Sustainable Campus Group 2010 - Full Report

AUSTRALIAN CAMPUSES

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT

Sustainable Campus Group National Reporting Project 2010

Full Report

April 2011

2 Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

© Sustainable Campus Group 2011

Acknowledgements: The SCG reporting process 2010 was facilitated by Belinda Towns, Almut Beringer and Cameron Cope at the Monash Sustainability Institute. The report was drafted by Cameron Cope, with additional editing by Tahl Kestin, Stephen Derrick and Janet Stanley.

Published by the Monash Sustainability Institute (MSI) Monash University, VIC 3800 Australia T: +61 3 990 59323 E: [email protected] W: www.monash.edu/research/sustainability-institute

DISCLAIMER: Monash University disclaims all liability for any error, loss or consequence which may arise from relying on any information in this publication.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.monash.edu/research/sustainability-institute

Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment 3

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 4

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 7

2. The Sustainable Campus Group ......................................................................................................... 7

3. SCG National Reporting Project 2010 ................................................................................................. 8

3.1 Participating Institutions .................................................................................................................... 8

3.2 Reporting Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 8

4. Sustainability in the Australian Tertiary Education Sector ................................................................. 10

4.1 Data Quality ..................................................................................................................................... 10

4.2 Institutional Commitment ................................................................................................................ 11

4.3 Energy Use and GHG Emissions ....................................................................................................... 12

4.4 Transport .......................................................................................................................................... 15

4.5 Water ............................................................................................................................................... 16

4.6 Waste and Recycling ........................................................................................................................ 17

4.7 Buildings ........................................................................................................................................... 18

4.8 Green Purchasing ............................................................................................................................. 20

4.9 Information Technology (IT) ............................................................................................................ 21

4.10 Education for Sustainability (EfS) ..................................................................................................... 21

4.11 Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 22

5. Changes in the Sustainability of the Victorian Tertiary Education Sector ........................................... 24

References ........................................................................................................................................... 26

Appendix 1: Invitation letter................................................................................................................. 27

Appendix 2: Institution-Level Results .................................................................................................... 29

A2.1 Institution Statistics.......................................................................................................................... 29

A2.2 Institutional Commitment ................................................................................................................ 30

A2.3 Energy Use ....................................................................................................................................... 31

A2.4 GHG Emissions ................................................................................................................................. 32

A2.5 Water ............................................................................................................................................... 33

A2.6 Waste and Recycling ........................................................................................................................ 34

A2.7 Education for Sustainability ............................................................................................................. 35


Executive Summary

In March 2010, the Sustainable Campus Group (SCG) and the Monash Sustainability Institute (MSI), in cooperation with Australian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS Inc.), launched the first nation-wide assessment of sustainability in the higher/tertiary education sector in Australia. This report details the methodology and findings of the assessment.

The higher/tertiary education sector in Australia includes universities, which provide academic and professional degrees, TAFEs (Technical and Further Education institutions), which provide vocational education and training), and institutions that do both (“dual sector”). Twenty seven institutions took part in the SCG reporting project in 2010, comprising 7 universities, 15 TAFEs and 5 dual-sector institutions, representing all states and territories except Tasmania and the ACT. These institutions represent approximately 30% of total tertiary institutions in Australia.

The reporting project collected both quantitative and qualitative data from the participating institutions to assess their level of engagement in sustainability in the following areas: institutional commitment, energy use, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, transport use, water use, waste disposal and recycling, green purchasing, building sustainability, information technology (IT) services, and education for sustainability. Results were generally standardised by either floor area (using gross floor area, or GFA) or the total number of staff and students, to account for participants’ wide range of size.

Key findings Overall the picture gleaned from all the data submitted for 2009 is of a sector in early stages of engagement with sustainability on campus.

The following overall findings indicate good sector performance:

89% of institutions have an environmental policy, strategy or plan

70% of institutions have at least one full-time staff member employed in an environmental/sustainability improvement capacity

More than half of institutions have at least one environmental committee

60% of institutions have a target to reduce GHG emissions or to become carbon-neutral

Two institutions reported to have successfully made agreements with local council to improve transport services to and from the institution

47% of all A4 copy paper purchased comprised at least 50% recycled content

55% of all institutions had a green IT committee and 74% reported to have successful policies for default computer monitor energy saving and double sided printing

Improvement is particularly needed in:

Sustainability measurement (data collection)

Implementation of policy, strategy and plans

Holistic systems perspective of environmental management and reporting

Waste measurement

Water metering and water recycling systems

Green purchasing committees (only 2 of 27 member institutions reported to have a committee)

Formal and informal education for sustainability

Key Sectoral Comparisons:

Universities reported the highest average facilities energy use and emissions per capita and per gross floor area

TAFEs reported the highest average consumption of green energy consumption as a percentage of total energy use

On average universities reported consuming more than 2.4 times more water per capita than TAFEs and 3 times more than dual-sector institutions


Per gross floor area universities reported on average using a 24% more water than TAFEs and 35% more than dual-sector institutions

The TAFE sector reported the highest waste to landfill figures, being higher for both per capita and per gross floor area measures.

Data quality The measurement of sustainability – that is the data collection of selected metrics and indicators – is one of the foremost areas found to be in need of improvement across the sector. Data quality was highest for facilities energy use, automotive transport use, potable mains water use and total waste sent to landfill. Data quality was lowest for the individual components of waste to landfill and green purchasing.

Institutional commitment Some very positive signs of institutional commitment were shown by the sector, including:

89% of institutions have an environmental policy, strategy or plan

70% of institutions have at least one full-time staff member employed in an environmental/sustainability improvement capacity

more than half of institutions have at least one environmental committee

60% of institutions have a target to reduce GHG emissions or to become carbon-neutral

The sector reported having many policies, strategies and plans in various environmental areas, although evidence of their implementation appears to be lacking at this stage. This was evidenced by poor data collection for monitoring, lack of contractual obligations to achieve environmental targets, low levels of staffing and low performance in areas such as green energy, recycling and purchasing.

Energy and GHG Emissions In total the sector reported consuming a total of 3,744,796 gigajoules of energy in 2009. Combining all GHG emission sources across all three scopes it was calculated that the sector emitted a total 891,188 tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent. Emissions were dominated by facilities (meaning physical structures) energy use (88%) and energy use was dominated by electricity (60%). On average universities reported the highest facilities energy use and emissions per capita and per gross floor area. TAFEs reported the highest percentage of green energy use of total energy use.

Transport Across the sector a low to medium level of engagement with methods for monitoring and improving sustainable transport options to campus was reported, with 25%–40% of the institutions reporting travel mode surveys, alternative transport awareness campaigns, sustainability transport committees, strategies to reduce staff air travel, or discussions with local government to expand public transport services. Almost half provided cycling support systems. The average number of staff employed in sustainable transport was 0.4 FTE for the sector in total.

Water The sector reported consuming 3,114,612kL of water across all sources, 87% of which came from potable mains supply, almost 7% from recycled sources and 6% from ground (bore) water. A lack of water metering for non-mains water sources and a lack of recycled water systems was also reported. On average, universities reported twice as much water use per capita than TAFEs and dual-sector institutions.

Waste and Recycling Overall the sector reported sending 28,670 tonnes of waste to landfill. Of all waste and recycling produced 16.3% was reported to be recycled. The TAFE sector reported the highest waste to landfill figures per capita and per gross floor area. These figures appear to align with their lower reported figures on waste audits and contractual agreements with waste service providers.


Buildings The responses to this section suggested that the sector was at a minimal level of engagement with building sustainability. The highest sector performance was for ‘personnel appointed with environmental management responsibilities’ where the sector reported ‘often’ having personnel. The sector performed lowest on choosing materials based on ecologically sustainable development (ESD) principles and whether facilities management used performance-based rating systems for existing buildings.

