-
extracted text
-
EVALUATING THE SUSTAINABLITY TRACKING,
ASSESSMENT AND RATING SYSTEM (STARS)
AT THE EVERGREEN STATE COLLEGE
by
Kyle C. Murphy
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2009
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Kyle C. Murphy
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________
Robert H. Knapp, Jr., PhD.
Member of the Faculty (Physics and Sustainable Design)
The Evergreen State College
________________________
John Pumilio
Sustainability Coordinator, Colgate University
________________________
D. Michael Mucha, P.E., MPA
Director of Public Works, City of Olympia
_______June 12th, 2009________
Date
ABSTRACT
Evaluating the Sustainability Tracking,
Assessment and Rating System (STARS)
at The Evergreen State College
Kyle C. Murphy
Sustainability is about the change in human trajectory that requires us to think differently
about old assumptions and engage the large questions of the human condition (Orr,
2002). Higher education provides an ideal setting for engaging in this dialogue while
creating opportunities to integrate sustainability into society today. The Association for
the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) is developing a crossinstitutional assessment tool to help inform this dialogue of sustainability. In 2008-09, 70
higher education institutions participated in the AASHE Sustainability Tracking,
Assessment and Rating System (STARS) pilot project. I coordinated Evergreen’s
involvement in this pilot project. Through my research, I evaluated STARS and its
ability to inform this dialogue of sustainability.
This research focused on three main questions with respect to Evergreen’s use of the
STARS tool: (a) Is STARS an effective tool for use at Evergreen (did the framework
address issues important to Evergreen, did it meet the criteria of an ideal assessment
framework, and what are the advantages and disadvantages), (b) Does the STARS
process lead to organizational learning, and (c) What STARS reveal about Evergreen’s
commitment to sustainability. Using a case study research design, I took a multidisciplinary approach to the data collection for STARS implementation. Through my
research I found that STARS is an effective tool to evaluate sustainability at Evergreen,
which led to organizational learning, and highlighted Evergreen’s complex and dynamic
commitment to sustainability. The STARS tool could be further explored for its ability to
help institutions of higher education fully embrace sustainability
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... v
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................... vii
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................... 1
A Case Study at The Evergreen State College.................................................................... 2
Sustainability in Higher Education ..................................................................................... 2
The Sustainability Movement at The Evergreen State College ...................................... 7
Assessing and Reporting Institutional Sustainability ................................................... 10
STARS Framework....................................................................................................... 12
STARS and Sustainability at Evergreen ....................................................................... 14
1. Is STARS an effective tool to evaluate sustainability at Evergreen? .................... 14
2. Does STARS implementaiton lead to Organizational Learning at Evergreen? ... 16
3. What does STARS reveal about Evergreen’s Commitment to Sustainability? ..... 16
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 17
Chapter 2. Research Methodology and Methods......................................................... 18
Research Approach ........................................................................................................... 18
Data Analysis Approach ................................................................................................... 22
STARS Credit Data Collection......................................................................................... 26
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 40
Chapter 3. Results and Analysis .................................................................................... 42
Institutional Participation.................................................................................................. 42
STARS Framework Analysis............................................................................................ 46
Evergreen STARS Scores ................................................................................................. 52
iii
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 57
Chapter 4. Discussion ..................................................................................................... 59
STARS and Evergreen Sustainability............................................................................... 59
Effectiveness of the STARS Framework to Evaluate Evergreen Sustainability .......... 60
Encouraging Organizational Learning.......................................................................... 79
Evergreen’s Commitment to Sustainability .................................................................. 83
STARS and the Sustainability Challenge ......................................................................... 96
Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................... 103
Chapter 5. Recommendations, Limitations and Future Needs................................. 107
Recommendations to Evergreen ................................................................................. 107
Recommendations to AASHE .................................................................................... 116
Research Limitations and Future Needs ......................................................................... 117
References....................................................................................................................... 125
Internet references....................................................................................................... 131
Appendix A: Appropriate Contacts ................................................................................ 135
Appendix B: Detailed STARS Credit Data Collection................................................... 136
Appendix C: Data Tracking Spreadsheets ...................................................................... 146
Appendix D: Outreach Email.......................................................................................... 153
Appendix E: Follow-up Interview Questions and Response Summary.......................... 154
Appendix F: STARS Recognition Matrix....................................................................... 157
Appendix G: STARS Summary Scoring Sheets............................................................. 160
Appendix H: STARS PDF Reporting Form ................................................................... 163
Appendix I: STARS Pilot Project Participating Institutions........................................... 165
iv
List of Tables
Table 1. Contacts for ER Credits ...................................................................................... 33
Table 2. Contacts for AF Credits ...................................................................................... 35
Table 3. Contacts for OP Credits ...................................................................................... 36
Table 4. STARS Credits by Evergreen Community Members Contacts........................ 135
Table 5. Complete Institutional Normalization Data Tracking Spreadsheet .................. 146
Table 6. Example Education and Research Category Tracking Spreadsheet ................. 148
Table 7. Example of Operations Category Tracking Spreadsheet................................. 149
Table 8. Example of Administration and Finance Category Tracking Spreadsheet....... 150
Table 9. Example of Tier Two Credits Tracking Spreadsheet....................................... 151
Table 10. Evergreen Community Member Contacts Tracking Spreadsheet................... 152
Table 11. Follow-Up Interview Response Summary...................................................... 155
Table 12. Evergreen to STARS Effectiveness Matrix .................................................... 157
Table 13. ER Category Summary Scoring Sheet............................................................ 160
Table 14. AF Category Summary Scoring Sheet............................................................ 161
Table 15. OP Category Summary Scoring Sheet............................................................ 162
v
List of Figures
Figure 1. Community Participation by Population ........................................................... 43
Figure 2. Time Commitment by Campus Sector .............................................................. 44
Figure 3. STARS Framework Point Distribution by Category......................................... 47
Figure 4. ER Category Point Distribution by Section....................................................... 48
Figure 5. AF Category Point Distribution by Section....................................................... 49
Figure 6. OP Category Point Distribution by Section....................................................... 50
Figure 7. Overall STARS Results for Evergreen.............................................................. 54
Figure 8. ER Category Results by Section for Evergreen ................................................ 54
Figure 9. AF Category Results by Section for Evergreen ................................................ 55
Figure 10. OP Category Results by Section for Evergreen .............................................. 56
vi
Acknowledgements
Studying the issue of sustainability in higher education, and completing a
comprehensive assessment of sustainability at Evergreen would have been an impossible
task without the involvement and support of many individuals within and outside of the
Evergreen community. I want to start by acknowledging the involvement and support of
my three thesis readers; longtime Evergreen faculty member Rob Knapp, Evergreen’s
first Director of Sustainability John Pumilio, and City of Olympia Public Works Director
Michael Mucha.
This project was an idea first presented by John during the summer of 2008.
After several discussions with John about the need for this project and what it would
entail, I decided to pursue it and dove in head first. I continued to work closely with John
throughout the 10 months it took to complete this project. His assistance indentifying,
and introducing me to the necessary Evergreen community members was essential in the
success of my project. Even after John left Evergreen for a sustainability position at
Colgate University in New York State he continued to stay involved. I thoroughly
enjoyed my time working with John and owe him a great deal of gratitude.
I also owe much gratitude to Rob Knapp for his involvement in this project. Rob
has long been involved with issues of sustainability at Evergreen. Rob’s insights into
how organizations react to being “poked” and assessed and his guidance during my
writing process were extremely important. During our weekly meetings at the local
coffee shop over the last several months of my writing process Rob continually pressed
me to expand my conclusions and dig deep into what I learned through the coordination
vii
of the sustainability assessment. I know that these weekly meetings and Rob’s guidance
are truly represented in what I hope is a high quality thesis.
This project would also not have been possible without the involvement of many
individual community members at Evergreen. I want to thank Paul Smith, Sharon
Goodman, Halli Winstead, Robyn Herring, Kathleen Haskett, Elizabeth McHugh, Dr.
Kelly Brown, Victor Sanders, Peter Robinson, Shane Peterson, Gaylon Finley, Collin
Orr, Laura Coghlan, Beth Haskett, Steve Trotter, Theresa Aragon, Steve Schmidt, Ellen
Short Sanchez, Paul Gallegos, John Hurley, Todd Sprague, Allen Toothaker, Ladonna
Hegristad, Paul Przybylowicz, Bill Ransom, Nancy Murray, Allen Olson, Amadou Ba,
Lucienne Guyot, Ted Whitesell, Rafael Lozano, Natalie Pyrooz, Scott Hollis, Andrea
Coker-Anderson, Marshall Robinson, Tami Johnson, Rich Davis, Mark Kormondy,
Sherrie Lake, Julie Anderson, Nancy Parkes. The participation of these individuals
provided me with detailed insights into the motivations and processes of the sustainability
movement at Evergreen.
And finally, I want to thank my family and especially my wife Maureen and
daughter Emelia, for their support and motivation over the course of this thesis project,
and over the past three years of my time as a graduate student at The Evergreen State
College. This support and motivation kept me focused and on track to complete my
graduate work, even when I would have rather been spending time with them.
viii
Chapter 1: Introduction
Sustainability is about the change in human trajectory that requires us to think
differently about old assumptions and require the large questions of the human condition
(Orr, 2002). Higher education provides an ideal setting for engaging in this dialogue of
change, and fundamentally integrating sustainability into society today. Colleges and
universities are where students gain the knowledge and practical experience that will
shape the way they interact with the environment and society. If we are to achieve a
sustainable future, institutions of higher education must provide the awareness,
knowledge, skills, and values that equip individuals to pursue life goals in a manner that
enhances and sustains human and non-human well being (Cortese, 1999). Today many
institutions are striving to become laboratories for sustainability in order to provide these
tools to students, and serve as examples for students, faculty and staff (Clugston &
Clader, 1999; Legacy, 2004; Hansen & Lehman, 2006; Rowe, 2007). Auditing the
environmental, social and economic interactions of institutions of higher education is an
important tool to aid in the shift towards sustainability. However, this is a new and
evolving concept and there remain relatively few examples implemented anywhere in the
world (Pope, 2004). The need to effectively gauge progress towards sustainability in
higher education is of fundamental importance. The Sustainability Tracking, Assessment
and Rating System (STARS) is the first comprehensive tool attempting to gauge this
progress. The overarching purpose of this thesis is to evaluate STARS and to consider its
effectiveness as a sustainability assessment tool.
1
A Case Study at The Evergreen State College
This thesis project is a case study of Evergreen’s participation in the STARS
framework currently being developed by the Association for the Advancement of
Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE). This thesis looks at the data, processes and
motivations of the sustainability movement, and the actions and reactions of the campus
community to the process of assessing sustainability, which sets it apart from other
efforts that look primarily at the effectiveness of campus sustainability initiatives (Cole,
2003; Mcintosh et. al., 2008; Wright, 2002; Rodriguez et. al, 2002; Venetoulis, 2001).
The actions and reactions of organizations to the process of collecting and analyzing
campus sustainability data is an area that has not received much attention until now.
