abdullah N., Ling Chin N., Mohktar M.N., Taip F.S.; 2013, Pike L.; Shannon T.; et al.; 2003, Cooley A. et al.; 2001). Some argue that the key isn’t the post-creation processing, but the prevention of said creation (Nutall N.; 2013, Froehlich J., Findlater L. and Landay J.; 2010). It stands to reason that, in order to create a good waste management plan, both ends have to be taken into account. While the processing part is mostly an infrastructural element, the prevention of waste creation is almost exclusively a personal one.

1. Waste reduction certification programAs waste is not only a matter of infrastructure, but also of human carefulness, it is considered paramount to instil the sense of importance on the subject into the stakeholders involved. As such, it is recommendable to set up a network of trained people that are capable of assessing and assisting in several waste reduction initiatives on several levels, both in order to have a sufficient amount of manpower and to have a sufficient spread of knowledge on waste. The network could be set up following the example of the ‘compost master’ programs of the Belgian Intercommunal Networks for waste (IOK, 2015; Ivarem, 2015).

Initiative case studyThere is a plenitude of governmentally organized environmental waste reduction initiatives that can be seen as exemplary for the program to be set up. The scope and organization of the programs varies from iteration to iteration, ranging from fully governmentally organized (Hong Kong waste reduction and recycling; 2015), over private-public cooperation set-ups (Ivarem; 2015, IOK; 2015) to entirely privately organized but centrally coordinated (London Environmental Network; 2015).

What all these organizational structures have in common is the set-up of a voluntary force of educating and assessing persons and a certification program for these volunteers. Every iteration of the program has a rather different take on the certification. The IOK and IVAREM initiatives consider the certification to be a week-long course after which one obtains the title of ‘compost master’ (IVAREM; 2015, IOK; 2015). The Hong Kong initiative employs part-time government officials to run the program (Hong Kong waste reduction and recycling; 2015). The London Environment Network consists of a number of NGO’s each providing their own requirements for the voluntary force (London Environmental Network; 2015).

As such, the key element is the recognition given to the volunteers. This can be done in many forms, as long as it establishes the knowledge and authority of the volunteers in the area of recycling, composting

44

and/or reducing waste. The volunteers are then run several smaller projects on their own, often offering workshops, Q&A sessions and on-site assistance or advice.

Implementation at OPA similar project does, as of yet, not exist within the larger Dunedin area. As a way of engaging students, staff and potentially interested parties from outside of OP, this project offers several options for tying in with the social and economic sustainability projects.

The project is best to be set up as a form of extra-curricular certification course. Those having obtained a certificate in the areas of recycling, waste reduction and prevention and other waste-related topics (the precise topics can be decided upon installing the project) can start setting up workshops and alternate initiatives themselves.

The way to organize the volunteers is best to be tied in with the sustainability board as described in chapter 1. This board is still related to OP and provides the necessary academic credibility to the certificate, but is not part of the central administration – and as such does not stress the existing administration any further.

The certification program itself is only step one, as the real output of the program is the awareness raising and practice-improving workshops, Q&A sessions and advising sessions organized by the certified volunteers. This part is suggested to be partly formalized by OP, as a way of guaranteeing the availability of the output. It is, however, advisable to limit the practical organizing crew to the volunteers, and run the evaluation of the projects by the sustainability board. This way, no staff is forced to run the projects and increase their workload.

2. Visual waste-creation feedbackMuch like the water and the electricity feedback systems, a visual representation of waste creation can be used to raise awareness regarding the impact of waste on the environment. While no literal case studies could be found, the provision of feedback is considered almost incremental to the set-up of an initiative throughout several sources (GULF; 2014, Pike L.; Shannon T.; et al.; 2011, Franz-Balsen A., Heinrichs H.; 2007, Cooley A. et Al.; 2001).

As such, it seems logical to provide a mapping and measurement platform for waste created on the level of the entire Polytechnic, and then subdivide into levels as far down as possible (e.g. campus level, building level, floor level, room level, bin level and ultimately personal level). Once in place, the platform can be made available for students and shown in public areas to trigger the awareness and a cognitive dissonance reaction aimed at altering the behaviour to reduce waste creation and properly dispose of any remaining waste (e.g. recycle, compost or landfill it).