Green Purchasing Only two of the institutions reported having green purchasing committees, an apparent indication that this is an evolving area for the sector. A4 copy paper purchasing has been the focus of some attention with 11 institutions reporting having targets to increase purchases of 100% recycled content variety. This is supported by the figure that 47% of all A4 copy paper purchased was of at least 50% recycled content. Figures were much lower and less well reported for purchasing of recycled toilet paper, recycled paper towels, fair trade tea and coffee, and recycled toner cartridges.

Information Technology Sustainability in IT services was one of the better performance areas for the sector. The performance of operations roughly matched or was even better than policy and strategy levels reported. Fifteen institutions reported having a green IT committee and 20 reported having a policy to set energy-saving modes as default on computer equipment. Eighteen institutions also had a policy of setting computers and printers to print double-sided as a default setting. Levels of videoconferencing use were also very high.

Education for Sustainability In 2009 much of the sector was in its infancy with respect to engaging with education for sustainability. Encouragingly, there were five institutions that are leading the way by requiring all students to pass a sustainability-related subject in order to graduate. The sector performed best in providing sustainability-related opportunities for staff development and immersive activities for students. The area of providing sustainability in student and staff orientation was the most neglected.


1. Introduction

In March 2010, the Sustainable Campus Group (SCG) and Monash Sustainability Institute (MSI), in cooperation with Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS Inc.), launched the first nation-wide assessment of sustainability in the higher/tertiary education1 sector in Australia. This inaugural national sustainability assessment and reporting project has grown from a state-level program that SCG has conducted in Victoria since 2006. This report details the methodology and findings of the assessment, and places the results in a national context.

Section 2 gives a brief introduction to the SCG and its campuses sustainability reporting project, including the methodology for data collection. Section 3 reports on the findings of the project, and is divided into the categories of institutional commitment, energy, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, water, waste and recycling, green purchasing, information technology (IT) and Education for Sustainability (EfS).

Finally, Section 4 examines progress in environmental sustainability in tertiary education in the state of Victoria from 2008 to 2009.

2. The Sustainable Campus Group

The Sustainable Campus Group (SCG) was established in the state of Victoria in 2006 as a university-government-private partnership between MSI, Monash University, the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE), Sustainability Victoria (SV) and Maunsell Consulting (now AECOM).

SCG was established as a membership organisation with the purpose of capacity-building through professional networking, knowledge transfer and exchange opportunities and sector benchmarking. SCG takes a collaborative, multi-stakeholder approach to capacity-building, seeking to empower its members for institutional and wider cultural change toward sustainability (see Box 1).

Box 1: SCG Objectives and Approach

Objectives

benchmarking environmental sustainability performance

public reporting

professional networking

encouraging ‘green’ campus best practice

Approach

• collaborative – catalysing institutional and cultural change toward sustainability • empowerment – providing environment-related staff with the tools and professional network to

effectively analyse and improve sustainability performance • multi-stakeholder – tertiary/higher education institutions, government, private sector • holistic – operations, academe, quantitative and qualitative

SCG’s main annual activity is the sustainability reporting project. The resulting Sector Reports make the environmental sustainability performance of participating member institutions publicly available and accessible. Sharing this information creates a constructive climate for positive change in tertiary education. It showcases best practice among leading institutions and stimulates improved effort among peer

1 Henceforth ‘tertiary education sector’; this includes universities, TAFEs (Technical and Further Education institutions, which

provide vocational education and training) and institutions that are both university and TAFE.


institutions. It is recognized that institutional peer pressure can be a catalyst for senior management to commit to sustainability. SCG has published two Sustainability Assessment Reports for the Victorian tertiary education sector since 2006 (Sustainable Campus Group 2008 and 2006).

Based on the success of the activities of the Victorian group, SCG membership was extended nationally in early 2010. All university Vice–Chancellors and TAFE Directors were invited to join SCG and to participate in the first nationwide assessment of environmental sustainability performance of the sector (see letter of invitation in Appendix 1), and 28 become members, with 27 participating in the reporting process.

3. SCG National Reporting Project 2010

The inaugural national reporting project took place during 2010 and assessed data on participants’ sustainability performance in 2009. This section describes the participating institutions and the reporting methodology that was used to collect and analyse the data.

3.1 Participating Institutions The 27 SCG members that reported in 2010 are listed in Table 1. They included 7 universities, 15 TAFEs and 5 institutions that are both (referred to as “dual sector” from here on), based in all states and territories except the ACT and Tasmania. They represented a total of 198 campuses and 551,088 people (staff and students). This is approximately 30% of total tertiary education institutions in Australia. Representation is strongest in Victoria, because SCG started off as a Victorian initiative.

Table 1: SCG reporting members in 2010 by state.

Name Type Name Type

Australia-wide VIC

Australian Catholic University University Deakin University University

NSW La Trobe University University

Hunter Institute TAFE Monash University University

Illawarra Institute TAFE University of Melbourne University

New England Institute TAFE Chisholm Institute TAFE

North Coast Institute TAFE Gordon Institute TAFE

Northern Sydney Institute TAFE Goulburn Ovens Institute TAFE

South Western Sydney Institute TAFE Kangan Institute TAFE

Sydney Institute TAFE Sunraysia Institute TAFE

Western Sydney Institute TAFE RMIT University Dual sector

NT Swinburne University of Technology Dual sector

Charles Darwin University Dual sector University of Ballarat Dual sector

SA Victoria University Dual sector

University of Adelaide University WA

QLD Edith Cowan University University

Brisbane North Institute TAFE

Sunshine Coast Institute TAFE

3.2 Reporting Methodology SCG provides its member institutions with the SCG Workbook, a data management and reporting instrument. The Workbook is a multi-purpose tool: in addition to facilitating sector reporting it also empowers members by providing them with a system for data management and a resource for institution-level reporting.


The Workbook was first developed in 2006 in consultation with DSE, SV and Maunsell Consulting. It has since been revised and greatly expanded through further consultation with experts and member institutions. To avoid duplication of data collection for members, the SCG Workbook reporting tool is aligned where possible with existing Australian regulations and standards , such as National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) framework and other reporting instruments, for example Tertiary Education Facilities Management Association’s (TEFMA) Benchmarking survey.

The Workbook is a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that provides opportunity to capture and analyse data on governance, operations and EfS. Different modules within the Workbook cover sustainability performance in the areas of energy, GHG emissions, water, waste and recycling, buildings, purchasing, IT, institutional commitment and EfS.

The modules collected both quantitative and qualitative data on different aspects of sustainability. All qualitative sections contained questions on systems to support sustainability (such as policies, strategies, plans, committees and staff) and on sustainability targets.

The Workbook contains summary worksheets that automatically populate tables and charts. These are designed to assist member institutions in tracking their own performance and for use in institution-level reporting. These charts allow members to analyse their own performance across campuses as well as across time (if data for multiple years are entered).

Member institutions were given 6–8 weeks (during June–July 2010) to complete as much of the Workbook as they could with their 2009 data before returning a copy to SCG for use in the Sector Report. As the Sector Report is a self-reporting initiative, SCG did not verify or audit the data submitted in the SCG Workbooks. Data was accepted as provided, except in cases where it appeared obviously incorrect. In such cases SCG liaised with the members to correct the data.

The data provided by the participants was analysed on a total institution basis (that is, the total of all campuses). To allow comparisons between institutions of very different sizes, most of the results reported here were first standardised either by each institution’s total staff and students (per capita of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff and equivalent full-time student loads (EFTSL)) or by its building gross floor area (GFA) (in square metres). The FTE, EFTSL and GFA reported by each institution are listed in Appendix 2.