Sustainability in Higher Education
A Brief History of Sustainability
Many authors have provided detailed historical accounts of the many declarations
and conferences regarding sustainability throughout the world. These accounts often
include such declarations as the Tbilisi Declaration, the Talloires Declaration, the Halifax
Declaration, the CRE Copernicus Charter, and the Ubuntu Declaration made at the World
Summit on Sustainable Development in August 2002 (Cole, 2003). Included in this
history of sustainability is the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in
Stockholm, Sweden in 1972, the 1983 World Commission on Environment and
Development, which resulted in the commonly referred to “Brundtland Report” which
defined sustainable development as “the development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED,
2
1987), and United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de
Janeiro in 1992. The Rio de Janeiro conference focused global attention on
environmental and development concerns threatening the survival of the Earth and
various forms of life that inhabit it. (Sharma, 2007). Finally, in 2002, the United Nations
convened the World Summit on Sustainable Development.
As important as these declarations and conferences are to the global sustainability
movement, the important aspects of the history of sustainability in higher education are
those that began with active faculty and students at liberal arts colleges and universities
highlighting the need to better understand the interactions of humans with nature and our
place in the natural world (Orr, 1991). In the late 1980’s David Orr from Oberlin College
in Ohio introduced the concept of transforming institutions of higher education into living
laboratories where students, through coursework can conduct research and implement
ideas that enhance campus sustainability (Legacy, 2004). Another major landmark in the
history of the campus sustainability movement was the publication of the Student
Environmental Action Coalitions’ (SEAC) book, Campus Ecology (1993). This book was
spawned from local action taken by a group of students on the University of California,
Los Angeles campus, and marks one of the first major campus sustainability assessments
in North America (Cole, 2000).
One result of this faculty and student driven movement has been formal
commitments by institutions to implement the objectives of the many sustainability
declarations on their own campuses (Wright, 2002). An example of this is the over 300
college and university presidents who have signed commitments to reduce the carbon
footprint of their institutions (Rowe, 2007). This high level recognition and formalization
3
of sustainability within the operations, administration and educational structure of higher
education institutions was motivated by a grass roots style movement from faculty and
students, and at many institutions embraced and formalized by the decision makers
within the campus administration. Another important result of these grass roots efforts
on the part of concerned and motivated faculty and students has been the development of
professional associations, such as the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability
in Higher Education (AASHE), which focus on providing tools and resources for
institutions in their pursuit of sustainability.
AASHE is an association of colleges and universities in the U.S. and
Canada working to create a sustainable future. It was founded in 2006 with a mission to
promote sustainability in all sectors of higher education - from governance and operations
to curriculum and outreach - through education, communication, research and
professional development (www.aashe.org/about/about.php). AASHE serves colleges
and universities by offering an extensive resource center of sustainability initiatives and
policies, discussion lists, sample syllabi showing how sustainability can be infused into
various courses, a biennial conference, and professional development opportunities
(Rowe, 2007). AASHE is made up of 879 member institutions, including 481 four-year
institutions, 171 two-year institutions and community colleges, 147 business partners and
56 non-governmental organizations and government partners.
The Role of Higher Education in the Sustainability Movement
Higher education institutions play three main roles that can help further
sustainability in local and global communities. Those roles are: (a) A teaching and
research environment, (b) A community member, and (c) An economic force. All of
4
these roles are integral in creating the future leaders and decision makers that can
continue to advance sustainability in society.
As a Teaching and Research Environment
Institutions of higher education in the U.S. included a projected 18.2 million
students and over 3 million faculty and staff during the 2008 academic year (Snyder et.
al., 2009). Through curriculum, experiential opportunities such as internships,
fellowships and work-study campus sustainability events, and campus operations, these
students, faculty and staff can gain knowledge about the importance of sustainability and
the processes of advancing sustainability. Utilizing faculty and students to conduct
research as an integral part of the learning experience greatly enhances the educational
experience and promotes a strong sense of connection to and caring for the local
communities and to the ecosystems of which they are a part (Cortese, 2003). Providing
knowledge to the masses carries with it the responsibility to see that it is well used in the
world (Orr, 1991). In addition higher education institutions can inform the public
through responsible and well-organized curriculum (Orr, 2002).
As a Community Member
Because sustainability movements take place locally rather than globally, an
important task for institutions of higher education is to identify the specific trends most
relevant to their locations and the ways in which local populations can contribute to
altering the trends that affect them (Kates & Parris, 2003). Institutions of higher
education are in a unique position to provide a strong example to local communities, as
well as partner with regional, local and national communities on sustainability work.
5
Graduates from higher education institutions have the ability to directly affect the health
and well being of communities and their members (Orr, 1991). University-community
partnerships respond to various issues from national policy interest in community
building, to a growing emphasis on program and school accountability to environmental
concerns at local, state and national levels, to the need for research on and by
underrepresented groups, and to concerns over racial, ethnic, and social class divisions in
communities (Denner et. al., 1999). These partnerships have emerged as a vital tool for
teaching, research, and practice (Butterfield & Soska, 2004).
As an Economic Force
Collectively, higher education employs more than three million people, serves
more than 18 millions students, and annually spends more than $300 billion (Snyder et.
al., 2009). Aggregate natural resource use and greenhouse gas emissions are not
available for the higher education sector, but U.S. colleges and universities are part of the
U.S. economy, an economy which consumes twice as much oil and almost twice as much
electricity as the next highest consuming nation (China) (www.nationmaster.com/cat/eneenergy). The purchasing power alone of colleges and universities, as they demand more
environmentally and socially responsible products and processes, can help move
sustainability from its present niche markets to become the standard in product and
process design (Rowe, 2007). Purchasing local food, for example, encourages the
development of sustainable agriculture in the surrounding region, improves the quality of
food served on campus, promotes local economic development, and eliminates the
economic and ecological costs of transportation, storage and processing (Orr, 1995).
6
Institutions may also affect economics through their investing practices. In 2008,
the National Association of College and University Business Officers surveyed 791
institutions and reported an average endowment size of $522 million
(www.nacubo.org:80/documents/research/NES2008PublicTableAllInstitutionsByFY08MarketValue.pdf). Responsible investing practices can provide
great potential to spur growth in projects that reduce environmental and social
consequences.
The Sustainability Movement at The Evergreen State College
The Evergreen State College (Evergreen) is a four-year public liberal arts college
located in Olympia, Washington. The college opened its doors in 1971 and has
established a national reputation for leadership in developing innovative interdisciplinary,
collaborative and team-taught academic programs (www.evergreen.edu/about/home).
During the fall of 2008, Evergreen had a total enrollment of 4,696 students, and
employed 243 faculty, and 536 staff.
The following discussion provides a brief history of how the sustainability
movement developed out of faculty concern and action and resulted in a formal
institutional commitment to sustainability. This information is based on my conversation
with John Pumilio (John Pumilio, pers. com., 2009), the first Director of Sustainability at
Evergreen, Nancy Parkes (Nancy Parkes, pers. com., 2009), faculty member and CoChair of the institution’s Sustainability Council, and Steve Trotter (Steve Trotter, pers.
com., 2009), Executive Director of Operational Planning and Budget.
The Evergreen community has long been committed to addressing issues of
environmental justice, and social equity and justice. For much of the history of the
7
institution the faculty driven efforts to promote, teach and advance these issues proceeded
on parallel, but separate paths. Examples of programs resulting from faculty concern and
action include Evergreen’s Tacoma program, which requires students to go into local
communities and engage in research, education and problem-solving projects that are as
beneficial to those communities as they are to students
(www.evergreen.edu/tacoma/home.htm). Another result of this faculty driven effort is
The Northwest Indian Applied Research Institute, which enables Evergreen to assist local
tribes to meet their economic, governance and resource goals, while providing real-life
learning opportunities for Evergreen students (nwindian.evergreen.edu/home.html).
During the late 1990s and early 2000s the concerned faculty and staff that had
been working on issues of social justice and environmentalism began to informally work
together to find ways to intertwine their efforts in a more coordinated sustainability
movement. These early grass-roots effort laid the foundation for the current formalized
sustainability movement. This effort to formalize sustainability through administration
recognition began gaining more momentum during the summer of 2005.
Each summer, Evergreen faculty has opportunities for professional development
through Summer Institutes. These professional development opportunities are sponsored
by the institution and developed by existing faculty and provide new and current faculty
members opportunities to gain knowledge and work on any number of issues. A Summer
Institute focused on sustainability was held in 2005 as an extension of the informal work
that faculty and staff had been doing to advance sustainability. This Summer Institute
went beyond offering faculty resources and knowledge in regards to sustainability, and
included formal recommendations to the college about how the institution should further
8
the sustainability movement. One of the outcomes of this Summer Institute was a list of
recommendations to the college administration. One of the recommendations made and
accepted by the administration was to include a commitment to sustainability in the
institution’s Strategic Plan Update 2007. To address this recommendation Evergreen’s
Vice Presidents created the Sustainability Disappearing Task Force (Task Force) and
charged it with defining sustainability at Evergreen, and recommending ways in which to
include sustainability at in the Strategic Plan Update.
The 2005-2007 Task Force included staff, faculty and students, and was
coordinated by a graduate student in the Masters of Environmental Studies program
through a graduate fellowship. Included in the Task Force Charge was a stipulation to
initiate an outreach program that involved a broad representation of the Evergreen
community. The Task Force held numerous community workshops and interviewed
various students, faculty, and staff. The outreach conducted by the Task Force involved
close to 500 participants from the Evergreen community. The extensive community
input helped inform a growing need for significant work in sustainability at the
institution. In response to this need, the Task Force recommended to the college Vice
Presidents that the institution create a permanent Director of Sustainability position, and
make the Task Force permanent. The institution accepted these recommendations and
within a year hired a Director of Sustainability and formalized the institution’s
commitment to Sustainability in the Strategic Plan Update 2007, the Campus Master Plan
and Evergreen’s Vision for a Sustainable Future.
As part of the process of furthering sustainability at Evergreen, the Director of
Sustainability, the Sustainability Task Force, and the College’s four vice presidents
9
worked together to reorganize Evergreen’s institutional structures to include high level
decision makers at the institution. Each of the four Vice Presidents chose a
representative for the newly formed Sustainability Council. The Council included the
Directors of Residential and Dining Services, Facilities, Marketing and Communications,
and the Academic Budget Dean. Assisted by several focused Work Groups the
Sustainability Director and Sustainability Council made up the new Office of
Sustainability in 2007.
Through the work of advancing sustainability at Evergreen, the Office of
Sustainability recognized the need to understand where the institution was, where it
wanted to go, and how to get there. With this need recognized Evergreen became
involved in the effort to develop a cross-institutional sustainability assessment tool (John
Pumilio pers. com., 2008). The involvement included hosting a regional conference that
included discussions about developing a sustainability assessment tool, and the Director
of Sustainability participating in the development of the current framework through
focused conference calls and discussions.
Assessing and Reporting Institutional Sustainability
The literature proposes an impressive array of tools and processes to help measure
progress towards sustainability. These range from highly aggregated top down indices to
smaller scale efforts such as the ecological footprint designed to help individuals
understand their impact on the biosphere (Fraser et al., 2006). Many of the tools used for
assessing sustainability in higher education were not developed as transparent, crossinstitutional assessment tools (Julian Dautremont-Smith, pers. com., 2009). This has
made defining and assessing sustainability across campuses difficult. Because of the vast
10
differences in motivations and practices between institutions of higher education many
have questioned the wisdom of investing time and money in developing a crossinstitutional sustainability assessment (Corcoran & Wals, 2004). However, campuses
still require quick, yet penetrating ways to measure status, progress, priorities and
direction. This includes looking internally and providing opportunities for selfcomparison, to requiring methods of comparison between institutions (Corcoran & Wals,
2004).