Implementation at OPThis system can easily be set up parallel with the water and electricity platforms. Ideally, the platform measures and rewards personal positive contributions to the recycling, composting and other waste reduction programs. The ideal form of this system is a central data platform linked to an online and a mobile application. Every student and member of staff can create a personal profile, which records their contributions and allows them to gain certain forms of rewards (for example, free coffees at the Polytechnic cafés when they have matched a certain amount of saving measures, ran a number of workshops, got certified etc.)

45

TransportationThis subchapter will deal with initiatives that aim to improve the transportation behaviour of the stakeholders of OP, preferably reinforcing the shift in behaviour set by the infrastructural initiatives. The key goal is to reduce the overall carbon footprint of OP by reducing the amount of fossil fuels involved in the transport of stakeholders of OP. The reduction focusses mostly on transport from and to OP campuses, but a general reduction of carbon emissions in other transportation-related behaviour is not excluded.

1. Personalized travel feedbackPeople spend a lot of time travelling from one place to another. Travelling is quite inherent to most activities, but is rarely actively or consciously thought about, as most people’s minds are more focussed on the activity at hand than on the way to get there. Like with the previous environmental elements, feedback can create a behavioural shift through the altering of attitudes – or at least one of the elements of the related attitudes.

Initiative case studyThe university of California launched an experimental tracking-and-feedback system in 2011. Jariyasunant and his team set-up an experimental travel-diary system that used GPS tracking systems in the form of an application for smartphone to measure travel habits in a convenient sample group of 28 people. The reason for the experiment was to try and improve the current most used method of policymakers regarding transport-demand forecasts, which is a travel diary study. Unfortunately, this technique requires a lot of effort from the participants in the studies and these studies are traditionally rather short in time. Secondly, a lot of the efforts made to make people reconsider the car as their favourite method of transportation hit significant resistance, as they are traditionally negative and indirect feedback systems – such as toll-per-mile, constipation taxes and road taxes. The researchers theorized that using a self-tracking principle could contribute to solving both problems at once. They developed a platform to which participants could subscribe and which would track routes, methods of transportation, travel time and travel distance automatically. Based on those factors, a personal profile was set up that linked the information gathered to factors like how healthy the mode of transportation was (measured in how many calories were required), how efficient (travel time compared to city-wide and US averages) and how eco-friendly (how much carbon emitted during travel). These elements were fed back to the users, while the researchers received extremely detailed travel information for the participants in the project with relatively little effort (Jariyasunant et Al.; 2011).

Implementation at OPA similar project could quite easily be set up at OP, and is suggested to be integrated with the feedback systems for electricity, water and waste. For transportation, an application for smartphone will have to be developed, containing a GPS or Galileo function. The information gathered is to be fed back to the Polytechnic and utilized for further policy and infrastructural development. The main factor for OP sustainability, is the provision of feedback to the users. Ideally, this feedback system is linked to the carpooling platform and has some connection with public transit websites. That way, an immediate comparison between regular destinations and their effective costs can be made in the blink of an eye, making people prone to thinking through their choices in transportation method before choosing one.

46

2. Voluntary Travel Behaviour Change ProjectAs the goal is to get people to consider sustainability as an integral and undisputed part of their life, an important part to be considered is the reduction or evasion of resistance to the changes made. As ‘hard’ infrastructural measures are quite often punitive and restrictive in nature, it is important to focus on ‘soft’ – measures as well. These measures aim to change what the subjects consider being ‘standard’ or ‘normal.’ While this entire chapter is dedicated to providing examples and initiatives of the ‘soft’ category, nowhere the distinction as clear as in this particular part.

There is a plenitude of small, separate initiatives that can be taken to reinforce the shift in transport behaviour. Great examples are the provision of free bus tickets, reduction on season passes for trains, bonuses for participating in certain transport projects and so on. However, not too many initiatives attempt to bundle the package in a coherent fashion – despite the observation that a synergetic program increases the change and helps consolidate it over time (Richter J., Friman M. & Gärling T.; 2011).