The data was also analysed by sub-sector (TAFE, university or dual sector) so each institution can compare itself against others of the same kind. Comparisons by state were avoided due to the uneven representation of different institution types by state (for example, no universities from New South Wales or Queensland participated in the assessment). Analysis of the statistical significance of our sample group of institutions lay outside the scope of the assessment.

All members were given the opportunity to review the draft findings of this report before publication.


4. Sustainability in the Australian Tertiary Education Sector

This section reports on and discusses the sector averages of the 2009 data provided by the 27 SCG member institutions that participated in the 2010 national assessment. Some institutional-level data is provided in Appendix 2. The findings are organized by module, with an initial discussion of data quality and conclusions at the end of this section.

Results are a snapshot of measuring and reporting at each institution and do not necessarily reveal the full picture of sustainability work and management at any given institution. The approach of this report is not to ‘name and shame’ but rather to create a collaborative environment for engaging the tertiary education sector in measuring, monitoring and reducing its collective environmental footprint and improving its sustainability performance.

4.1 Data Quality The completeness of the data reported by the participating institution varied greatly, from just a few modules being reported (typically energy and water data) to an almost complete workbook. Table 2, which shows the number of institutions who could provide data for selected questions, gives a general indication of the sector-wide robustness of the data provided for each module.

Table 2: Ranked data completeness for selected sections of the workbook.

Module Section Total number of institutions who provided data (of 27)

Energy use & GHG emissions Facilities energy use and GHG emissions 27

Energy use & GHG emissions Automotive transport energy use and GHG emissions 26

Water Amount of potable (mains) water used 25

Waste & Recycling Total waste to landfill 24

Waste & Recycling Total waste recycled 24

Waste & Recycling Uncategorised general waste to landfill 22

Green purchasing A4 copy paper purchasing 22

Energy use & GHG emissions Air travel GHG emissions 18

Green purchasing Toilet paper purchasing 15

Green purchasing Paper towel purchasing 15

Water Water recycled/saved 12

Green purchasing Tea & coffee purchasing 10

Green purchasing Toner cartridge purchasing 9

Energy use & GHG emissions GHG emissions from waste & recyclables to landfill 6

Water Licensed ground (bore) water extracted 4

Waste & Recycling Co-mingled to landfill 3

Waste & Recycling Medical waste to landfill 3

Waste & Recycling Concrete to landfill 3

Waste & Recycling Paper & paper board to landfill 1

Waste & Recycling Food/garden (compost) to landfill 1

Waste & Recycling Garden (mulch) to landfill 1

Waste & Recycling eWaste to landfill 1

Waste & Recycling Hazardous waste to landfill 1

Waste & Recycling Re-usables to landfill 0

Waste & Recycling Metal to landfill 0

Waste & Recycling Wood/straw to landfill 0

Water Licensed surface (river/stream) water collected 0


The analysis shows that we have almost complete data on facilities and automotive transport energy use, as well as on water use, and can speak with a fair degree of confidence about the results in these sections. In contrast, little data was provided on the components of waste & recycling sent to landfill, so little can be concluded about sector performance in this area.

4.2 Institutional Commitment Many indicators can be used to track institutional commitment to sustainability. This report used the following indicators: the total number of staff (in FTE) employed in environment or sustainability roles; whether the institution uses an environmental management system (EMS); and the number of environmental committees, their make-up, the highest level of management representation and their placement within the governance structure of the institution. While institutional commitment to sustainability does not guarantee good environmental performance, it is an important step institutions need to take on the road to improving sustainability.

Overall, 89% of institutions reported having an environmental policy, strategy or plan; 70% reported at least one full-time staff member employed in an environmental/sustainability improvement capacity; more than half reported having at least one environmental committee; and 60% reported having a target to reduce GHG emissions or to become carbon-neutral.

Looking more specifically at the number of staff employed environment/sustainability improvement roles, Figure 1a shows that on average the sector reported 5.3 FTE. Dual-sector institutions reported the largest number of staff, followed by universities, with TAFEs reporting a much smaller number of staff.

Figure 1: Summary of institutional commitment indicators: (a) the total number of staff employed in environmental/sustainability improvement roles and (b) the total number of environmental committees reported by the institution.

A different pattern is evident in the number of environment committees held by each institution (Figure 1b). On average universities (5.7 committees) had several times more environmental committees than the TAFEs (1.6) and dual-sector institutions (0.6). On average, institutions have 2.6 environmental committees. Of the ten institutions that provided the highest position held by any environment committee member, four reported the highest possible rank of their institution – Vice Chancellor for La Trobe University and Monash University, Chief Operating Officer for Deakin University, and Director for Western Sydney Institute. A total of 22% of institutions have an EMS, with a higher percentage for universities (29%) than for TAFEs and dual-sector institutions (both 20%). These results suggest that across the sector there are encouraging signs of institutional commitment to sustainability.


4.3 Energy Use and GHG Emissions Facility energy use in higher education institutions is perhaps the area that receives the most environmental management focus. This focus is due to the large associated GHG emissions and economic costs, as well as to that some institutions already have, or may have in the future, a legal obligation to report energy or emissions (for example, some of the larger institutions already have to report under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act). The focus is reflected by both the comprehensiveness of the data reported by the participants and by the large number of policies and targets they held in relation to this area, such as 60% of the institutions reporting having a target to reduce GHG emissions or to become carbon-neutral.

Participants reported a total facilities energy use of 3,744,796 GJ for 2009. This total included all sources of stationary energy generation, including grid electricity, purchased green electricity, on-site renewable generation, natural gas and diesel oil. Electricity accounted for 60% of all energy use.

Figure2 and 3 show the sector averages of energy and electricity use, respectively, per person and per floor area. In per capita terms, universities reported much higher energy and electricity use relative to TAFEs and dual-sector institutions. However dual-sector institutions catch up to universities when energy and electricity use are looked at per floor area. For both indicators, TAFEs have the lowest energy and electricity use, which is likely to reflect the more energy-intensive research facilities and laboratories in universities and dual-sector institutions.

Figure 2: Total facilities energy use (electricity, gas and diesel oil consumed in facilities).


Figure 3: Facilities electricity use (includes all grid electricity, green power and onsite renewable generation).

Based on the facilities energy use data reported by the participants, as well as their transport fuel use, air travel, and waste data, we calculated that the sector released a total of 891,188 tonnes of GHG emissions (in CO2-e) in 2009. The calculation used the emission and conversion factors published by the Australian Government Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency in the National Greenhouse Account (NGA) Factors2. The calculation included all scopes. Only 3.4% of all emissions in 2009 were offset.

Figure 4 shows facilities contributed the largest percentage of the overall GHG emissions for the sector. Air travel was the second largest source and automotive transport third. The contribution from organic waste sent to landfill appears negligible in the analysis (0.6%).

Figure 4: Breakdown of GHG emissions by source.

2 See www.climatechange.gov.au/publications/greenhouse-acctg/national-greenhouse-factors.aspx

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/publications/greenhouse-acctg/national-greenhouse-factors.aspx


However, data quality must be taken into account when interpreting this breakdown. In particular, the (minimum) data needed for calculating waste emissions – the amount of different types of organic material sent to landfill – was so poorly reported (see Table 2) that waste emissions are considerably under-estimated. The data completeness for air travel and automotive transport was reasonable but incomplete nevertheless, so these emissions are also under-reported. Facilities energy data were the most fully reported.