Sustainability involves the interplay of complex systems and sustainability
assessments allow institutions to reveal the interactions of these complex systems (Litten
& Newport, 2004). Sustainability monitoring and reporting will be a key element in
reducing risks to the well-being of institutions of higher education that come from present
unsustainable levels of resource use and waste generation, and from inequitable social
conditions. The development and dissemination of appropriate indicators will help
institutions manage themselves in a sustainable manner and to model such behavior for
students and other organizations (Litten, 2005).
A better understanding of an institution’s commitment to sustainability, and an
increased awareness of campus sustainability issues should have the important function
of encouraging planners and decision makers to give necessary attention to the
sustainability characteristics of their policies, plans and projects as they relate to
sustainability. Sustainability assessment should also clarify how planners and decision
makers take into account the goals of sustainable development, and provide a mechanism
for informing the public (Devuyst, 1999). AASHE’s member institutions and many in
the higher education community recognized the need for a transparent, cross-institutional
11
tool for measuring the economic, environmental and social interplay at institutions of
higher education. AASHE responded to this need and led the development of a
framework designed specifically to address this need in the higher education community
(Julian Dautremont-Smith, pers. com., 2009).
STARS Framework
In an effort to promote and assist institutions in advancing sustainability AASHE
began developing the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System (STARS)
to measure progress towards sustainability at institutions of higher education. Rather
than modify an existing tool used in another sector of society, AASHE developed a new
tool with input from 21 strategic advisors and 93 technical advisors from a wide variety
of institutions of higher education, government agencies, businesses and nongovernmental organizations.
In the spring of 2008, AASHE implemented a two-phased pilot project to test the
STARS framework in real-world institutional settings. Over 70 institutions of higher
education, including Evergreen, participated in the pilot project implementation of the
STARS framework. The STARS pilot project included three main components; (a) the
STARS Guides to Phase 1 and Phase 2 which include an overview of STARS, STARS
pilot project instructions, a summary scorecard, a description of each credit, and several
appendices, (b) the PDF credit reporting forms, and (c) the on-line STARS reporting tool,
where the PDF reporting forms were available for download and completed forms where
uploaded and provided to AASHE.
The STARS self-reporting framework is made up of numerous indicators that are
arranged into three categories: (a) Education and Research (ER), (b) Operations (OP),
12
and (c) Administration and Finance (AF). Each category contains two types of credits,
Tier One credits, worth one or more points and based primarily on sustainability
outcomes, and Tier Two credits, worth 0.25 points each and which generally recognize
strategies institutions can adopt to move toward sustainability (AASHE 2008a). In
addition, participating pilot project institutions had the opportunity to complete four
Innovation Credits for new, extraordinary, unique, groundbreaking, or uncommon
outcomes, policies or practices. The Innovation credits could increase an institution’s
score by one percentage point for each credit (AASHE 2008c).
The STARS Pilot Project credits were released in two phases with all 29 of the
Tier One Operations credits and 12 of the Tier One Administration and Finance credits
released in Phase One on February of 2008 (AASHE 2008a). Phase Two, released in
September 2008 included all 26 of the Tier One Education and Research Credits, the
remaining 23 Tier One Administration and Finance Credits, as well as all 89 Tier Two
Credits (13 in the Education and Research category, 47 in the Operations category, and
29 in the Administration and Finance category) (AASHE 2008c). The Tier One, Tier
Two and Innovation Credits were released in individual PDF forms that were
downloaded from the AASHE STARS Pilot Project on-line reporting tool
(http://starstracker.aashe.org/). The PDF forms included the individual credit number and
title, the criteria for each credit, the required documentation for each credit, and guidance
for each credit. A blank credit reporting form is available in Appendix H.
In addition to reporting data for the Tier One and Tier Two credits, pilot project
participants were asked to provide institutional normalization data, such as the size of the
campus population, the size of the campus conditions space, the amount of undeveloped
13
green space, and financial information for the institution. This background data will be
necessary for benchmarking institutions, as well as providing AASHE and campus
sustainability practitioners with information to better understand how institutional
characteristics can influence STARS performance. Certain institutional normalization
data will also be used by AASHE when calculating the scores for certain credits (AASHE
2008b). The requested institutional normalization data was released with the online
reporting tool in the summer of 2008.
STARS and Sustainability at Evergreen
My role as the STARS pilot project Coordinator at Evergreen gave me the
opportunity to learn first hand about the motivations and processes of pursuing
sustainability at Evergreen. It also allowed me to critically analyze the STARS
framework and help inform the Evergreen community about the effectiveness of this tool
to relate to Evergreens’ Sustainability movement. The opportunity to coordinate the pilot
project implementation of STARS at Evergreen raised three main questions that I focused
my research on: (a) Is STARS an effective tool to evaluate sustainability at Evergreen,
(b) Does STARS lead to organizational learning at Evergreen, and (c) What does the
process of implementing STARS reveal about Evergreens commitment to sustainability?
1. Is STARS an effective tool to evaluate sustainability at Evergreen?
AASHE is developing the STARS framework to be used on a regular basis by
institutions of higher education. Evergreen’s use of the tool during the pilot project will
help the institution determine if it should continue to use STARS to assess and report on
its sustainability work. To help Evergreen make the decision on the future use of this
14
tool, I was interested in determining if STARS is an effective tool to evaluate
Evergreen’s sustainability initiatives. In order to analyze the frameworks effectiveness, I
looked at three aspects of this question: (a) The extent to which Evergreen’s work in
Sustainability is recognized by the STARS framework, (b) How many elements of an
ideal sustainability assessment tool, as defined by Shriberg (2002b), does the STARS
framework contain, and (c) The advantages and disadvantages of the STARS framework
as it relates to Evergreen, and higher education in general. My experience coordinating
Evergreen’s participation in the STARS pilot project allowed me to gain an in-depth
understanding of the framework itself in order for me to accurately answer these
questions and determine the effectiveness of the STARS framework to evaluate
Evergreen’s work in sustainability.
This was an important aspect of this research because an effective monitoring and
reporting tool has the potential to help inform an institution’s sustainability commitment,
and help stimulate awareness of campus sustainability issues (Glasser & Nixon, 2002).
An effective tool should recognize a significant amount of the sustainability work at an
institution, while also helping to inform the campus dialogue about how to advance
sustainability efforts. Additionally, an assessment tool should identify the most
important attributes of a sustainable campus, be calculable and comparable, measure
more than eco-efficiency, assess processes and motivations and be comprehensible to
multiple stakeholders (Shriberg, 2002b). These “ideals” don’t speak directly to the
effectiveness of the tool to Evergreen’s sustainability work, but do provide an indication
of its overall usefulness and quality.
15
2. Does the process of implementing STARS lead to Organizational
Learning at Evergreen?
In addition to exploring the effectiveness of the STARS framework, I was also
interested in examining if the process of assessing sustainability resulted in
organizational learning at Evergreen. Organizational learning is an area of knowledge
within organizational theory that studies models and theories about the way an
organization learns and adapts (Argyris & Schon, 1978; Foil & Lyles, 1985; Huber,
1991). Foil and Lyles defined organizational learning as the process of modifying actions
through better knowledge and understanding that results in associations, cognitive
systems, and memories that are developed and shared by members of the organization.
Huber noted that organizational learning has occurred when the range of potential
behaviors of an organization changes. Huber also argued that organizational learning
doesn’t always lead to increased organizational effectiveness, and therefore, the quality
of organizational learning is also an important outcome of any exercise that leads to
learning. Evaluating STARS’ potential to contribute to organizational learning at
Evergreen and other institutions of higher education, as well as AASHE, is an important
aspect of my research.
3. What does STARS reveal about Evergreen’s Commitment to
Sustainability?
One benefit of assessing institutional sustainability is that the assessment process
can make the invisible visible. By this I mean that assessments can help identify what are
the motivations behind an institution’s sustainability work, and what processes have been
followed to achieve the current level of sustainability. In chapter 4, I will discuss in
16
detail what I learned about Evergreen’s commitment to sustainability through the actions
and reactions of various campus community members who participated in the STARS
implementation process. My work can inform the future actions of Evergreen as the
institution continues to pursue work that will advance sustainability, as well as other
institutions of higher education that might be considering the use of the STARS
framework in the future. This is possibly the most unique aspect of this thesis because it
differs greatly from previous research on sustainability assessments, which have focused
primarily on the level of sustainability achieved by institutions (McIntosh et. al., 2008;
Cole, 2003; Wright, 2002), rather than the motivations behind campus sustainability, and
the reactions of campus communities to the process of assessing sustainability.
Chapter Summary
The need to accurately assess the direction of campus sustainability movements
has resulted in the development of the STARS framework by AASHE. This framework
was implemented as a pilot project at over 70 institutions of higher education in the
United States, during the fall of 2008 and winter of 2009. My coordination of the pilot
project implementation at Evergreen provided me with a unique opportunity to examine
the institutional reaction of assessing sustainability at colleges and universities. I looked
at the data that resulted from this process, and also the actions and reactions of a portion
of the campus community. Through my case study I hope to contribute to the dialogue of
sustainability at Evergreen and throughout the higher education community.
17
Chapter 2. Research Methodology and Methods
Introduction
In this chapter I discuss how I carried out my research on the STARS pilot project
implementation of Evergreen. The chapter is separated into three sections, Research
Approach, Data Analysis Methods, and STARS Credit Data Collection. The Research
Approach section describes the research design and the data collection methods that form
the basis of my efforts. The Data Analysis Methods section describes the process I
followed to both quantitatively and qualitatively analyze the data collected for this
project. The STARS Credit Data Collection section describes the process I followed to
collect the necessary documentation (data) for the STARS Pilot Project. This section,
along with Appendices A, B and C is designed to be used as a guide should Evergreen
choose to continue future participation in the STARS self-reporting framework. This
section and the accompanying appendices can also provide insights into how to
coordinate STARS implementation at other institutions of higher education.
Research Approach
In this section I describe the research design and methodology I used to conduct
my thesis project. I provide justification for the decisions I made about the data
collection and analysis methodology.
I also describe the case study design of my
research and the qualitative and quantitative methods that helped guide my data
collection process.
18
Case Study Research
My research was based on case studies research design. Case studies are used in
research to help understand contemporary phenomena within a real-life context (Sharma,
2007). Eisenhardt (1989) further describes case study research as a strategy, which
focuses on understanding the dynamics presented within in single setting. In the case I
am studying, this single setting is the application of the STARS Pilot Project selfreporting framework at Evergreen, the unit of my analysis is therefore The Evergreen
State College. This single case will enable me to gain knowledge about the complex
world of higher education sustainability and organizational learning theory within this
real-world setting. It will also allow me to specifically focus on the effectiveness of the
STARS framework in relation to the sustainability movement at Evergreen.
One of the benefits of using a case study design to evaluate STARS is that it
allowed me to refrain from developing preconceived theoretical notions prior to my
research, instead allowing questions and theories to emerge during and after the data
collection process (Jacob, 1998). This is supported by a similar approach employed by
Sharma (2007) in his analysis of multi-stakeholder organizing for sustainability in New
Zealand. Case studies can also employ a design that allows for multiple levels of analysis
in a single study (Eisenhardt, 1989). This was appropriate for my research, because I
followed a multidisciplinary research approach and used both qualitative and quantitative
analysis on multiple levels. Using a case study approach in my research allowed me to
interpret the ability of STARS to fuel organizational learning and further sustainability at
Evergreen.