Initiative case studyOne of the longest running and most well-documented initiatives in this field is the IndiMark project – a German commercial project that emphasizes information and education, often on city or district level. The IndiMark project consists of a phased plan, targeting voluntary participants after an active recruitment round. The participants are recruited through a telephone interview or by a door-to-door recruiter. After recruitment, they are asked to fill out an pre-intervention travel diary. Based upon that diary, the intervention is organized in collaboration with the local government and transport agencies. The intervention can range from free try-out tickets for public transportation, handed to subjects that are predominantly using the car, to rewards (free season passes, free upgrades in transport category etc.) for regular PT users. After the intervention, an immediate follow-up is executed, and a second follow-up is executed a few years after the original intervention (Brög W., et Al.; 2009).

Implementation at OPThe main problem with the implementation of this particular project is the fact that it is a commercial implementation. However, in cooperation with the university of Otago, a similar project can be designed and executed. A second key element to secure is the cooperation of the local transport agency(ies).

The set-up would – theoretically – be relatively straightforward: a number of students from the Polytechnic and the University start questioning the students of their respective institutions on their methods of transportation, whether they would consider changing it to a more sustainable alternative and their reasons for their answer.

Based on the standardized questionnaire (which is to be developed), the participants fall in one of four categories: car user (predominantly uses the car for transportation), Public Transportation user, walking and biking and no response. For every category, an intervention is to be planned. For example, the car users can be handed a brochure containing information on what the impact of a car on the environment is, the address and region-specific public transportation schedules and the quickest routes for walking and biking to OP. A packet consisting of a free set of tickets for the easiest method of public transportation between their home address and OP can be added. For Public Transportation category, the same can be done, and an umbrella can be foreseen.

Alternatively, OP and the university can cooperate to hire one of the several consultancy groups issues and implementing such projects on a wider scale, or press the Dunedin City Council to do so.

47

Whichever the choice, it is most recommendable to execute this project simultaneously with the infrastructural recommendations and try to coordinate it with an upgrade of the public transportation system.

Social initiativesThese initiatives seek to increase knowledge and attention given by OP stakeholders to social sustainability related topics. These initiatives try to go further than the traditional general awareness situation, as that is being covered earlier in this report.

For the sake of clarity, the initiatives presented here will follow the structure of the infrastructural social initiatives chapter, which focussed on financial and building-wise initiatives to improve social sustainability.

InternalThese initiatives are selected based on the need to raise awareness and knowledge of certain social issues within OP’s own structure. These issues are but a small selection of all issues conceivable within the polytechnic, but – according to the author – these issues are some of the most pressing.

1. Student Housing Quality SurveyAs student housing is a major contributing factor to the wellbeing of students, it stands to reason to pay some attention to making sure the student housing is on par. As every house is different from the next, it would be wise to attempt a measure of how good or bad the students think their housing is, and why. As such, a proper quality survey regarding the quality of the housing quality is recommendable.

The main advantage of a quality survey is on the one hand the fact that the student housing situation is analysed and problems can be identified. On the other hand, the survey also allows the communication of the housing situation in a quantitative way, allowing a more objective measure of the situation.

Initiative Case studyThe King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals developed a Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) survey in 2008, aiming to give equal attention to the ecological, social and economic aspects of their on-campus housing situation (Hassanain M.A.; 2008).

Hassanain developed a double-layered questionnaire, separating the requirements between Technical and Functional requirements, the first being the effective background for activities to take place, the second analysing how the building supports said activities. As such, the first category focusses on Thermal, Acoustic and visual comfort, indoor air quality and fire safety. The second one covers issues such as interior and exterior finish systems, layout, furniture quality, support services, efficiency of circulation and relative position towards other University service facilities (e.g. classrooms, auditoria, library, gyms, etc.) (Hassanain M.A.; 2008)

The results are assumed to be a valid indication of the quality of the student housing and are capable of giving an idea for where potential problems lie.

Implementation at OPA similar system can easily be set up at OP. Either by copying an existing questionnaire or survey, or creating an OP specific questionnaire. The key element is that the perceived quality of the housing is measured. It is recommended to execute a quantitative study/audit of a number of student residences in order to create a more objective baseline, and compare this internationally.

48

The results of these two studies are to be communicated, preferably through the synergetic system recommended earlier in this paper. The result is expected to be an increased attention to housing quality by all involved stakeholder, including students, tasked staff, the Dunedin City Council, Otago University students and staff members, and the house owners.