Figure 5 shows sub-sector averages for GHG emissions from facilities per capita and per floor area. As energy use from facilities was responsible for 88% of the GHG emissions reported in this assessment, it is not surprising that the relative magnitudes of the average emissions of each sub-sector is similar to those of energy use (Figure 2) – in particular the high emissions of universities relative to TAFEs.

Figure 5: Average GHG emissions per capita and per floor area.

Figure 6 shows the average sub-sector air travel and automotive GHG emissions per staff member. With this measure, air travel emissions for universities were around 26 times greater than for TAFEs and more than 50% greater than those of dual-sector institutions. It should be noted, however, that almost half the TAFEs did not provide data for air travel. TAFEs had higher average emissions from vehicle use, which includes both institution-owned vehicles and novated leases, compared with universities and dual-sector institutions.


Figure 6: Average sub-sector emissions for air travel and automotive transport (institution-owned vehicles and novated leases) per staff member.

4.4 Transport The transport sustainability covered staff and student commute to campus and staff travel on institution business or with fleet vehicles. On average the members employed 0.35 FTE staff to look after sustainable transport, although this figure varied considerably, with universities employing 0.81 FTE on average, TAFEs 0.17 FTE and dual-sector institutions 0.32 FTE.

As can be seen in Figure 7, the members show a low to medium level of engagement in monitoring and improving the sustainability of staff and student commute to campus. This level of engagement might reflect the variety of campus locations and the existing public transport services and alternative transport infrastructure (such as cycling lanes) around the campuses – as well as the lack of direct control over these services (which are generally the responsibility of local or state governments). Interestingly, seven institutions explored options with local government to expand public transport services. Of those, two reported that changes had been made successfully while another is still in discussions.


Figure 7: Number of institutions taking actions to improve aspects of sustainable transport.

Action on sustainable transport in staff travel was more difficult to assess because of the variety systems held by institutions for providing staff with vehicles (for example, novated lease versus institution-owned vehicles). Eight institutions had a strategy to reduce staff air travel, although only two reported a reduction target.

4.5 Water The tertiary education sector is a high-volume water user. Despite this, and the fact that 63% of institutions have a water use reduction target and most were under some form of water restriction, Figure 8 shows that the members continued to meet their needs for water from conventional supply sources. Of the total water consumption by all participants of 3,114,612 kL, 87% was potable water from reticulated mains supply.

Figure 8: Reported breakdown of total water use by the members by sources of water.


Alternative sources, such as recycled grey, black and rain water, bore water and surface water (stream/river) water constituted small shares of water supply in the overall mix of possible sources of water. These figures stand in contrast with the 17 institutions who reported to have set themselves water reduction targets, but are consistent with the low number of institutions that reported implementing grey and black water recycling systems on campus (6 and 1 institutions respectively). However, 21 did report collecting rain water, so it appears that lack of metering of non-mains water use may be have contributed to the relatively low reported use of alternative water sources.

As shown in Figure 9, the university sub-sector reported the highest level of mains water usage both per capita and per GFA. It is possible that universities have higher water use requirements because of agricultural, manufacturing or research requirements that are not specified in this report.

Figure 9: Average of mains water purchased per capita (staff + students) and per GFA.

4.6 Waste and Recycling Waste represents a large part of the sector’s environmental impacts. The waste and recycling module asked the institutions for data on the amount and composition of waste they sent to landfill and the amount of waste recycled or composted. It also asked them about the institutional support systems for waste reduction and recycling, such as waste audits, waste reduction campaigns, and prevalence of recycling stations.

Due to poor data quality, analysis of waste and recycling is limited. The different components of recycling & waste to landfill were mostly not reported. The data for waste to landfill totals was the strongest reported for all of the waste & recycling module of the Workbook.

Overall the members reported sending over 28,000 tonnes of waste to landfill. This figure represents 84% of total waste, with the remaining 16% of waste being recycled. However, given the poor data quality in this area the percent of waste recycled is likely to be significantly different in reality, although it is impossible to say whether the true figure is larger or smaller.

Figure 10 shows the sub-sector averages of total waste to landfill both per capita and per floor area. With both indicators the TAFE sub-sector reported much higher amounts of waste sent to landfill than the other two sub-sectors. The TAFE sub-sector’s relatively high waste disposal figures appear to correlate with the sub-sector’s slightly weaker scores on institutional support systems. Only three TAFEs held contracts requiring their waste service providers to provide data on waste, compared with six universities and two


dual-sector institutions. Only one TAFE reported conducting a waste audit in 2009 compared with seven universities and one dual-sector institution.

However institutional support for waste and recycling as reported by the members was low. On average only 0.4 FTE was employed in waste reduction efforts. Only 12 of the 27 participants reported they have a committee responsible for monitoring and improving waste and recycling, only 9 had a target for reducing waste to landfill, and only 6 reported that they are be planning to become plastic bag-free (although only one of those reported a target year).

Figure 10: Average of total waste to landfill per capita (staff + students) and per GFA.

Waste should be a key focus area in future for institutions, and SCG plans to review reporting in this area for future reporting rounds to overcome problems with different methods of measuring waste (weight and volume) and with grouping recyclable waste streams together into a total figure.

4.7 Buildings The qualitative buildings module was developed as a rating tool and holistic measure of how sustainability has been incorporated into building planning, design and management. Overall, however, building sustainability presented the participants with a particular challenge for reporting and assessment.

The quantitative component asked for information on the gross floor area that is accredited or self-assessed as sustainable. However the responses to this section were so incomplete that the results have been excluded from the report.

The institutions did somewhat better in responding to the qualitative component of building sustainability. This section asked the institutions to rank how often they take sustainability into account in four key areas of building planning, design and management: strategic planning, project procurement, facilities management and leadership (Table 3). Fourteen institutions completed to this section, and their responses are summarised in Figure 11.


Figure 11: Average responses to whether institutions consider sustainability in elements of building planning, design and management. A fuller description of each element is provided in Table 3.

Table 3: Building sustainability elements.

Strategic Planning

Biodiversity: Identification and preservation of existing areas and or requirements for establishment of new areas for the preservation of the natural environment

Sustainable Transport: Identification of linkages to and the enhancement of public transport along with provision for walking and cycling including associated amenities

Community engagement: Identification and active engagement with key stakeholders and internal and external community representatives throughout the planning of developments

Brownfield sites & redevelopments: Formal consideration of alternative site development options at a project’s feasibility stage

Project Procurement

Environmental targets: Identification of environmental targets, measures and tools at the outset

Team structure and composition: Was the consultant team employed with ESD as key selection criteria and is an independent ESD consultant engaged throughout the procurement process?

Contractor selection: Were contractors engaged because of their environmental performance and ability to establish site environmental management plans?

Commissioning and post-occupancy review: Was environmental performance included in the commissioning process and included in post occupancy reviews?

Facilities Management

Life-cycle assessments: Were products, goods, materials, equipment and systems chosen because of their life cycle and ESD performance?

Metering and standards: Were there meters and systems in place for recording and monitoring, and are these used for reporting on utilities (water, waste and energy) consumption?

Staff resources: Were there personnel appointed with specific accountabilities for environmental management and performance?

Leadership

Reporting and accountabilities: Were reporting structures and institutional committees conducive to embedding environmental sustainability at all levels of facilities planning and management, including within the institutional boards, at peak building committees, environmental committees, stakeholder groups and includes peer review?

Skills, training and culture: Was training in ESD provided and encouraged and are work practices conducive to achieving best practice in environmentally sustainable design and facilities management?


Figure 11 suggests that sustainability of buildings and building processes on campuses is a particularly complex and difficult area. On average institutions considered sustainability only ‘sometimes’ for most areas of building planning, design and management. In no area was the average response ‘mostly’ or ‘always.’