19
Qualitative and Quantitative Methods
The three main research questions I addressed in this thesis are: (a) Is the STARS
framework an effective tool to evaluate Evergreen’s work in sustainability, (b) Does the
STARS framework encourage organizational learning, and (c) What does STARS reveal
about Evergreen’s commitment to sustainability. Answering these questions required
that I take a multidisciplinary approach to my research. Isolated monodisciplinary
approaches are insufficient for an adequate understanding of complex societal problems,
which sustainability is a prime example of (Uiterkamp & Vleck, 2007).
I will use both qualitative and quantitative research methods in undertaking this
thesis project. This will allow me to practice multidisciplinary, multimethod research,
and gain insights into the sustainability movement at Evergreen and throughout Higher
Education (Sharma, 2007). Data required for the STARS framework includes both
quantitative data such as the amount of energy and water used, and qualitative data such
as descriptions of policies and practices. In addition determining the level of
sustainability at Evergreen as measured by STARS will require trend analysis and
percentile calculations. As with other sustainability indicator efforts, quantitative data
will be translated to qualitative statements to determine whether or not indicators
contribute to the sustainability movement at Evergreen (Bossel, 1999). My research will
also include qualitative analyses of the participation of Evergreen in the STARS Pilot
Project and the impact this participation has had from an organizational learning standpoint.
20
Data Collection Techniques
Through the case study research design, I drew on several research methods
including ethnographic fieldwork, participant observation, interviews, and organizational
document review to collect the necessary data for this project (Smith, 1978; Van Maanen,
1979; Yin, 1994; Sharma, 2007). In an effort to ensure broad freedom in the approach I
took in collecting data, and in the level of my participation in the STARS pilot project, I
used an approach similar to the “participant-as-observer” method described by Gold
(1958) because I spent more time participating in the STARS pilot project than simply
observing it. For my research to succeed, I needed to get a real-world understanding of
the impact that the STARS pilot project had on Evergreen as an institution. In addition,
this approach allowed my data collection process to flow with the natural course of the
STARS pilot project. This approach also allowed for the level of engagement and
participation needed to coordinate the data collection for STARS.
During my data collection process, I kept a field journal to record both qualitative
and quantitative data, and notes from meetings, interviews, phone conversation, and web
searches. I used the field journal to capture any data or information I thought would be
relevant for the completion of a STARS credit, or for later analysis of Evergreen’s
participation in the pilot project. I also saved all email correspondence made during the
data collection process for later analysis if needed. For follow-up interviews I worked
with the Director of Sustainability, John Pumilio, and my main faculty thesis reader, Rob
Knapp, to develop questions that would provide qualitative data for further analysis on
the participation of Evergreen on the STARS pilot project. I printed out the questions
and took notes directly on the questionnaire document. Immediately following each
interview I transcribed the notes from the questionnaire to an electronic Word document.
21
Throughout my data collection process, including the initial meetings and followup interviews, I made my role as the STARS Pilot Project Coordinator clear, as well as
my role as a researcher. This fostered an atmosphere of trust between me and the other
Evergreen community members. This was important both for the STARS data collection
process, as well as the qualitative observations I would be making on the participation of
Evergreen as an organization in the STARS Pilot Project.
Data Analysis Approach
In my research the analytical process began during data collection as the data
gathered was continually analyzed and shaped the ongoing data collection. This continual
analysis had the advantage of allowing me to go back and refine questions, further
develop hypotheses, and pursue emerging avenues of inquiry in greater detail (Pope et. al,
2000). In the following sections I describe the analytical process I used to determine; (a)
The effectiveness of the STARS framework to evaluate Evergreen’s sustainability work,
(b) The ability of the STARS framework to encourage organizational learning, and (c)
Evergreen’s STARS score, one component in my analysis of Evergreen’s commitment to
sustainability.
Analyzing the Effectiveness of STARS to Evaluate Evergreen’s
Sustainability Work
I reviewed the 2006 Sustainability Report (Pumilio et al., 2006) and the Evergreen
Sustainability website (www.evergreen.edu/sustainability/) and looked for patterns or
similarities between the Evergreen sustainability goals, objectives and practices and the
STARS framework (Yin, 1994). I used a matrix to determine what components of
22
Evergreen’s work in sustainability are recognized by the STARS framework. I
determined that the framework recognized the sustainability components if a STARS
indicator credit awarded some or all of the points possible for each component, or if an
indicator credit allowed for the description of a policy or practice, regardless of the points
awarded.
In addition to comparing the STARS framework to Evergreen’s work in
sustainability, I used a set of criteria developed from relevant literature evaluating crossinstitutional sustainability indicators and sustainability assessment, to determine if
STARS incorporates attributes identified as ideal for sustainability assessments (Shriberg,
2002b). The criteria I used included: (a) Identifies important and appropriate issues for
institutions of higher education (b) Calculable and comparable through time, and across
institutions, (c) Focus on sustainability as opposed to eco-efficiency (economic value as it
relates to generation of waste, greenhouse gas emission, or energy usage (Derwall, et. al.,
2005)), (d) Identifies processes and motivations at institutions, and (e) Comprehensible:
results are translated into understandable outcomes, and reporting is verifiable.
STARS was considered an effective tool to evaluate sustainability at Evergreen if
the framework addressed issues important to Evergreen (did it adequately recognize
Evergreen sustainability efforts), and if the STARS framework met the criteria of an
effective assessment framework. The advantages and disadvantages of the STARS
framework in relation to Evergreen and the higher education community were also
considered in the analysis of the frameworks effectiveness.
23
Analyzing STARS as an Organizational Learning Tool
To determine if the implementation of the STARS framework at Evergreen
resulted in organizational learning I conducted follow-up interviews with six of the main
Evergreen community contacts, representing both individual employees and work units,
who were integral in the completion of the STARS data collection process. These
contacts were: (a) Purchasing, (b) Facilities, (c) Residential and Dining Services, (d)
Director of Business Services, (e) Registration, and (f) Institutional Research and
Reporting.
The nine questions asked during each interview included: (a) What time
commitment was required for the STARS process, (b) Did you learn anything about your
area of responsibility, (c) Did the STARS process affect your units work, (e) Would
sharing information and lessons learned through the STARS process be useful for other
work units, or Evergreen community members, (f) What are the benefits of participation
in STARS, (h) What is the best time of year to implement STARS, (i) Should Evergreen
continue to participate in the STARS program, (j) What recommendations do you have
for future STARS implementation at Evergreen, and (k) Have you put a process in place
to ensure proper data collection in the future?
Using content analysis I compared the interview transcripts, and my field notes on
the STARS implementation process to the mechanisms of, and definitions for
organizational learning as determined through an extensive review of the organizational
learning literature. In addition, the discussions I had with these Evergreen community
members during the data collection process, and the follow-up interviews provided
24
important information that allowed me to gain insights into the institution’s commitment
to sustainability. This commitment will be discussed in detail in Chapter 4.
Calculating Evergreen Sustainability Score
AASHE did not calculate institutions scores and provide ratings during the
STARS Pilot Project. Nevertheless, I calculated Evergreen’s sustainability score
following the methods identified in the Guide to Pilot Phase I and Phase II (AASHE,
2008a & 2008c). Because of the multidisciplinary nature of the STARS framework, I
used both qualitative and quantitative methods to calculate Evergreen’s sustainability
score. In Chapter 3, I present the Evergreen STARS scores as one indication of
Evergreen’s commitment to sustainability.
I created an Excel spreadsheet to calculate the overall sustainability score, as well
as summary scorecards for each of the main categories, Education and Research,
Operations, and Administration and Finance. I followed the format of the STARS
Summary Scorecard found in the Guide to Pilot Phase I and Phase II (AASHE, 2008a;
AASHE, 2008c). This allowed me to calculate the overall score for each category and
subcategory, as well as the overall sustainability score. Using the Excel chart function I
graphically represented the overall STARS score, and the scores for each category using
radar graphs. Graphically representing sustainability scores allows for the analysis of an
institution’s current situation and pinpoints the dimensions and categories where the
institution excels and those which need to be addressed (Lozano, 2006b).
The STARS credits that involved quantitative analysis required the calculation of
a percentage, such as the percentage of local food purchased in different categories, or the
percentage of non-potable water usage. Other credits were based on a three-year
25
downward trend, with points awarded for trends in the direction of sustainability. For the
purpose of STARS, a downward trend occurs when the least-squares regression line has a
negative slope (AASHE, 2008a). For calculation of least squares regressions, I used the
chart function in Microsoft Excel. Percentages were calculated using a standard
handheld calculator.
Many other credits were awarded based on the existence of programs, policies or
practices. For these credits, I analyzed the data collected for each credit and determined
if the requirements for each credit had been met. Because this analysis required a
qualitative determination as to whether STARS criteria had been met, there was the
possibility that I might take too much of a participant role and become a “supporter” of
Evergreen in the STARS process, thus biasing my analysis (Sharma, 2007; Yin, 1994).
However, recognizing this possibility, I tried to objectively analyze the data for each
credit, ensuring that the scores I calculated would be consistent with AASHE calculations
had it been included in the Pilot Project.
STARS Credit Data Collection
This section describes my role in the implementation of the STARS Pilot Project
at Evergreen. I describe the process used to coordinate the collection of all necessary
data for the completion of the applicable Tier 1 and Tier 2 credits, Innovation credits and
Institutional Normalization data. I also describe the participation of other Evergreen
community members in the data collection process. Appendix A includes a table
indicating the appropriate contact and data source for each credit. Several of the STARS
credits required a multi-step data collection process. I have included a detailed
description of the process of each of these credits in Appendix B. This section, together
26
with the Appendix A and B provides a detailed “road map” of the STARS data collection
process as it pertains to Evergreen. These materials will facilitate Evergreen’s efforts
should the College choose to participate in STARS in the future. I will note that STARS
credits might be modified by AASHE based on the input of Pilot Project participants. If
this occurs, caution will have to be used to ensure that the contacts or data source
identified for the Pilot Project still apply.
I begin by describing the steps I took to prepare for the required outreach and data
collection, followed by the process I used for collection of the Institutional Normalization
data, Operations (OP) credit data, Administration and Finance (AF) credit data,
Education and Research (ER) credit data, and Tier 2 and Innovation credit data.
Part of my responsibility in coordinating the completion of the STARS Pilot
Project was determining which credits were not applicable to Evergreen, based on
guidance provided by AASHE, and would not need to be completed. This presented a
chance for researcher bias to enter into my project, a major concern raised about
qualitative case study research (Yin, 1994, Sharma, 2007). By not including certain
credits, and therefore Evergreen community members, in the data collection process,
potentially important qualitative and quantitative data about Evergreens participation in
STARS was not included in my research. However, I don’t believe this flawed my
analysis of the STARS framework as a tool for use at Evergreen. In chapter 5 I make
recommendations to include greater community participation to ensure all necessary data
is included in future STARS processes.
27
Pre-Data Collection
My role as STARS Pilot Project Coordinator was established through several
meetings with the Director of Sustainability, John Pumilio, on June 27th, July 9th, and July
22nd, 2008. In these meetings we discussed Evergreen’s involvement in the STARS Pilot
Project, the sustainability movement at Evergreen, the higher education sustainability
movement in general and the potential wide ranging importance of this research project.