Economic initiativesThe initiatives presented in this sub-chapter target the awareness and knowledge of stakeholders of OP about economic sustainability and seek to improve the stakeholders attitude towards these topics. The final goal in mind still being the cognitive consonance and following behaviour towards sustainability, these initiatives seek to skew the cognitive and affective elements of the attitude towards a fair economic mind set and stress the importance of supply chains in this process.

1. Periodic Economic Speaker/debate eventsThis initiative is integral part of the communication plan proposed earlier in this paper. As such, it is technically not a separate initiative, but as it offers a lot of opportunity for further expansion in later stages (such as theme days, debate sessions and political rallies) it deserves some separate attention.

The initiative entails the set-up of a series of annual speaker events from different areas in business and how economic sustainability relates to their business or organization. As such, it would be recommendable to look for as international as possible speakers, to showcase the length of a standard traditional supply chain and the impact the purchase of a certain type of product has on the rest of the world.

Combining this with a Fairtrade keynote speaker to either kick off or conclude the annual series of speakers is recommendable, though not mandatory. This is suggested to showcase the difference between traditional and Fairtrade oriented products.

Upon expansion, this speaker session can be combined with the ecological and social initiatives, each showcasing the importance of the sustainability program in all its fields of application.

49

ImplementationThis chapter will focus on how the different initiatives can interact and presents a rough draft of planning for the implementation of the systems and initiatives. The time scale utilized is a three year plan, ending in June 2018, as such following the goals and timeframe of the Rio+20 group and the energy expert group.

Combining all elements mentioned above, an implementation plan is devised consisting of all elements mentioned and taking into account the restrictions and key focusses set by OP management team. The proposed implementation scheme as a whole will resemble the following structure:

Figure 7: Implementation scheme – overview

- yellow rectangle: infrastructural initiatives- green rectangle: Personal/operational level initiatives- Blue lines: Command and communication lines- Red lines: Feedback and evaluation- Green lines: Accreditation

Following the structure mentioned above, the plan itself is designed as follows:

50

51

Start-up regular (m

onthly/weekly) board

sessions

Environmental - Electricity - Photovoltaïc

window

sm

ake Grätzel cell window

s standard building requirem

entdistribute logo &

mark

sustainability initiatives

present AISHE 2.0 HEI sustainability evaluation system

to boardRem

ove all standard non recycling binsPrepare specific m

essages

Provide adequate information signs

above binsSet-up social m

edia plan

Select single type of recycling binGeneral Aw

areness - debate com

petitionLaunch com

petition

Start feeding existing projectsSet-up com

post bins around campus

General Awareness -

Sustainability literacy testIm

plement test as standard

meassure 3rd year students

Establish current sustainability score

set up collection system for com

post bins

Develop & test feedback

platform

Start sending HEPS forms to

AISHE-boardim

plement and design profile

linksEvaluation of tool eff

ectivity in all fields

Start survey

Evaluate process analysisTest platf

orm on O

P staffcom

municate findings w

ith university and DCC

Evaluate GRI reporting toolEconom

ic - Speaker sessionsLaunch speaker sessions

Engage students for zero point requirem

ent studyEnvironm

ental - electricity - w

orkshopDesign w

orkshop program

secure fundingEnvironm

ental - waste -

certification programDesign certification rpogram

set-up grey water distribution system

plan

explore collaboration DCC

make grey w

ater system standard

building requirement

Set-up preliminary rew

ard netw

orkBuild m

ethane collection tanklink to high heat-requiring area'sexplore new

build/purchasing opportunitiesplan construction additional cam

pusdraft

qualification requirements

publicate minim

um housing

requirements

present group contract to student house ow

ners

set-up control organ for house owners

set up invoicing systemstart recruitm

ent of students into contractdesign building plan (com

bined with

OP ow

ned student housing?)Allocate budget for building

social - external - Corporate social start w

orkshop/coursesSet-up cooperation w

ith universityexplore labratory/w

orkspace requirem

ents

STARS - system im

plementation:

HEPS - tool

Environmental - w

aste - Zero waste to

landfill

Social - internal - Student Housing support

social - internal - Student Heating support

Year 2 (June 2016 - June 2017)