The highest average response was for staff resources, indicating that institutions often appointed personnel with environmental management responsibilities as part of their facilities management teams. The members as a whole reported an average of 0.87 FTE employed in environmental aspects of buildings management, operation and design. The dual sector had the highest average with 2.13 FTE employed in this area, whereas universities (0.6 FTE) and TAFEs (0.51 FTE) reported similar levels. In addition, 15 institutions reported that ecologically sustainable development (ESD) is included in the terms of reference of at least one building/grounds planning committee, task force or working group, or a strategy or policy.

The lowest average response was for the use of performance-based rating standards that assess the sustainability of buildings – such as the National Australian Built Environment Rating System (NABERS). The low score may reflect the lack of universal rating standards for building sustainability, and the expense involved in carrying out assessments for the several schemes that exist.

4.8 Green Purchasing Purchasing is an area of potential for the tertiary education sector not only to reduce its environmental impact, but also to support environmentally sound suppliers and supply management.

In addition to qualitative questions on green purchasing policies and committees, the green purchasing module sought to gather quantitative data on purchasing of a selection of indicative products, including recycled paper, recycled toner cartridges and fair trade tea and coffee. Of these, most participants (22) reported data on A4 copy paper purchasing, and over half (15) reported data on toilet paper and paper towel purchasing. Only about a third reported data on toner cartridge and tea and coffee purchasing, so these sections have been omitted from this report.

As Figure 12 shows, almost half of all A4 copy paper purchased contained at least 50% recycled content, a much higher proportion than for toilet paper and paper towel purchasing. A4 copy paper purchasing has been the focus of some attention, with 11 institutions reporting to have targets to increase purchases of 100% recycled content variety.

Figure 12: Sector-wide average for content of paper purchasing.


The lack of data and generally poor green purchasing results reported here may not be surprising as only two of the twenty seven participating institutions reported that they have green purchasing committees. This is perhaps the clearest indication that this is an area at the ‘leading edge’ for the sector. The tertiary education sector is a large consumer of resources and could have a positive impact on the environment and send strong market signals to suppliers if green purchasing policies were formulated and successfully implemented.

4.9 Information Technology (IT) The IT module sought to gather data on two areas of intersection between IT and sustainability: (1) reduction in the considerable energy use of IT equipment in offices, computer labs and data centres; and (2) reduction in the need for travel and commuting through remote access and video conferencing. The module collected only qualitative data, with a reasonable response rate.

Sustainability in IT services was one of the better performance areas for the members. Of the 27 participants, 15 reported having committees, task forces or working groups for monitoring and improving the sustainability of IT practices, with an average of 0.59 staff FTE employed for this purpose. In addition, 20 participants reported that their IT services set computers to a default energy saving mode, and 18 reported that computers were set by default to print double-sided.

IT was also being used to reduce the need for staff business travel, with 24 of the participants reporting use video conferencing use in 2009.

4.10 Education for Sustainability (EfS) In some ways the largest single impact the Australian tertiary education sector has with respect to sustainability is on the learning of the hundreds of thousands of students and staff who study, live and work on tertiary education campuses. These students will influence and shape the country’s future across all sectors. Tertiary education institutions that recognise a responsibility to provide EfS for students and staff, through formal and informal avenues, create great potential for positive future outcomes in students’ professional and personal lives.

In 2010, the SCG reporting project expanded to include EfS with the goal of helping the sector move towards meeting that potential. The EfS module contained only qualitative questions. Figure 13 summarises the responses to some of the key questions.

Overall, the members did not perform well against the set of EfS questions asked. While 30% of the members reported that they explicitly stated sustainability learning as part of graduate attributes, only 19% required their students to pass a sustainability-related subject as a requirement of graduation. Only 7% provided environmental/sustainability elements in student orientation. However, almost half the members offered sustainability-related immersive activities, such as internships, work placements and field trips, and just over half had a web page listing all sustainability-related courses, subjects and activities.

The members performed better in relation to staff-related EfS activities. Fifty two percent reported provided opportunities for staff professional development in areas of environment, sustainability and EfS, and 30% included sustainability elements in staff orientation.

These results suggest that in 2009 much of the sector was in its infancy with respect to engaging with EfS. Clearly, much work is needed before EfS is systematically realized in each institution, and in the sector overall.


Figure 13: Percentage of institutions incorporating EfS into different types of institutional activities.

4.11 Discussion The 2010 national reporting project has provided insights into the state of sustainability on Australian university and TAFE campuses. Operational sustainability, in particular with respect to facilities and energy management, continues to be more progressed than Education for Sustainability. While interpreting the national data is challenging as neither comparisons to previous years nor to other societal sectors are possible, some limited comparisons have been made at p24 in this report. Our data suggest that the Australian tertiary education sector has untapped opportunities. In particular, there are important opportunities in the areas of green energy, GHG emissions offsets and water management. Further progress in these areas can contribute to the Tertiary sector realising its potential in leading the societal transformation toward sustainable futures. Future assessments will provide comparisons to this 2010 benchmarking project and will thus improve tracking of progress in the sector.

Analysis of the quality of data SCG members submitted for reporting is perhaps the most revealing gauge of where Australia is at with sustainability management on tertiary education campuses. Overall, the quality and scope of data reported was mixed. In most cases, this reflected each institution’s history of environmental sustainability reporting and staff capacity for sustainability improvement. Some institutions are at very early stages in sustainability management, collecting only data required under federal or state legislation. Other institutions have established Offices of Environmental Sustainability with dedicated staff to monitor and improve sustainability performance.

An aspect of SCG’s ‘empowerment’ mission is to illustrate to member institutions what types of data can and should be monitored under a campus sustainability reporting scheme, and what types of actions can be taken to improve institutional sustainability. This report highlights that collecting those data is crucial to setting goals and to monitoring and improving sustainability performance. Poor data collection also demonstrates the current lack of (and thus a need for) reliable systems that aid in data collection and management of campus sustainability.

The results in this report also show that while most institutions scored well in terms of policy, strategies and plans, in many cases they still have some way to go towards translating these into improved performance of actual operations. For instance, although 60% of the participants reported having a target


to reduce GHG emissions, only 22% conducted energy audits, only 0.7 FTE staff was employed on average to reduce energy use, and green energy made up only 4.8% of overall energy use. Similarly, although 63% of institutions had a water use reduction target in 2009, the members reported using very little recycled water and to have installed few grey and black water recycling systems. This discrepancy could be a reflection of a sector still very much in a planning phase, just beginning to grapple with the practical challenge of sustainable institutional change. It could also be an indication that converting intent and ‘goodwill’ into effective implementation of policy, strategies and plans is a key area in need of improvement for the sector.


5. Changes in the Sustainability of the Victorian Tertiary Education Sector

SCG started as a Victorian organisation and undertook a sustainability reporting project with Victorian tertiary education institutions for 2008. Twelve of the 27 institutions that participated in the 2009 assessment also participated in the 2008 assessment, giving us the opportunity to examine changes in key areas of the Victorian sector over time. These institutions include all Victorian institutions listed in Table 1, except La Trobe University and Swinburne University who did not participate in the 2008 assessment, as well as the Victorian campuses of the Australian Catholic University. In total the comparison included three universities, five TAFEs and four dual-sector institutions.

Table 4 summarises these institutions’ average changes from 2008 to 2009 for selected areas of sustainability. The table shows that although the members overall has improved in a number of areas, overall the progress has been mixed.

Table 4: Average changes in the values of selected areas of sustainability in Victorian institutions from 2008 to 2009.