Through these meetings I gained a general understanding of the various initiatives
Evergreen has engaged in to help define and further sustainability both on and off
campus. During these meetings, John and I also discussed indicators and sustainability
assessments as a way to help define sustainability at an institution.
After my role had been defined, I began the data collection process with the
development of a Data Tracking Spreadsheet using Microsoft Excel. This spreadsheet
helped me track my progress and coordinate the outreach and communication necessary
for completion of the Pilot Project. I designed the spreadsheet with ten separate
worksheets, five for tracking the data collection process for the Institutional
Normalization Data, Education and Research (ER) credits, Operations (OP) credits,
Administration and Finance (AF) credits, and Tier 2 credits. On these five worksheets
the information tracked included, but was not limited to, the primary contact for each
credit or data need, as well as the status of data collection for each credit.
I included a worksheet for tracking the time spent on the STARS Pilot Project by
myself and other Evergreen community members. This information allowed me to
analyze the overall time commitment needed to complete the STARS framework. I also
28
included a worksheet for tracking all contacts made during the STARS data collection
process. All the worksheets can be found in Appendix C.
The Pilot Project credits and data needs were released in two phases to moderate
the workload for participating institutions (www.aashe.org/stars/pilot.php). I created the
Data Tracking Spreadsheet immediately following my decision to conduct this research
for the Phase I credits and Institutional Normalization data, and with the release of Phase
II credits in October 2008.
A major component of the pre-data collection stage was determining the
appropriate Evergreen community members to contact for each credit, and which credits
were applicable. This was done with input from John, and my main faculty thesis reader,
Rob Knapp. We identified the appropriate contacts and applicable credits immediately
after the completion of the Data Tracking Spreadsheet for Phase I and Phase II of the
Pilot Project. Appendix A identifies the appropriate contact(s) for each credit.
Institution Normalization Data Collection
The institutional normalization data included information on the physical size of
Evergreen, student enrollment, staff and faculty make-up, and financial information.
When the STARS framework is fully implemented this background data will enable
AASHE to benchmark all participating institutions, as well as provide AASHE and
campus sustainability practitioners with information to better understand how
institutional characteristics can influence STARS performance. Certain institutional
normalization data will also be used when calculating the scores for certain credits
(AASHE 2008b). AASHE requested at least three years of institution normalization data
29
to be submitted for the Pilot Project. Data collection for all three years followed the same
methodology described below.
Data Boundary & Timeframe
Online academic calendars were used to determine the beginning and end of each
academic year. For academic years in which on-line calendars were not available, the
beginning and end of previous academic years was estimated based on the current
academic calendar. The beginning and end of the fiscal year was based on my personal
knowledge of the state fiscal year as a state government employee, which also aligns with
Evergreen’s fiscal year. The timeframe reported was for the 2005-06, 2006-07 and 200708 academic years and the 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 fiscal years. Because of the
overlap between academic and fiscal years, the effective timeframe reported to STARS
was from July 30th, 2005 to September 1st, 2008.
The boundary was determined in pre-data collection conversations with the
Sustainability Director, John Pumilio, to include the entire Olympia campus, and the
Grays Harbor and Tacoma branch campuses.
Institutional Population
I requested data for student enrollment, and staff and faculty population from the
Institutional Research and Reporting Program (Institutional Research). I made this
request through email outreach to the Director of Institutional Research, Laura Coghlan,
with a Word document containing all the data needs attached. Laura provided data for
total enrollment, residential students, full-time non-residential students and part-time
non-residential students. Laura also recommended I contact the Program Coordinator for
Extended Education/Summer School, Steve Schmidt, for non-credit student enrollment
30
numbers. I emailed Steve Schmidt with the data request and promptly received noncredit student enrollment data for the three year academic reporting timeframe (2005-06,
2006-07 and 2007-08).
I also reviewed the IR webpage for faculty and staff population data. The
Institutional Research webpage includes a Faculty and Staff Data page with population
trend data. This trend data provided the necessary information needed for STARS
submission.
Buildings & Grounds
The Director of Sustainability, John Pumilio, coordinated a meeting with Paul Smith,
Director of Facilities, and several other facilities staff on August 25, 2008. Prior to the
meeting I emailed a summary of the data needs to the facilities staff. During the meeting
John and I briefed the facilities group on STARS and briefly described the data needs
again. Paul agreed to be my point of contact for all facilities related data needs. In
addition we set a September 30th, 2008 deadline for data collection. In addition to
discussing the Institutional Normalization data needs at this meeting, we also discussed
the data need for several of the STARS Tier 1 credits related to facilities.
Immediately following the meeting I emailed Paul the PDF credit reporting forms. I
received the completed forms back on November 6th, 2008 following three follow-up
emails on September 19th, October 6th, and November 6th, 2008. The follow-up emails
included reminders from me on the data needs and my timeline, as well as requests for
clarification on reporting time frame and reporting boundary from Paul.
31
Financial Information
In addition to the population data, I also requested financial information from
Institutional Research through the same email and Word document sent to Laura
Coghlan. I was provided with financial information on endowment and research
expenditures and was directed to the Executive Director of Operational Planning and
Budget, Steve Trotter, for operating budget information. I emailed Steve and received a
response back directing me to the budget website
(www.evergreen.edu/president/budget/home.htm). I reviewed the documents on the
budget website and found the necessary budget data. Rather than report the budget
information for each fiscal year, as requested by STARS, I reported the total biennial
budget and noted this reporting discrepancy in the Notes section provided on the on-line
reporting tool. I chose to report the budget for the entire biennium because that is how it
was reported on the budget website.
I also met with the Director of Sustainability on November 8th, 2008 and received
the financial data for Sustainability Program as requested by STARS.
Education and Research (ER) Credits
All twenty-six of the ER credits were released during Phase II and required the
most extensive data collection on my part, as well as outreach and document review.
Table 1 shows the credits that required outreach and the appropriate contacts. I began
outreach and document review immediately following the identification of the
appropriate contacts for Phase II on October 1st, 2008. I initiated outreach to the
necessary ER credit contacts the same way as with the AF credits, with an email from me
to the appropriate contact identified during the pre data collection stage of my research.
32
For three of these credits (ER-17, ER-18, ER-19), related to faculty and staff
development and training, the original contacts identified during pre-data collection
referred me to Allan Toothaker, Associate Vice President for Human Resources.
Through email and a phone conversation with Allan, I was able to get the information I
needed to complete the credit reporting forms.
As with many of the OP and AF credits, I was able to get the required data for
five of the ER credits through discussions with John Pumilio, Director of Sustainability.
This occurred during the November 8th, 2008 meeting at which several of the AF credits
were also discussed.
Table 1. Contacts for ER Credits
Contact
Credit(s)
Director of Sustainability
ER-1, ER-2, ER-3, ER-14, ER-15
Registrar
ER-5, ER-6, ER-8
Academic Deans for Curriculum
Academic Dean for Faculty Hiring &
Development
ER-12
Washington Center
ER-16
Associate Vice President for Human
Resources
ER-17, ER-18, ER-19
ER-16
Three of the ER credits (ER-5, ER-6, and ER-8) required the most extensive
process to complete out of all the STARS credits. These credits all related to the amount
of sustainability included in the curriculum at Evergreen. I have included a detailed
description of the process required to complete these credits, along with credits ER-13
and ER-16 in Appendix B.
Seven of the ER credits recognized institutions that conduct research related to or
focused on Sustainability. AASHE indicated that these seven credits did not apply if
33
research was not a core component of the institution’s activities (AASHE, 2008c). I
discussed the applicability of these credits with John Pumilio, and the main faculty reader
for this thesis, Rob Knapp. Based on this discussion I determined that these credits
would not be applicable to Evergreen and therefore choose not to pursue the required data
to complete these credits. In my role as STARS Pilot Project Coordinator I had to make a
decision on what to include and what not to include in reporting data to AASHE.
Administration and Finance (AF) Credits
The first eleven AF credits were released during Phase I, and the remaining
twenty-three were released during Phase II. Table 2 shows the contact for each of the AF
credits. The Director of Sustainability, John Pumilio, was the appropriate contact for
about half of the AF credits released during Phase I. For these credits, I was able to
collect most of the required data from the Evergreen website, and provide the partially
completed credit reporting forms to John for the remaining data. For the rest of the Phase
I AF credits I contacted the Director of Business Services, Collin Orr, and set up a
meeting on October 10th, 2008 to discuss the data needs.
Five of the twenty-three AF credits released during Phase II required data that I
was able to get from John Pumilio. For these credits, I met with John on November 8th,
2008 and discussed the data needs, during this meeting we also discussed data needs for
some of the ER and Tier 2 credits, which I describe in more detail later in this chapter. I
was able to get most of the data needed for these credits from the discussion during our
meeting; the remaining data needs were obtained from the Evergreen website, and in
emails, and face-to-face meetings with the Canopy Lab Manager, Scott Hollis, and the
34
Washington Center Graduate Research Intern, Lucienne Guyot. This outreach occurred
between October 20th, and December 1st, 2008.
The remaining eighteen AF credits required outreach to Evergreen community
members, and review of policies, plans and practices found on the Evergreen website,
and several State of Washington governmental websites. I initiated the outreach to
Evergreen community members with an email describing the STARS Pilot Project and
my role in coordinating Evergreen’s participation, as well as the data I was contacting
them about. An example of this initial outreach email can be found in Appendix D. This
outreach expanded to phone conversations with three participants, Associate Vice
President for Human Resources, Allan Toothaker, Director of Financial Aid, Julie
Anderson, and Diversity and Equity Officer, Paul Gallegos. All data collection for the
AF credits was completed on December 10th, 2008.
Table 2. Contacts for AF Credits
Contact
Credit(s)
Director of Sustainability
AF Prerequsite-1, AF-6, AF-7, AF-8, AF-9, AF10, AF-11, AF-12, AF-18, AF-19,
Director of Business Services
AF-1, AF-2, AF-3 AF-4. AF-5
Canopy Lab
AF-12, AF-18
Washington Center
AF-12
Director of Financial Aid
AF-17
Diversity & Equity Officer
Associate Vice President for Human
Resources
Payroll & Benefits Manager
Vice President for Finance &
Administration
AF-20, AF-21, AF-22, AF-23
AF-27, AF-32
AF-28
AF-33, AF-34
Appendix B provides detailed descriptions of the data collection process for AF12, AF -14, AF-15, AF-16, AF-18, AF-19, AF-22, and AF-26. These credits required the
35
most in-depth data collection process and a combination of outreach and document
review. Providing a detailed description of the data collection process for each of these
credits should benefit Evergreen if the institution continues to participate in STARS in
the future.
Operations (OP) Credits
All twenty-eight of the OP credits were released during Phase I of the STARS
Pilot Project. The nature of the OP credits made it possible to focus my outreach efforts
on five contacts, as well as the Director of Sustainability, John Pumilio. These contacts
were: (a) The Facilities Group, which included the Director of Facilities, Paul Smith as
my main contact, (b) The Environmental Health and Safety Officer, Robin Herring, (c)
The Purchasing the Contracts Manager, Kathleen Haskett, (d) The Residential and Dining
Services program (RAD), which included the Director of Residential and Dining
Services, Sharon Goodman, and the ARAMARK Sustainability Intern, Halli Winstead,
and (e) The Commute Trip Reduction Program Coordinator, Victor Sanders. Table 3
identifies the credits relevant to each contact.