Environmental - w

ater - Waterless toilets

Social - external - Knowledge centre

Economic - Spin-off

Campus

Social - internal - Student housing quality survey

Environmental - transport - LTA project

Set-up research targets and goalsISO

/GRI - Accreditation

Environmental - w

ater - Grey Water

intakeEnvironm

ent - transport - voluntary behaviour change

StrategicInfrastructural

Personal/operational

AISHE board set-up:

General Awareness - Centralised

comm

unication plan

Set key focus points based on definition sustainability

Environmental - w

aste - Food waste

recycling

Environmental - transport - Carpooling

platform

:

Design online carpooling platform

Environmental - feedback

52

Environmental - Electricity - Photovoltaïc

window

sIm

plementation ongoing

Start comm

unication plan phase 1

continuous implem

entation

General Awareness - debate

competition

Implem

ented

General Awareness -

Sustainability literacy testIm

plement as general test

continue feeding projectsLaunch feedback platf

ormEstablish annual sustainability score

Collect and comm

unicate data gathered

Social - internal - Student housing continuous implem

entation

Economic - Speaker sessions

Implem

ented

Process Analysis basis for audit

Potentially opn to external subjects (all or not as a paying service)

Environmental - electricity -

workshop

Launch workshop and related

programs

GRI implem

entation complete

Environmental - w

aste - certification program

Launch certification program

Redevelop meassurem

ent annualy

Environment - transport -

voluntary behaviour changeLaunch program

secure fundingIm

plement grey w

ater distribution systemCom

municate findings

Hook water-using toilets to grey w

ater distribution gridPlan replacem

ent oldest toilets with

modern, w

aterless toiletsInitiate financial support programStart purchasing planCoordinat m

inimum

requirements

with university and DCC

Implem

entedperm

anent evaluationSocial - external - Know

ledge centreStart construction w

hen possiblesocial - external - Corporate social Responsibility certificate

Implem

entation complete

Economic - Spin-off

Campus

Plan integration into new cam

pus

Year 3 (June 2017 - June 2018)

General Awareness - Centralised

comm

unication plan

Implem

entation complete

Implem

entation complete

Implem

entation complete

Social - internal - Student Housing support

social - internal - Student Heating support

Implem

entation complete

Environmental - transport - LTA project

Implem

entation ongoing

Environmental - w

ater - Grey Water

intake

Environmental - w

ater - Waterless toilets

StrategicInfrastructural

Personal/operational

AISHE board set-up:Environm

ental - waste - Zero w

aste to landfill

STARS - system im

plementation:

Environmental - w

aste - Food waste

recyclingEnvironm

ental - feedback

HEPS - toolEnvironm

ental - transport - Carpooling platf

orm:

Open platf

orm tow

ards students

ISO/GRI - Accreditation

53

ConclusionAs stated in the introduction and the methodology chapter, the goal of the initiatives suggested in this paper was to achieve engagement in an as deep as possible meaning, by creating a cognitive consonance process in the stakeholders minds towards sustainability. The main problem identified towards that goal is the broadness of the concept of sustainability, the uncoordinated approach of OP towards sustainability goals at the moment and the general lack of executing the sustainability steps promoted by the institution.

In order to rectify the situation, an implementation plan playing on three levels is proposed. The strategic level acts as an evaluating and policy-making level in which all stakeholders are to be involved. The involvement is expected to lead to awareness and a form of ownership of the stakeholders. The strategic level is suggested to entail the implementation of a decision-making and evaluating board, checking and upgrading the sustainability initiatives throughout OP. This board can use the HEPS evaluation tool to keep a unified, standardised and easy evaluation for all initiatives and decisions taken across OP. The board is further suggested to utilize the STARS reporting system for academic credibility of the sustainability projects, and to attempt and obtain an ISO certification.

The infrastructural suggestions aimed at forcing all stakeholders to alter the behavioural aspect of attitudes, as well as showcasing OP’s commitment to sustainability. The infrastructural chapter was divided in 3 main topics, following the Brundtland definition of sustainability. As such, the chapter was divided between Ecological/environmental, social and economic initiatives. The ecological subchapter was further divided between four main topics to be paid attention to. The four topics were electricity, waste, water and transportation. The implementation of the initiatives suggested in this chapter should form a solid background and fertile ground for the creation of an active engagement strategy.