Indicator Value in 2008 Value in 2009 Change

Institutional Commitment

Staff in environmental improvement roles (FTE) 2.0 4.1 +106%

Percentage of institutions that ran cultural change/green office programs 50% 31% −38%

Number of institutions with an EMS 4 1 −75%

Energy and GHG Emissions

Total energy use (GJ) 2,169,676 2,193,838 +1%

Percentage green energy of total energy use 5.6% 7.1% +27%

Total GHG emissions (t CO2-e) 540,000 525,650 −3%

Facilities GHG emissions per capita (t CO2-e/(staff + students)) 1.5 1.4 −7%

Automotive emissions (institution owned) per capita (t CO2-e/staff) 0.53 0.50 −5%

Water

Mains water purchased per capita (kL/(staff + students)) 5.1 4.8 −6%

Waste

Waste to landfill per capita (kg/(staff + students)) 56 53 −5%

Percentage of waste diverted from landfill 20% 24% +16%

Changes in institutional commitment to sustainability in Victorian institutions from 2008 to 2009 indicated both progress and regression in this area. While the average number of staff employed in environment improvement roles increased, there was a drop in the number of institutions running cultural change programs, such as green office programs. In addition there was a relatively big drop in the number of institutions reporting the use of an EMS.

There was also mixed progress in reducing energy use and GHG emissions. Overall the Victorian institutions reported a slight increase in total energy use, however total emissions decreased slightly. Emissions per capita from facilities and automotive transport also decreased. There was an overall increase in the percentage of green energy being used by the institutions, although this increase was primary due to significant increases in just four of the institutions.

Overall, the Victorian institutions appeared to be making progress in reducing both water use and waste to landfill.

Our assessment of changes in sustainability in tertiary education institutions in Victoria from 2008 to 2009 suggests that there is continuing investment in campus sustainability. However progress across operations


does not appear consistent or comprehensive. Most importantly a holistic systems approach to campus sustainability in each institution, with implementation of sustainability principles and practices through governance, academics and operations, continues to be needed. This would go a long way towards improving the sustainability outcomes for the sector and greatly facilitate sector reporting. However, it is important to recognise that the sector is in an early stage of engagement with sustainability, and that sector reporting is still in a formative stage.


References

Bekessy SA, Burgman MA, Wright T, Leal Filho W & Smith M (2003) “Universities and sustainability”, The Tela Papers Issue II, Australian Conservation Foundation, Melbourne, Australia.

Bekessy SA, Burgman MA, Yencken D, Wright T, Leal Filho W, Garden D & Rostan-Herbert D (2002) “A summary of environmental practice in Australian universities,” National Conference of Sustainable Universities, Melbourne, Australia.

Bekessy, SA & Burgman, MA (2001) “Environmental best practice in Australian and international universities: Report to the Vice-Chancellor,” University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

McIntosh, M, Gaalswyk, K, Keniry, LJ & Eagan, DJ (2008) “Campus environment 2008: A national report card on sustainability in higher education – Trends and new developments in college and university leadership, academics and operations,” National Wildlife Federation, USA.

Sustainable Campus Group (2008) “Victorian Sustainable Campus Group report for 2008,” Sustainable Campus Group, Melbourne, Australia.

Sustainable Campus Group (2007) “Sector environment report 2006,” Sustainable Campus Group, Melbourne, Australia.


Appendix 1: Invitation letter

Monash Sustainability Institute

31 March 2010

Sustainable Campus Group 2010

First Nation-Wide Assessment of Sustainability in the Australian Tertiary Education Sector

Dear ,

The Sustainable Campus Group (SCG) would like to invite [name of institution] to join the Sustainable Campus Group in 2010 and participate in the first nation-wide assessment of sustainability performance in the Australian tertiary education sector. The SCG is coordinated by Monash Sustainability Institute (MSI) and is endorsed by Australian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS, Inc.).

This national assessment of sustainability in Australian universities and TAFEs embraces international best practice in sustainability in higher education. Worldwide, an ever-increasing number of universities and vocational education institutions are showcasing their leadership in sustainable development. National and international assessment and reporting instruments are being developed to benchmark sustainability performance, as well as to celebrate achievements in operational resource efficiencies, greenhouse gas emission reductions, and education for sustainability. In Australia, the SCG and MSI are on the forefront of these international developments. The SCG has designed and piloted a Workbook for sustainability reporting and has published a Sector Report for Victoria. Based on its success, SCG and MSI are now conducting Australia’s first-ever national assessment. We are excited to invite [name of institution] to join us in this important project.

The national sustainability assessment of Australia’s tertiary education sector 2010 will demonstrate the tertiary sector’s leadership in sustainable development. It will also showcase your institution’s achievements as well as its aspirations in sustainability leadership. The SCG Report presents a way to establish your performance in comparison to peer institutions. Further, the 2010 national assessment will provide an instrument to move forward collaboratively, toward engaging all stakeholders and securing support from critical actors for sustainability in higher education.

The Sustainable Campus Group (SCG) was established in 2006 in Victoria with the aim of promoting environmental sustainability in the Victorian tertiary and vocational education sector. The SCG has provided critical leverage to engage universities and TAFEs in Victoria to monitor and report on their sustainability performance, drive cultural change across campuses, and to provide a forum for the sector to share information on practical, cost-effective measures to reduce environmental impacts.

The SCG has recently published its second Sector Report, which is available at: http://www.monash.edu.au/research/sustainability institute/sustainable_campus_group.html

The 2008 Report, published in 2009, highlights the environmental performance of participating tertiary and vocational education institutions and demonstrates the ambitious targets set by these institutions to reduce energy and water consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and the volume of waste produced. It also illustrates that almost half of participating institutions are looking beyond operational performance to address their greatest impact – the influence they have on students – through education for sustainability. And finally, the Report provides a platform to show participating institutions how well they are performing in comparison to the rest of the sector. The Report was successfully launched in September 2009 at the University of Melbourne by Professor John Thwaites and Deb Daly, in her role as the 2009 Chair of TAFE Directors Australia.

http://www.monash.edu.au/research/sustainability%20institute/sustainable_campus_group.html


Participating in the national assessment and roll-out involves membership in the SCG. The attached SCG flyer provides an overview of benefits to members and more about the program. Further information on the SCG can be found at: www.monash.edu.au/research/sustainability-institute/sustainable_campus_group.html

MSI has generously agreed to run the 2010 SCG national roll-out on a cost recovery basis in order to encourage SCG membership and participation in the SCG 2010 national assessment. The cost of membership for 2010 is $3500 (+ GST) for universities (including dual sector universities) and $2995 (+ GST) for TAFEs. A discount has been offered to TAFEs to encourage further participation from this sector. SCG membership entitles your institution to:

A copy of the SCG Workbook, to collate data and measure and report against your institutional environmental impacts

Participation in at least one state forum per year (to be held in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide and Hobart) to provide an opportunity to network and learn from the achievements of other institutions. These forums will be held in states with at least five SCG members. (The SCG will facilitate a second state forum per year if SCG’s cost-recovery budget allows.)

Participation in the SCG Sector Report, to benchmark environmental sustainability performance across the tertiary and vocational education sector and publicise your efforts in this area.

If you would like to become a member of the SCG in 2010 and join us in this first national assessment, please complete and return the attached form. Monash University will then raise an invoice for payment.

Thank you for your support of this national initiative to enhance the reputation of the tertiary education sector as a leader in sustainability excellence.

Sincerely,

Professor Dave Griggs

Director, Monash Sustainability Institute

Belinda Towns

SCG Manager

Encl.:

SCG flyer

SCG membership application form

http://www.monash.edu.au/research/sustainability-institute/sustainable_campus_group.html

http://www.monash.edu.au/research/sustainability-institute/sustainable_campus_group.html


Appendix 2: Institution-Level Results

A2.1 Institution Statistics

State Institution Students

(EFTSL)

Academic

/Teaching Staff

(FTE)

General/Non-

Teaching Staff

(FTE)

Total Staff (FTE) Total Staff +

Students

Gross Floor

Area ( m2)

Nat. Aust. Catholic Uni 11,961 735 648 1,383 13,344 107,136

NSW Hunter Inst 15,885 1447 325 1,772 17,657 ..