Table 3. Contacts for OP Credits
Contact
Credit(s)
Facilities Group
Residential and Dining Services
(RAD)
OP-1, OP-2, OP-3, OP-8, OP-9, OP-10,
OP-12, OP-13, OP-16
OP-4, OP-5, OP-6, OP-7, OP-14, OP-15,
OP-21
Environmental Health and Safety
Purchasing
OP-17, OP-18
OP-19, OP-20, OP-21, OP-22, OP-23,
OP-24
Director of Sustainability
OP-11, OP-25, OP-26, OP-28
Transportation
OP-27
36
Outreach to these Evergreen community members began with separate meetings
coordinated by John Pumilio between August 25th, and September 3rd, 2008 with
Facilities, Environmental Health and Safety, Purchasing, and RAD. Meetings included a
description of the STARS pilot project, a discussion of the best way to ensure data
collection for each credit, and a timeline for submitting data back to me. Following each
meeting the OP credit reporting forms were distributed to the appropriate contacts.
Outreach to Victor Sanders began with an email that included the appropriate credit
reporting form.
During the meetings with the Facilities Group, and Purchasing on August 25th,
and the RAD meeting on September 3rd, I was informed that the cleaning services (OP-4,
OP-21) at Evergreen is handled by both Facilities Services and RAD. For these credits I
expanded my contacts by meeting with the housekeeping manager for Facilities Services,
Gaylon Finley, on October 10th, 2008 to discuss the data needs for these credits.
However, on October 23rd, 2008 I received an email from Sharon Goodman informing
me that the recently hired graduate sustainability intern for RAD, Natalie Pyrooz, could
compile the necessary data for the cleaning services credits. I met with Natalie on
October 28th and passed on the data I had received during my discussion with Gaylon.
Following our meeting I emailed Natalie the necessary credit reporting forms for
completion.
For two more of the OP credits (OP-18, OP-23) my outreach expanded from the
initial contact to include additional Evergreen Community members. For Credit OP-18 I
met with Radiation Safety Officer, Peter Robinson, to get data on practices and policies
37
regarding the use and disposal of radioactive material. I added the information I gathered
in this discussion to the other data provided by Robin Herring for credit OP-18. During a
follow up phone conversation on December 30th, 2008 regarding the credits related to
purchasing Kathleen Haskett directed me to Space Management Services staff Patti
Zimmerman for data on OP-23. I immediately emailed Patti with the data request for
OP-23.
On October 6th, 2008 I began receiving the completed OP credit forms back from
the participating Evergreen community members with all forms returned to me by
December 8th, 2008. I reviewed each form as I received them to ensure they were
complete. If the credit forms were not complete I would contact the appropriate
community members through email or phone to acquire additional information. Most of
these inquiries had to do with providing feedback on the difficulty of data collection for
each credit, or any additional feedback they would like to provide to AASHE. I also
asked each participant how much time commitment was required for completion of his or
her credits.
After receiving the completed credits I conducted follow-up meetings on October
31st, 2008, and November 7th, 2008 with the ARAMARK Sustainability Intern and the
Director of Facilities, respectively. The purpose of these meetings was to gain any
additional insights on the data they submitted their data collection process, and any thing
they learned through the collection of the STARS credit data. Tier 2 credit data needs
were also discussed at these meetings, and will be described below. I choose to follow up
with the ARAMARK Sustainability Intern and the Director of Facilities because they
38
were responsible for completing the most credits, and these credits required the most indepth data collection on their part.
Tier 2 and Innovation Credits
The Tier 2 credits were released in Phase II of the STARS Pilot Project. These
credits are worth fewer points than Tier 1 credits, 0.25 points each, and recognize
strategies institutions can adopt to move toward sustainability, rather than sustainability
outcomes (AASHE 2008a). Most of the data collection for these credits was
accomplished by reviewing the Evergreen website, or other State of Washington
governmental websites for the appropriate data. For the remaining credits, I discussed
the data needs with the ARAMARK Sustainability Intern, the Director of Facilities, and
the Director of Sustainability, during the meetings on October 31st, November 7th and
November 8th, 2008 respectively. A detailed table of the contacts and data sources for
each Tier 2 credit is included in Appendix A
For the innovation credits, I choose four aspects of the Evergreen sustainability
movement that I felt exceeded the criteria for any of the other STARS credits (AASHE,
2008c). These four programs were: Sustainable Prisons, Tribal Reservation Based
Program, Evergreen Forest Carbon Sequestration Research, and the Curriculum for the
Bioregion Initiative. For the Sustainable Prisons program and the Curriculum for the
Bioregion Initiative, I used the descriptions provided to me for credits AF-12 and ER-16
respectively. For the Tribal Reservation Based Program I found the necessary data on
the Evergreen website. John Pumilio emailed me information on the Evergreen Forest
Carbon Sequestration Research after discussing this project during our October 8th, 2008
meeting.
39
Data Submission to STARS
AASHE coordinated the submission of the STARS Pilot Project data through the
on-line STARS Pilot Reporting Tool (http://starstracker.aashe.org/). The tool allowed
participating institutions to input the required Institutional Normalization data and upload
the completed Tier 1, Tier 2 and Innovation credit reporting forms directly to the
reporting tool. I began inputting the Institutional Normalization data as I collected it, and
completed the input on December 5th, 2008.
Prior to uploading any of the completed credit reporting forms, I provided them to
the Director of Sustainability, John Pumilio, and my main faculty thesis reader, Rob
Knapp for review. Rather than submit all the completed credits to John and Rob at one
time, I provided them groups of credits over the course of a month, beginning on
November 21st, 2008. I began uploading the credit reporting forms on December 29th,
2008 and completed the on-line submission on January 10th, 2009.
Chapter Summary
In the first section of this chapter I described the multidisciplinary approach of my
research. I described how I used qualitative and quantitative methods in a case study
research design to explore the implementation of the STARS Pilot Project at Evergreen.
I explained how my data collection was drawn from a variety of qualitative methods
including ethnographic fieldwork, participant observation, interviews and document
review. I also explained the multimethod approach to data analysis that I used. The
highly interactive approach to my research presented several challenges and opportunities
for researcher bias, which I have explained in this section, and will continue to discuss
throughout this thesis.
40
The second section of this chapter covers the data collection methods for the
STARS Pilot Project. This section used in conjunction with Appendices A, B and C can
serve as a guidebook for future participation in STARS at Evergreen.
The next chapter focuses on the results of my research on the organizational
learning aspect of this project, as well as the results of the STARS Pilot Project and the
sustainability scores I calculated for Evergreen. The chapter provides the results that will
allow me to draw conclusions about my thesis statements.
41
Chapter 3. Results and Analysis
Introduction
In this chapter I present the data analysis and results of my research. The results
of my research are presented in three sections; Institutional Participation, STARS
Framework Analysis, and Evergreen STARS Results. Data on the resource commitment
and community involvement are provided in the Institutional Participation section. The
STARS Framework Analysis section provides data on the indicator credit, and point
distribution of STARS. I present the overall STARS scores, and Evergreen’s scores for
each category in the Evergreen STARS Results section.
Institutional Participation
The process of implementing the STARS framework at Evergreen and conducting
this case study required a substantial time commitment from a large number of Evergreen
community members. In this section I discuss this institutional participation component
of my research. This includes a discussion of the resource commitment required to
complete the STARS pilot project, and a brief discussion of the follow-up interviews I
conducted with the Evergreen community members who participated the most in the
STARS data collection process.
Resource Commitment
The data collection process for the STARS pilot project began on August 25th,
2008 and concluded on January 10th, 2009. I conducted outreach to 50 different
Evergreen community members during this time period, of these 50 community members
42
five were students (either interns or work-study students), seven were faculty, and 38
were staff members. Figure 1 displays the community participation by sector, as a
percentage of the total community participation. I include my coordination effort as
student participation. My outreach to community members included 164 emails (total
sent and received by me), 20 meetings, and nine phone conversations.
Figure 1. Community Participation by Population
Community Participation By Sector
10%
14%
Students
Faculty
Staff
76%
The total time required to complete the STARS pilot project was 259 hours. This
included the time contributed by the numerous Evergreen community members identified
in chapter 2, and the time I spent coordinating the completion of the STARS pilot project.
My coordination efforts required 80.25 hours of the total time commitment, all other
students contributed 9.00 hours, faculty contributed 10 hours of the total time, and staff
contributed 160 hours of time. My time accounted for 30.95% of the total time
43
commitment. Figure 2 illustrates the time commitment of students, staff, faculty and me
(identified as STARS Coordinator) to the STARS data collection process.
Figure 2. Time Commitment by Campus Sector
Time Committment by Sector
Faculty
3.86%
Other Students
3.47%
STARS
Coordinator
30.95%
Staff
61.72%
Although the hours contributed by staff accounted for the majority of the time
commitment (61.72%) it is important to point out that of the 160 hours of staff time, 85
hours were contributed by one individual, Halli Winstead, the ARAMARK Sustainability
Intern. This internship position is classified as a paid student internship with
ARAMARK, the campus food services provider. At the time of the STARS data
collection Halli was no longer a student at Evergreen, and was a paid intern on
ARAMARK’s staff. However, this internship position is likely to be filled by another
44
student when Halli’s internship is over, and the work she conducted for the STARS data
collection would then fall under the student category.
Follow-up Interviews
As described in chapter 2, I conducted follow-up interviews with the six groups,
both individuals and work units that participated to the largest degree in the data
collection process for the STARS pilot project. The interview questions and the
summary of responses can be found in Appendix E.
The time commitment reported by participants ranged from 1 hour for the
Director of Business Services to approximately 80 hours for the ARAMARK
Sustainability Intern. All participants interviewed reported learning something new about
their area of responsibility, or reaffirming something they already knew about their unit’s
area of responsibility. Participants reported various effects of the STARS process on
their work units. All participants interviewed recognized a benefit to sharing information
and lessons learned through STARS implementation with other work units and
community members at Evergreen. Participants described a number of different benefits
of participation, the more common being encouraging discussions and increasing
knowledge of sustainability throughout the community. Recommendations on the best
time to implement the STARS process included winter, summer and fall, with all in
agreement that the end of the fiscal year time frame would not be ideal. All participants
recommended implementing future versions of STARS, and also recommended having
one individual coordinating the process. One participant reported putting a process in
place to ensure consistency of data collection in the future. Table 11 located in Appendix
45
E provides a summary of the answers provided by each of the contacts that were
interviewed.
STARS Framework Analysis
In this section I present my analysis of the STARS framework. This includes an
analysis of the STARS framework credit and point distribution, and an analysis of the
credits I determined not to be applicable to Evergreen, based on criteria provided by
AASHE (AASHE, 2008a; AASHE, 2008c). I will also present my analysis of the matrix
comparison between Evergreen’s sustainability work and the STARS framework, as well
as the comparison between the framework at the assessment ideals proposed by Shriberg
(2002b).
Credit and Point Distribution
The STARS framework was comprised of a total of 177 “indicators” or credits.