In the personal/operational unit level, the emphasis was put on altering either the affective or the cognitive component of attitudes, in order to let the subjects change their behaviour from the inside. All operational unit suggestions were based on, or linked to, the infrastructural chapter, which was in turn linked to the strategic chapter. In combination with ongoing infrastructural alterations, a clear policy and a structured communication campaign, the number of people accepting an ‘engaged’ stance should be significant.

54

References

1. Abdullah N., Ling Chin N., Mohktar M.N., Taip F.S.; effects of bulking agents, load size or starter cultures in kitchen waste composting; International Journal of Recycling of organic Waste in Agriculture volume 2 issue 3; 2013; Springer Link Media; UK

2. Abrahamse W., Keall M.; effectiveness of a web-based intervention to encourage carpooling to work: a case study of Wellington, New Zealand; Transport Policy volume 21; p.45-51; 2012; Elsevier press; Amsterdam; the Netherlands

3. Allport P. et al.; Barriers to group switching and mass market aggregation; Electricity Authority Retail Advisory Group New Zealand; 2014; Wellington; New Zealand

4. Anon.; Environmental Management System: Water Management Program; 2014; University of Queensland; Queensland; Australia

5. Anon.; Tuition fees guide 2015; [online]; 2015; University of Otago; available from <www.otago.ac.nz/study/fees/>; visited 13/04/2015

6. Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE); Stars general overview [online]; 2015; available on <https://stars.aashe.org/>; last visited 28/04/2015

7. Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE); STARS Technical Manual v. 2.0 – administrative update 2; AASHE; 2014; Denver; USA

8. Bornstein M.H. & Bradley R.H. (ed.); Socio-economic status, parenting and child development; 2012; Routledge; New York; USA

9. Boström M.; A missing pillar? Challenges in theorizing and practicing social sustainability: introduction to the special issue; Sustainability: Science, practice and policy, volume 8 issue 1, p.3-14; 2012; Proquest LLC; Bethesda; USA

10. Brandli L.L., Frandoloso M.A.L., Roorda N., et al.; evaluation of sustainability using the AISHE instrument: case study in a Brazilian university; Brazilian Journal of Science and Technology 1:4; 2014; Passo Fundo; Brazil

11. C2ES (Centre for Climate and Energy Solutions); anaerobic digesters [online]; 2012; Available from <http://www.c2es.org/technology/factsheet/anaerobic-digesters>; visited 29/04/2015

12. Clarke C.; 2015; Optimising Power @ Work; IEA Buildings, energy efficiency and behaviour workshop; held periodically March 2015; Office of Public Works, Dublin, Ireland.

13. Cooley A. et al.; Integrated campus recycling and waste management guide; California Collegiate Recycling Council; 2001; Davis; USA

14. Copernicus Alliance; Rio+20 treaty on higher education; Copernicus Alliance; 2012; Graz; Austria15. De Pelsmacker P., Geuens M., Van den Bergh J.; marketing communications: a European

perspective; 2013; Pearson Education; London; United Kingdom16. Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD); shaping the education of tomorrow:

2012 report on the UN decade of education for sustainable development – abridged; UNESCO; 2012; Paris; France

17. Djordjevic A.; Cotton D.R.E.; Communicating the sustainability message in Higher Education Institutions; International Journal of sustainability in Higher Education; 2011 volume 12 issue 4; p. 381-394; Emerald Publishing group; Ohio; USA

18. Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP); water use reduction [online]; 2015; available from: <www.energy.gov/eere/femp/federal-energy-management-program>; [31 march 2015]

19. Festinger L.; A theory on cognitive dissonance; 1962; Stanford University Press; Stanford; USA

55

20. Fisher R.M.; Applying ISO 14001 as a business tool for campus sustainability, a case study from New Zealand; International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education; 2003 volume 4 issue 2; Emerald Group Publishing; Ohio; USA

21. Franz-Balsen A., Heinrichs H.; Managing sustainability communication on campus: experiences from lunebürg; International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education volume 8 issue 4; 2007; Emerald Group Publishing; Ohio; USA

22. Froehlich J., Findlater L. and Landay J.; the design of eco-feedback technology; CHI 2010; 2010; Atlanta; USA

23. Global Reporting Initiative; An Introduction to G4: the next generation of sustainability reporting; Global reporting Initiative manuals; 2014; Amsterdam; Netherlands