Il lawarra Inst 10,791 678 421 1,099 11,890 144,676

New England Inst 7,373 193 207 400 7,773 57,352

North Coast Inst 11,156 659 413 1,072 12,228 121,822

Northern Sydney Inst 27,048 516 444 960 28,008 188,724

South West. Sydney Inst 25,935 877 760 1,637 27,572 231,679

Sydney Inst 30,196 2723 1269 3,992 34,188 234,817

Western Sydney Inst 17,291 456 279 735 18,026 151,626

NT Charles Darwin Uni 4,837 1099 645 1,744 6,581 120,300

QLD Brisbane North Inst 11,146 424 482 906 12,052 90,127

Sunshine Coast Inst 4,016 293 255 548 4,564 29,873

SA Uni of Adelaide 16,859 910 1351 2,261 19,120 304,695

VIC Chisholm Inst 15,713 692 383 1,075 16,788 98,820

Deakin Uni 18,734 1058 1425 2,483 21,217 230,009

Gordon Inst 5,857 577 0 577 6,434 48,328

Goulburn Ovens Inst 3,421 264 186 450 3,871 43,358

Kangan Inst 7,959 0 977 977 8,936 83,878

La Trobe Uni 21,874 1434 1251 2,685 24,559 286,739

Monash Uni 36,801 3766 3786 7,552 44,353 668,123

RMIT Uni 52,999 1665 2079 3,744 56,743 430,815

Sunraysia Inst 2,476 91 131 222 2,698 24,432

Swinburne Uni of Technology 28,351 1075 1524 2,599 30,950 195,507

Uni of Ballarat 15,310 550 622 1,172 16,482 ..

Uni of Melbourne 36,001 3375 3996 7,371 43,372 746,809

Victoria Uni 47,489 974 1237 2,211 49,700 311,279

WA Edith Cowan Uni 13,648 577 957 1,534 15,182 193,599

TOTAL TOTAL 501,126 27,107 26,055 53,162 554,288 5,144,523

Table A2.1: Staff, students and gross floor area by institution.


A2.2 Institutional Commitment Table A2.2: Summary of institutional commitment indicators by institution, including the total number of staff employed in environmental/sustainability improvement roles, the total number of environmental committees reported by the institution, and the highest position held by an environmental committee member.

State Institute Staff (FTE) Committees Highest position

Nat. Aust. Catholic Uni 0.5 0 ---

NSW Hunter Inst 2.0 1 ---

Illawarra Inst 1.2 1 ---

New England Inst 1.0 0 ---

North Coast Inst 1.0 1 ---

Northern Sydney Inst --- 8 Associate Director

South West. Sydney Inst 0.0 2 College Manager

Sydney Inst 1.2 7 Associate Director

Western Sydney Inst 1.0 2 Director

Charles Darwin Uni 0.0 0 ---

Qld Brisbane North Inst --- --- ---

Sunshine Coast Inst 1.0 0 ---

SA Uni of Adelaide 1.8 4 Deputy Vice-Chancellor & Vice-President

Vic Chisholm Inst 0.5 0 ---

Deakin Uni 2.5 6 Chief Operating Officer

Gordon Inst 2.5 1 ---

Goulburn Ovens Inst 0.3 1 General Manager, Finance & Infrastructure

Kangan Inst 1.0 0 ---

La Trobe Uni 3.0 1 Vice-Chancellor

Monash Uni 15.0 11 Vice-Chancellor

RMIT Uni 3.0 1 ---

Sunraysia Inst 0.0 0 ---

Swinburne Uni of Technology 18.0 1 ---

Uni of Ballarat 2.3 0 ---

Uni of Melbourne 2.1 17 Deputy Vice-Chancellor

Victoria Uni 3.0 1 Director

WA Edith Cowan Uni 2.0 1 Pro Vice-Chancellor

Avg. University 3.8 5.7 ---

TAFE 1.0 1.6 ---

Dual Sector 5.3 0.6 ---

Entire Sector 2.6 2.6 ---


A2.3 Energy Use

Green

energy(c)

GJ/capita(a) GJ/m2 (b) % of total kWh/capita(a) kWh/m2 (b)

Nat. Aust. Catholic Uni 4.53 0.56 3.2% 890 111

NSW Hunter Inst 2.61 .. 0.0% 724 ..

Il lawarra Inst 3.57 0.29 4.4% 746 61

New England Inst 1.79 0.24 5.3% 441 60

North Coast Inst 2.43 0.24 0.0% 262 26

Northern Sydney Inst 2.57 0.38 0.0% 569 84

South West. Sydney Inst 3.51 0.42 4.8% 783 93

Sydney Inst 3.14 0.46 6.2% 671 98

Western Sydney Inst 2.78 0.33 5.0% 716 85

NT Charles Darwin Uni 12.61 0.69 0.0% 3029 166

QLD Brisbane North Inst 2.33 0.31 0.0% 648 87

Sunshine Coast Inst 3.64 0.56 0.0% 949 145

SA Uni of Adelaide 11.46 0.72 0.0% 2713 170

VIC Chisholm Inst 3.84 0.65 7.7% 556 95

Deakin Uni 10.07 0.93 0.0% 1523 140

Gordon Inst 4.04 0.54 11.7% 830 111

Goulburn Ovens Inst 6.89 0.62 5.2% 1063 95

Kangan Inst 4.35 0.46 5.2% 626 67

La Trobe Uni 19.09 1.64 0.0% 1500 129

Monash Uni 13.41 0.89 5.1% 1917 127

RMIT Uni 6.54 0.86 10.9% 1198 158

Sunraysia Inst 4.20 0.46 7.4% 872 96

Swinburne Uni of Technology 4.63 0.73 3.4% 836 132

Uni of Ballarat 5.35 .. 11.4% 551 ..

Uni of Melbourne 12.14 0.70 10.1% 2026 118

Victoria Uni 4.15 0.66 3.1% 655 105

WA Edith Cowan Uni 6.53 0.51 4.2% 1506 118

Average Universities 12.05 0.86 7.0% 1,814 130

TAFEs 3.15 0.43 5.6% 661 91

Dual Sector 5.56 0.84 7.7% 969 147

All 6.76 0.73 6.9% 1,127 121

Notes :

(a) Per capita includes both s taff and s tudents .

(b) Insti tutions that did not provide a figure for GFA have been excluded from average ca lculations .

(d) Ca lculation combines kWh purchased from the grid, green power and generated through ons i te renewables .

Table A2.3: Facilities energy use (includes all electricity, gas and diesel oil consumed for facilities and

excludes transport-related energy use).

Energy Electricity(d)

(c) Where no figures were given by insti tutions for green energy i t i s assumed that no green energy was purchased.

However, these insti tutions have been excluded from the average ca lculations .

State Institution


A2.4 GHG Emissions

Table A2.4: GHG emissions from facilities, air travel and automotive travel by institution.

Air Travel Auto

Transport(b)

t CO2-e/(staff +

students)

t CO2-e/m2

GFA(a)

t CO2-e/staff t CO2-e/staff

Nat. Aust. Catholic Uni 1.06 0.13 1.93 0.26

NSW Hunter Inst 0.77 .. .. ..