There are two types of credits; Tier 1 credits (88 total) worth one to six points for a total
of 171 points possible, and Tier 2 credits (89 total), worth 0.25 points each for a total of
22.25 points possible. In addition there was one prerequisite credit in each of the
Operations and Administration and Finance categories. Prerequisites are intended to
represent the minimum requirements for demonstrating institutional commitment to
sustainability (AASHE, 2008b). Institutions must meet the prerequisite in each category
in order to receive points for the credits in that category. AASHE intends to score
institutions based on the total points they receive, not the number of “indicators” or
credits they can meet. The Education and Research category included 67.25 points, or
34.8% of the overall points. The Operations category included the most points with
46
70.75, making up 36.6% of the overall framework points. The Administration and
Finance category was worth the fewest points at 55.25, or 28.6% of the overall
framework points. Figure 3 displays the point distribution by category for the STARS
Framework.
Figure 3. STARS Framework Point Distribution by Category
STARS Framework Point Distribution by Category
28.6%
34.8%
36.6%
Education & Research
Operations
Administration & Finance
Several of the credits included applicability standards that Evergreen did not
meet. Credits that did not apply to Evergreen were not counted against the institution’s
overall score (AASHE, 2008a).
Education and Research Category
The Education and Research (ER) category was made up of four sections: (a) CoCurricular Education, (b) Curriculum, (c) Faculty & Staff Development, and Training,
and (d) Research, with a total of 26 Tier 1 credits and 14 Tier 2 credits (AASHE, 2008c).
The total points available in the ER category were 67.25. Figure 4 displays the point
distribution by section as a percentage of the total points available for the ER category.
47
Figure 4. ER Category Point Distribution by Section
Education & Research Point Distribution by
Section
8.55%
26.77%
5.95%
58.74%
C o-C urricular Education
C urriculum
Faculty & Staff Training and Development
Research
Of the 40 total credits that were included in the ER category 28 were applicable to
Evergreen. I determined that all seven of the credits in the Research subcategory (ER-20
through ER-26) worth a total of 18 points were not applicable. AASHE (2008c) provided
criteria for these credits that stated “the Research credits do not apply to institutions
where research is not a core component of the institution’s activities.” I made this
determination based on the fact that research expenditures accounted for only 0.008% of
Evergreen’s total operating budget for the 2006-07 and 2007-08 fiscal years, and faculty
are not hired or retained by research performance.
The remaining five credits determined inapplicable were in the Curriculum
section (ER-7, ER-9, ER-10, ER-11, and Tier 2 Curriculum-1) and accounted for 12.25 of
the 68.25 total ER points available. The Tier 1 credits were determined inapplicable
because they were based on established degree programs or academic departments, which
Evergreen does not have. The Tier 2 credit related to an institution’s common book for
incoming freshmen, which does not pertain to Evergreen.
48
Administration and Finance
The Administration and Finance (AF) category contained the following seven
sections: (a) Investments, (b) Planning, (c) Sustainability Infrastructure, (d) Community
Relations and Partnerships, (e) Diversity Access and Affordability, (f) Human Resources,
and (g) Trademark Licensing. The AF category included 63 credits made up of 34 Tier 1
credits and 29 Tier 2 credits. There were 55.25 points included in the AF category, 48 of
which were available for the Tier 1 Credits, and the remaining 7.25 points available for
the Tier 2 credits. Figure 5 displays the overall point distribution by section as a
percentage of the total points in the AF category.
Figure 5. AF Category Point Distribution by Section
Administration & Finance Point Distribution
by Section
3.62%
15.38%
19.46%
7.24%
15.38%
13.12%
25.79%
Investment
Planning
Sustainability Infrastructure
Community Relations & Partnerships
Diversity, Access & Affordability
Human Resources
Trademark Licensing
I determined that only two of the Tier 1 credits were not applicable to Evergreen.
This included credits AF-25 and AF-29, worth a total of 3 points. Credit AF-25 related to
doctoral or terminal degree programs, which Evergreen does not offer. Credit AF-29
49
related to graduate student employment, and although Evergreen offers financial aid
opportunities to graduate students, such as work-study, the institution does not offer
traditional graduate student employment. I found that all of the Tier 2 credits were
applicable to Evergreen.
Operations Category
The Operations (OP) category included seven sections: (a) Buildings, (b) Dining
Services, (c) Energy and Climate, (d) Grounds, (e) Materials, Recycling and Waste
Minimization, (f) Purchasing, and (g) Transportation. The OP category included 50 Tier
1 credits worth 59 total points, and 47 Tier 2 credits worth 11.75 total points. All 97 OP
credits were applicable to Evergreen; therefore the total points possible for Evergreen
were 70.75. Figure 6 displays the point distribution by section as a percentage of the total
points in the Operations category.
Figure 6. OP Category Point Distribution by Section
Operations Point Distribution by Section
11.31%
19.08%
9.54%
12.37%
13.43%
7.77%
26.50%
Buildings
Dinning Services
Energy and Climate
Grounds
Materials, Recycling & Waste Minimization
Purchasing
Transportation
50
Evergreen Sustainability Work Recognized by STARS
Through my review of the 2006 Sustainability Report and the Evergreen
Sustainability website I found 46 different sustainability components. These included
Evergreen’s Vision for a Sustainable Future, 15 sustainability goals and objectives and 20
sustainability projects. Of these 46 sustainability components, the STARS framework
recognized 44. Of these 44, 31 of the components where recognized such that they were
the primary focus of a STARS credit and points were, or could be awarded for such work.
An additional 13 components were recognized such that they were only part of the focus
of a STARS credit, and either partial credit could be awarded, or the credit reporting form
would allow for a description of that component, but might not award points for it. The
complete matrix used in this analysis can be found in Appendix F.
Sustainability Assessment Ideals
In chapter 2, I presented a set of criteria, recommended by Shriberg (2002b) for
an ideal assessment tool. These criteria were: (a) Focus on sustainability as opposed to
eco-efficiency, (b) Identifies important and appropriate issues for institutions of higher
education, (c) Calculable and comparable through time, and across institutions, (d)
Identifies processes and motivations at institutions, and (e) Comprehensible: results are
translated into understandable outcomes, and reporting is verifiable.
I found that the STARS framework met all five of the criteria. The STARS
framework includes indicators that address environmental, social and economic concerns,
with points being awarded for outcomes and policies that attempt to minimize impacts to
the environment, and society. This indicates a move beyond assessing not only eco-
51
efficiency, but all aspects of sustainability.
As discussed in the Credit and Point Distribution section of this chapter the
STARS framework identifies many of the important issues facing institutions of higher
education in their pursuit of sustainability. Issues identified in the framework include:
Sustainability in the curriculum, energy usage and green house gas emission, diversity,
access and affordability, human resources, sustainable purchasing, and institutional
investing and planning.
The STARS framework includes numerous indicators that focus on missions,
policies, incentives, and planning and process-oriented outcomes. These indicators help
identify the processes and motivations around sustainability at institutions of higher
education (Shriberg, 2002b).
Finally, the results obtained from implementing the STARS framework will allow
for comparison of one institution’s performance through time, as well as one institution’s
performance against other comparable institutions. Results can also be reported as
percentages and graphically displayed, making them easily understandable. By
comparing the results displayed graphically from one year to the next sustainability
practitioners at institutions can observe the evolution of their efforts towards
sustainability (Lozano, 2006c). Once the STARS framework is fully implemented by
AASHE, participating institutions may choose to seek third party certification or
verification.
Evergreen STARS Scores
I calculated Evergreen’s overall STARS sustainability score as 66.88%. This is
the average of the percentage of applicable points earned for each category, plus 4
52
percentage points for the four innovation credits. This is consistent with AASHE’s
description of how ratings will be calculated for STARS framework when STARS
version 1.0 is released in fall of 2009 (AASHE, 2008c). Figure 7 displays of the scores
for each category Broken out by each category.
Figure 7. Overall STARS Results for Evergreen
STARS Results by Category
Education & Research
100%
76.32%
80%
Percentage
60%
40%
20%
0%
62.86%
49.47%
Admin & Finance
Operations
Evergreen scored the highest in the Education and Research Category with
76.32% applicable points overall. The score I calculated for the Administration and
Finance category was 62.86% of applicable points, and the score for Operations was
49.47% of applicable points. The following sections discuss the results for each of the
three categories. I will include a detailed discussion of what these numbers help reveal
about Evergreen’s commitment to sustainability in the next chapter.
53
Education and Research
Evergreen received 28 of the 38 possible points in the Education and Research
(ER) category. Of the possible points 34 were Tier 1 and the remaining 4 points were
Tier 2 credits. I calculated the following scores for the three sections in the ER category
with applicable credits: (a) Co-Curricular Education – 74.07%, (b) Curriculum – 80.73%,
and (c) Faculty & Staff Development and Training – 75%. Figure 8 details the scoring
by percentage for each section. Appendix G includes the summary scoring sheet for the
ER category that includes the total points awarded and the points possible for each
section.
Figure 8. ER Category Results by Section for Evergreen
Education & Research Results by Section
Co-Curricular Education
100%
80%
74.07%
60%
40%
Percentage
20%
0%
Faculty & Staff 75.0%
Development &
Training
54
80.73%
Curriculum
Administration and Finance Category
A total of 52.25 points were available to Evergreen in the AF category. I
calculated an overall score of 32.75 points, or 62.86%. The following scores were
calculated for each of the sections in the AF category: (a) Investments – 14.71%, (b)
Planning – 100%, (c) Sustainability Infrastructure – 72.41%, (d) Community Relations &
Partnerships – 49.21%, (e) Diversity, Access & Affordability – 100%, (f) Human
Resources – 77.14%, and (g) Trademark Licensing – 50%. Figure 9 shows the scoring
breakdown by section for the AF category. Appendix G includes the summary scoring
sheet for this category.
Figure 9. AF Category Results by Section for Evergreen
Administration & Finance Results by Section
Investment
100%
80%
100.00%
Trademark Licensing
Planning
60%
50.00%
Percentage
40%
14.71%
20%
0%
77.14%
72.41%
Sustainability Infrastructure
Human Resources
49.12%
100.00%
Diversity, Access & Affordability
Community Relations &
Partnerships
55
Operations Category
I calculated a score of 35 points out of 70.75 possible points, or 49.47% for the
OP category. I calculated the following scores for each section in the OP Category: (a)
Buildings – 25.93%, (b) Dining Services – 48.57%, (c) Energy and Climate – 42.67%,
(d) Grounds – 59.09%, (d) Materials, Recycling and Waste Minimization – 84.21%, (e)
Purchasing – 70.37%, and (f) Transportation - 40.63%. Figure 10 displays the scores for
each section in the OP category. Appendix G includes the summary scoring sheet for the
OP category.
Figure 10. OP Category Results by Section for Evergreen
Operations Results by Section
Buildings
100%
Percentage
80%
Transportation
Dining Services
60%
40.63%
40%
25.93%
48.57%
20%
0%
70.37%
42.67%
Energy & Climate
Purchasing
59.09%
84.21%
Materials, Recycling, &
Waste Minimization
56
Grounds
Chapter Summary
In this chapter I present the results of my case study research on the
implementation of the STARS framework at Evergreen in three sections, Institutional
Participation, STARS Framework Analysis, and Evergreen STARS Results. The results
presented in this chapter will provide the foundation for the conclusions I make regarding
the three thesis questions I pose: (a) Is STARS an effective tool to evaluate Evergreen’s
work in sustainability, (b) Does the STARS framework encourage organizational
learning, and (c) What does STARS reveal about Evergreen’s commitment to
sustainability.
Implementing the STARS framework at Evergreen required contacting a total of
50 different Evergreen community members, and a total time commitment of 259.25
hours by all participants. Of the 50 community members, approximately 76% were staff,
however, two participants provided the most time commitment, myself during the
coordination efforts (85 hours), and the ARAMARK Sustainability Intern (80 hours) in
her data collection efforts on the local and organic food purchasing credits.