24. Grant L.; A Comparison of the Structure and Regulation of the Private Rental Housing Market in New Zealand and several OECD countries; 2015; University of Otago – Campus Wellington; Wellington; New Zealand

25. Grätzel M. et al.; fabrication of thin film dye sensitized solar cells with solar to electric conversion efficiency of over 10%; Thin Solid Films volume 516 issue 14; p.4613-4619; 2008; Elsevier press; Amsterdam; the Netherlands

26. GULF; Best Practices in Campus Sustainability; ISCN-GULF reporting; 2014; Davos-Klosters; Switzerland

27. Helferty A., Clarke A.; Student-led campus climate change initiatives in Canada; International Journal of sustainability in Higher Education volume 10 issue 3; 2009; p.287-300; Emerald Publishing Group; Ohio; USA

28. Hong Kong Waste Reduction and Recycling; waste reduction and recycling [online]; 2015; available from <http://www.gov.hk/en/residents/environment/waste/wasteredrecyc.htm>; visited 11/05/2015

29. Howden-Chapman P. et al.; Tackling cold housing and fuel poverty issues in New Zealand: a review of policies, research, and health impacts; Energy policy; 2014, Volume 49 p. 134-142; Elsevier Press; Amsterdam; The Netherlands

30. IOK; vraag het aan de compostmeester (NL) [online]; 2015; available from <http://www.iok.be/product.aspx?id=725>; visited 1/05/2015

31. Janssens K.; Integrated communications [lecture]; 2014; UCLL; Leuven; Belgium32. Johnston A. et al.; HEPS: Origin and instruction; Forum for the Future; 2003; London; UK33. Johnston A.; Higher Education for Sustainable Development: final report of international action

project; OECD – Forum for the Future; 2007; London; UK34. Kagawa F.; Dissonance in students’ perceptions of sustainable development and sustainability,

implications for curriculum change; international Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education; 2007 volume 8; p.317-338; Emerald Group Publishing; Ohio; USA

35. KU Leuven R&D; creating a spin-off [online]; available from <http://lrd.kuleuven.be/en/spinoff/creation>; visited 20/04/2015

36. KU Leuven; Accommodation: Leuven [online]; 2015; KU Leuven; Available from <http://www.kuleuven.be/english/studentservices/accommodation>; visited 14/04/2015

37. Living Tomorrow Group; Living tomorrow 2020 [online]; 2015; Available from <http://livingtomorrow.com/nl/livingtomorrow/about/livingtomorrow2020>; visited 29/04/2015

38. London Environmental Network; Waste reduction and recycling [online]; 2015; available from <http://londonenvironment.net/waste-reduction-recycling/>; visited 11/05/2015

39. Melton J.E. & Hochsetler R.D.; Airships 101: rediscovering the potential of Lighter than Air (LTA); NASA Technical Records; 2012; Moffet Field; United States of America

56

40. Multibody advanced airship for transport (MaaT); MAAT: Multibody Advanced Airship for Transport: what’s MaaT about? [online]; 2015; available from <www.eumaat.info>; [visited 8/04/2015]

41. Muthumukaran S., Kanagaratnam B. and Sexton N.; Quantification of potable water savings by residential water conservation and reuse – a case study; 2011; Elsevier Publishing group; Amsterdam; the Netherlands

42. New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (NZMBIE); Building code regulations – house insulation: quick guide [online]; 2014; available from <http://www.dbh.govt.nz/quick-energy-guide>; Visited 17/04/2015

43. New Zealand Transportation Agency (NZTA); carpooling guidelines; New Zealand Government Issues; 2009; Wellington; New Zealand

44. Nutall N.; Greening Universities Toolkit: transforming universities into green and sustainable campuses; United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) – Tongji University; 2013; Shanghai; China

45. Nuttin J.; The illusion of attitude change: towards a response contagion theory of persuasion; Leuven University press; 1996; Leuven; Belgium

46. Otago Polytechnic; Our Pathway to Excellence: Otago Polytechnic annual report 2013; Otago Polytechnic; 2014; Dunedin; New Zealand

47. Otago Polytechnic; Our Pathway to Excellence: Otago Polytechnic annual report 2014; Otago Polytechnic; 2015; Dunedin; New Zealand