Il lawarra Inst 0.81 0.07 0.05 0.30

New England Inst 0.46 0.06 .. 0.54

North Coast Inst 0.66 0.07 .. 0.37

Northern Sydney Inst 0.64 0.10 0.26 0.15

South West. Sydney Inst 0.83 0.10 0.09 0.11

Sydney Inst 0.71 0.10 0.02 ..

Western Sydney Inst 0.65 0.08 .. 0.40

NT Charles Darwin Uni 2.51 0.14 .. 0.15

QLD Brisbane North Inst 0.65 0.09 .. 0.15

Sunshine Coast Inst 0.97 0.15 0.33 0.26

SA Uni of Adelaide 2.58 0.16 6.79 0.19

VIC Chisholm Inst 0.74 0.13 0.52 0.41

Deakin Uni 2.30 0.21 3.79 0.67

Gordon Inst 0.99 0.13 .. 0.65

Goulburn Ovens Inst 1.46 0.13 0.16 1.74

Kangan Inst 0.87 0.09 .. 0.45

La Trobe Uni 2.77 0.24 2.25 0.58

Monash Uni 2.67 0.18 3.55 0.21

RMIT Uni 1.46 0.19 2.34 0.13

Sunraysia Inst 1.11 0.12 0.41 1.07

Swinburne Uni of Technology 1.15 0.18 3.12 0.14

Uni of Ballarat 0.70 .. 1.62 0.52

Uni of Melbourne 2.53 0.15 .. 0.11

Victoria Uni 0.93 0.15 1.91 0.24

WA Edith Cowan Uni 1.41 0.11 4.25 0.12

Average Universities 2.37 0.17 3.73 0.26

TAFEs 0.75 0.10 0.14 0.28

Dual Sector 1.20 0.18 2.37 0.20

All 1.41 0.15 2.43 0.25

Notes :

(a) Insti tutions that did not provide a figure for GFA have been excluded from average ca lculations .

(b) Emiss ions are ca lculated from fuel usage and do not include taxis or hi re vehicles .

State Institution Facilities


A2.5 Water

State Institution Water per

capita

(kL/(staff +

students)

Water per

floor area

(kL/m2)

Nat. Aust. Catholic Uni 2.4 0.30

NSW Hunter Inst 4.5 ..

Il lawarra Inst 3.3 0.27

New England Inst 2.2 0.30

North Coast Inst .. ..

Northern Sydney Inst 4.1 0.61

South West. Sydney Inst 3.8 0.45

Sydney Inst 2.9 0.42

Western Sydney Inst 4.6 0.55

NT Charles Darwin Uni .. ..

QLD Brisbane North Inst 1.8 0.23

Sunshine Coast Inst 3.1 0.48

SA Uni of Adelaide 17.2 1.08

VIC Chisholm Inst 2.3 0.39

Deakin Uni 4.3 0.39

Gordon Inst 2.1 0.27

Goulburn Ovens Inst 9.5 0.85

Kangan Inst 2.9 0.31

La Trobe Uni 9.3 0.80

Monash Uni 8.3 0.55

RMIT Uni 3.4 0.45

Sunraysia Inst 9.3 1.03

Swinburne Uni of Technology 2.5 0.39

Uni of Ballarat 3.4 ..

Uni of Melbourne 8.8 0.51

Victoria Uni 2.1 0.34

WA Edith Cowan Uni 8.9 0.70

Average Universities 8.6 0.62

TAFEs 3.6 0.50

Dual Sector 2.8 0.46

All 5.1 0.55

Note: Insti tutions that did not provide water data or GFA figures have

been excluded from the average ca lculations .

Table A2.5: Mains water purchased per capita and per gross floor

area by institution.


A2.6 Waste and Recycling

State Institution Waste per

capita

(kg/capita)

Waste per

floor area

(kg/m2)

Nat. Aust. Catholic Uni 41 5

NSW Hunter Inst 29 ..

Il lawarra Inst 86 7

New England Inst .. ..

North Coast Inst 132 13

Northern Sydney Inst 65 10

South West. Sydney Inst 69 8

Sydney Inst 112 16

Western Sydney Inst .. ..

NT Charles Darwin Uni 143 8

QLD Brisbane North Inst .. ..

Sunshine Coast Inst 118 18

SA Uni of Adelaide 32 2

VIC Chisholm Inst 79 13

Deakin Uni 41 4

Gordon Inst 96 13

Goulburn Ovens Inst 38 3

Kangan Inst 59 6

La Trobe Uni 70 6

Monash Uni 77 5

RMIT Uni 65 9

Sunraysia Inst 42 5

Swinburne Uni of Technology 43 7

Uni of Ballarat 21 ..

Uni of Melbourne 24 1

Victoria Uni .. ..

WA Edith Cowan Uni 13 1

Average Universities 64 4

TAFEs 75 10

Dual Sector 39 6

All 60 6

Note: Insti tutions that did not provide water data or GFA figures have

been excluded from the average ca lculations .

Table A2.6: Waste to landfill per capita (staff + students) and per

gross floor area by institution.


A2.7 Education for Sustainability Table A2.7: Incorporation of EfS into different types of institutional activities. “Y” indicates “yes” and “N” indicates “no”.

State Institute

Ke

y le

arn

ing

ou

tco

me

s(a)

Co

urs

es

and

sub

ject

s o

ffe

red

(b)

Imm

ers

ion

(c)

Co

urs

e

req

uir

em

en

ts(d

)

Stu

de

nt

ori

en

tati

on

(e)

Staf

f

Enga

gem

en

t(f)

Pro

fess

ion

al

de

velo

pm

en

t(g)

Nat. Aust. Catholic Uni N N N N N N N

NSW Hunter Inst N N N N N N Y

Illawarra Inst N Y Y Y N Y Y

New England Inst --- Y Y N N N N

North Coast Inst Y Y Y N N N Y

Northern Sydney Inst N --- N N N Y Y

South West. Sydney Inst N Y Y Y N N N

Sydney Inst N Y N N N Y Y

Western Sydney Inst --- Y Y --- N N Y

Charles Darwin Uni --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Qld Brisbane North Inst --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Sunshine Coast Inst N Y Y N N N N

SA Uni of Adelaide N Y Y N N N N

Vic Chisholm Inst N N N N N N N

Deakin Uni Y N Y N N N N

Gordon Inst N N N N N N Y

Goulburn Ovens Inst N N N N N N Y

Kangan Inst N N N N N N N

La Trobe Uni N Y N N N

N

Monash Uni Y Y Y N Y Y Y

RMIT Uni Y Y --- --- N N N

Sunraysia Inst Y Y Y N N N Y

Swinburne Uni of Technology Y N --- --- N Y Y

Uni of Ballarat N Y N Y N Y Y

Uni of Melbourne Y Y Y Y N Y Y

Victoria Uni Y N Y N Y Y N

WA Edith Cowan Uni N N Y Y N N Y

% ‘Yes’ University 43 43 71 29 14 29 43

TAFE 13 53 47 13 0 20 60

Dual Sector 60 40 20 20 20 60 40

Entire Sector 30 52 48 19 7 30 52

Notes:

(a) Key learning outcomes: Graduate attributes / essential learning outcomes / competency or performance criteria in sustainability

(b) Courses and subjects offered: Sustainability subjects / units/ courses webpage or information portal

(c) Immersion: Immersion (work placements, internships, field trips, other) in environment, sustainability and/or EfS

(d) Course requirements: Undergraduate / TAFE environment or sustainability graduation requirement

(e) Student orientation: Environment / sustainability in student orientation

(f) Staff Engagement: Sustainability in new staff orientation

(g) Professional development: Opportunities for staff development / training in environment, sustainability or EfS (mandatory or optional

Documents

Sustainable Campus Group 2010 - Full Report