48. Peterson J.E.; Shunturov V.; Janda K.; Platt G.; Weinberger K.; Dormitory residents reduce electricity consumption when exposed to real-time visual feedback and incentives; International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education; 2007 volume 8; p.16-33; emerald group publishing; Ohio; USA

49. Pike L.; Shannon T.; et al.; a campus recycling case study showing the importance of opportunity; International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2003 volume 4 p. 218; emerald group publishing; Ohio; USA

50. Pollock N. et al.; Envisioning helps promote sustainability in academia: a case study at the university of Vermont; 2009; International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education; volume 10 issue 4; p.343-353; Emerald Group Publishing; Ohio; USA

51. Qian W.; Embracing the paradox in Educational Change for sustainable development: a case of accounting; 2013; Sage Publishing; Singapore; Singapore

52. Roorda N. et al. ; AISHE 2.0 manual; 2009; Free Publication53. Rusinko C.; Integrating sustainability in higher education: a generic matrix; International Journal

of sustainability in higher education; 2010 volume 11 issue 3; p.250-259; Emerald Group Publishing; Ohio; USA

54. The Airship Association (TAA); Overview of Airship Manufacturers [online]; 2014; Available from <http://www.airship-association.org/cms/node/18>; visited 29/04/2015

55. Tseng Y. F. et Al.; Exploring Corporate Social Responsibility education: the small and medium sized enterprise viewpoint; 2010; Management decision volume 48 issue 10; p. 1514-1528; Emerald Publishing Group; Ohio; USA

56. UN Diplomacy Competition New Zealand; The diplomacy competition [online]; 2015; available from <https://diplomacy.unyouth.org.nz/> ; visited 1/05/2015

57. UN ESA; Sanitation Country Profile Germany; 2002; Agenda 21; New York; USA58. University of Auckland; cost of living; [online]; 2015; University of Auckland; available from

<https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/for/current-students/cs-fees-and-money-matters/cs-cost-of-living.html>; visited 13/04/2015

57

59. Vanoutrive T. et al.; What determines carpooling to workplaces in Belgium: location, organisation or promotion?; Journal of Transport Geography volume 22; p. 77-86; 2012; Elsevier press; Amsterdam; the Netherlands

60. WCED; report of the world commission on environment and development: our common future; UN General Assembly - WCED; 1987; New York; USA

61. Whitehead J.; Climate change – economic challenges for New Zealand [lecture minutes]; 24/07/2007 Victoria University; Wellington; New Zealand

62. Wright T.S.A.; Definitions and frameworks for environmental sustainability in higher education; International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education volume 3 issue 2; p.203-220; 2002; Emerald Publishing Group; Ohio; USA

63. Yarime M.; Trencher G.; et al.; Establishing sustainability science in higher education institutions: towards an integration of academic development, institutionalization, and stakeholder collaborations; sustainability science; 2012 volume 7 issue 1; p.101-113; Springer Link Media; UK

64. Zhang N. ; Greening Academia: Developing Sustainable Waste Management at UK Higher Educational Institutions; University of Southampton Research Repository; 2011; Southampton; United Kingdom

65. Moen R. and Norman C.; Evolution of the PDCA-cycle; 2006; Associates in process Improvement; Detroit; USA

66. Jariyasunant, J. et Al.; The Quantified Traveler: Using personal travel data to promote sustainable transport behavior; 2011; University of California Transportation Centre; Berkeley; USA

67. World Economic Forum; academic, policy and research networks [online]; 2015; available from <http://www.weforum.org/academic-networks>; visited 12/05/2015

68. Richter J.; Friman M. and Gärling T; Soft Transport Policy Measures: gaps in knowledge; 2011; International Journal of sustainable transportation, volume 5 issue 4, p.199-215; Taylor and Francis ltd; Abingdon; UK

69. Brög W. et Al.; Evaluation of voluntary travel behavior change: Experiences from three continents; 2009; Transport Policy; volume 16 issue 6, p. 281-292; London; UK

70. Statistics New Zealand; Household Economic Survey (Income): Year Ended 2014; 2014; New Zealand Government Publication; Wellington; New Zealand

71. Hassanain, M.A.; on the performance evaluation of sustainable student housing facilities; 2008; Journal of facilities management; volume 6 issue 3; p.212-225; Emerald group Publishing; Bingley; UK