According to my analysis of STARS, I found that the distribution of points
available was fairly evenly split between the three main categories with 34.8% for
Education and Research, 36.6% for Operations and 28.6% for administration and finance.
Within the Education and Research category, a majority of the points (58.74%) were
available in the Curriculum section. In the Operations category the majority of points
were available in two sections, Energy and Climate (26.5%) and Buildings (19.08%). In
the Administration and Finance category the majority of points were available in three
57
sections, Human Resources (25.79%), Diversity, Access and Affordability (15.38%), and
Investments (15.38%).
I analyzed the effectiveness of the STARS framework to evaluate Evergreen’s
work in sustainability by comparing the 46 sustainability components at Evergreen to the
STARS framework. I found that STARS recognized 45 of Evergreen’s 46 sustainability
components. I also compared the STARS framework to five criteria for an ideal
sustainability assessment tool. The STARS framework met all five of the criteria.
In the final section in this chapter I present the sustainability scores I calculated
using the STARS framework. Evergreen scored 66.44% overall, with a score of 76.32%
in the ER category, 62.86% in the AF category and 49.47% in the OP category.
58
Chapter 4. Discussion
Introduction
Coordinating Evergreen’s participation in the STARS pilot project allowed me to
explore the sustainability movement at Evergreen and the potential for the STARS
framework to further sustainability at institutions of higher education. My data collection
and investigation process focused on answering the three questions presented in Chapter
1: (a) Is the STARS framework an effective tool for evaluating Evergreen’s work in
sustainability (b) Does the STARS framework encourage organizational learning, and (c)
What does implementation of STARS reveal about Evergreen’s Commitment to
Sustainability.
Through my experience and the experience of Evergreen community members in
the implementation of STARS, other institutions will be able to gain insights into how the
exercise of assessing sustainability affects the campus community and the institution’s
sustainability work. While Evergreen is a unique institution with a structure and
educational style unlike most institutions of higher education (Jones, 1981; Cox, 2004),
the reactions and actions of individuals and groups at Evergreen provides an indication of
how other colleges and universities that implement STARS might respond to the process
of assessing and reporting sustainability.
STARS and Evergreen Sustainability
In this section I provide the conclusions to the three thesis questions previously
posed. I discuss the effectiveness of the STARS framework to evaluate Evergreen’s
59
sustainability work and determine to what extent STARS recognize the publicized
components of this work. I evaluate the STARS framework as an ideal sustainability
assessment tool, as well its advantages and disadvantages. I also address the important
issue of organizational learning and discuss how the process of implementing the STARS
framework facilitated learning at Evergreen. I also focus heavily on Evergreen’s
commitment to sustainability, and what I learned about this commitment through my
coordination of the STARS pilot project.
Effectiveness of the STARS Framework to Evaluate Evergreen
Sustainability
As discussed in chapter 1, regular sustainability assessments are essential in
informing the sustainability movement and aiding decision-makers in sustainability
planning and implementation (Shriberg, 2002b). The decisions about which assessment
tool to use at Evergreen is very much related to how effective the tool is at assessing
sustainability work at the college. In order to determine how effective the framework is
to Evergreen, I looked at three aspects of this questions: (a) The extent to which
Evergreen’s work in Sustainability is recognized by the STARS framework, (b) How
many elements of an ideal sustainability assessment tool does the STARS framework
contain, and (c) The advantages and disadvantages of the STARS framework as it relates
to Evergreen, and higher education in general.
STARS Framework Recognizes Evergreen Sustainability
As part of my research on the STARS framework I wanted to understand how
many of the “promoted” aspects of Evergreen’s work in sustainability were recognized
60
by the STARS framework. By promoted I am referring to the components of
Evergreen’s sustainability work that can be easily found in the documents the institution
publishes, such as the Sustainability Report, the Strategic Plan and the Campus Master
Plan, and the projects identified through the Office of Sustainability. These represent the
important sustainability issues at Evergreen, and are one way in which the institution
defines sustainability.
As reported in chapter 3, I found that the STARS framework recognized 44 of the
46 promoted components of Evergreen’s sustainability work. Of these 44 components,
31 were recognized as the primary focus of a STARS credit and full points were, or could
be awarded if fully implemented as required by STARS. An additional 13 components
were recognized as only part of the focus of a STARS credit, and either partial credit
could be awarded for full implementation, or the credit reporting form allowed for a
description of that component as supporting documentation. The two components that
were not recognized by STARS were two “Key Strategies Leading Towards a
Sustainable Future” identified in the 2006 Sustainability Report. The components or
“strategies” are; (a) to increase communication and assemble the history behind
Evergreen's sustainability goals, achievements, and indicators, and (b) Strengthen bonds
and relationships among all Evergreen’s programs (Pumilio et. al., 2006). While the
STARS framework does not recognize these strategies, by tracking and reporting on all
of the identified components of Evergreen’s sustainability work STARS is providing a
mechanism to address these strategies. The recognition by the STARS framework of all
but two sustainability components I identified indicates that the way in which Evergreen
defines sustainability through the work it pursues and promotes is consistent with the
61
STARS framework.
While the this analysis provides an understanding of how many of the
sustainability components at Evergreen are recognized by the STARS framework, it does
not fully answer the questions of framework effectiveness to Evergreen. Each
component of Evergreen’s sustainability work that is recognized by the STARS
framework has many nuances that may not be fully recognized. For example the recent
renovations of the Daniel J Evans Library building were LEED equivalent non-certified
building space, which resulted in only minimal points awarded for credit OP-1. The
planned future renovations of the Campus Activities Building (CAB) have been designed
to achieve LEED Gold certification. The redesign of the library was done with much less
participation by the student and faculty community than the CAB redesign. Additionally
the student community is financing the cost of renovating the CAB through additional
student fees. The cooperation and interaction of the overall campus community; students,
faculty, and staff in the CAB redesign project provides evidence for a serious
commitment to sustainability, even if the current STARS results don’t reflect this. Future
decisions about the level of LEED certification in construction and renovation will
continue to illuminate the changing dynamic of the campus community and the fluid
commitment to sustainability that is evident at Evergreen and in any complex system
such as an institution of higher education. I will discuss Evergreen’s commitment to
sustainability in much greater detail later in this chapter.
The above example provides evidence that the STARS framework might
underestimate an institution’s commitment to sustainability. I also found that the
opposite is possible; STARS may overestimate institutional commitments to
62
sustainability. For example, I calculated six out of six points possible for credit ER-8
Academic Sustainability Courses by Student Credit Hours. The credit reporting form
states that student credit hours are calculated by multiplying the number of students that
complete each course in each class by the number of credit hours or equivalent the course
is worth (AASHE, 2008c). If only a portion of a course includes a sustainability
component the total credits available for this course would still count towards the
calculated student credit hours. The result would be an overestimation of the actual
credits awarded for sustainability, and an overestimation of the total student credit hours
awarded for sustainability. It may be possible to determine what percentage of individual
courses included sustainability, by surveying the faculty teaching such courses, but this
would be extremely time consuming for most institutions that offer a large number of
courses. This provides AASHE an opportunity to investigate this potential limitation of
STARS and identify ways to address this it to ensure an accurate and fair accounting for
all institutions that participate.
While STARS credits might not award points or distinctly recognize the nuances
of sustainability at institutions of higher education, the reporting process for the pilot
project allowed participants to include any supporting information they deemed
necessary. The nuances, such as the green building example given above, could be
included in written descriptions on the credit reporting form, thus providing potentially
valuable information to AASHE and the wider higher education community. AASHE
expects that STARS will create a central source for standardized information about
campus sustainability performance and will facilitate the sharing of the information
reported through the STARS framework among the higher education community
63
(AASHE, 2008b). Additionally the information that was provided to STARS during the
pilot project will be used to further develop and refine the framework in an effort to
provide a highly relevant and useful tool for use by institutions of higher education
(Meghan Fay, pers. com, 2009).
Reed et al. (2006) found that a hybrid bottom-up and top-down participatory
process achieves the knowledge required to provide more nuanced understandings of the
environmental, social and economic interactions of sustainability initiatives within
communities. The STARS framework represents just such a hybrid process. A more
top-down process involving key decision makers and staff throughout the higher
education community guided the development of the framework and the indicators, and
the framework implementation at Evergreen included a bottom-up effort involving
student coordination and broad participation by the campus community.
Based on both the qualitative and quantitative understanding of the relationship
between STARS and Evergreen the framework appears to effectively recognize the
sustainability work at Evergreen. As discussed above, the STARS framework recognized
45 of the 46 promoted components of Evergreens sustainability work. And, at least
during the pilot project, the STARS data submission process allowed for informative
descriptions of the intricacies of campus sustainability to be included. This provides a
method for the institution to document the nuances, details and history of its
sustainability practices, and gain additional benefit from the STARS framework.
AASHE has not yet determined how this information will be shared among the higher
education community but the STARS program director at AASHE identified the
association’s Resource Center website (www.aashe.org/resources/resource_center.php) as
64
one option for making information and best practices available. Another possibility is for
the information to be made available through a searchable database that would allow
users to find information and best practices that directly relate to their area of interest.
Either of these options will require AASHE to summarize and organize a large amount of
information that was provided by the approximately 70 institutions that participated in the
pilot project (listed in appendix I), and the many more institutions that may use the
STARS framework in the future. Regardless of the mechanism that AASHE develops to
make information and best practices available, Evergreen will have to regularly utilize
that mechanism to gain insights and examples from other institutions to fully benefit from
the STARS framework.
The effectiveness of STARS as it relates to recognizing Evergreen’s sustainability
work might be reflective of the extensive participation that Evergreen had in the overall
development of this framework. In 2006, Evergreen hosted a regional meeting during the
beginning of the STARS development process, Evergreen faculty member and
Curriculum for the Bioregion Initiative Director Jean MacGregor served as a technical
advisor to AASHE on the development of STARS. In addition the Director of
Sustainability participated in focused conference calls and provided feedback during the
framework development process. That level of participation and interest in the
development of a high quality assessment tool speaks in part to Evergreen’s commitment
to sustainability.
Ideals of Sustainability Assessments
In his research on the adequacy of various sustainability assessment tools and
efforts Shriberg (2002b) proposed five aspects of an ideal sustainability assessment tool:
65
(a) Identify important issues to institutions of higher education, (b) Calculable and
comparable, (c) Move beyond eco-efficiency, (d) Measure process and motivations, and
(e) Stress comprehensibility. I compared these five ideals to the STARS framework to
determine if the development of the framework was guided by the lessons learned from
the development and implementation of previous assessment tools. As discussed briefly
in chapter 3, I determined that the STARS framework included all five of these ideals.
One potential conflict present in these ideals is that having an assessment tool that
is calculable and comparable and a tool that measures processes and motivations seems to
be counter intuitive. The “how” and “why” of campus sustainability movements are
often very nuanced and qualitative, a trait that does not lend itself easily to comparable
calculations. The STARS framework addresses the tension between these two ideals
presented by Shriberg by staying on the surface of the process and motivation questions.
STARS does this by seeking information on goals and objectives in campus planning
efforts, policies, and aspects of campus sustainability that can easily be calculated and
compared among different institutions. For example credit AF-6 awards one point to
institutions that have made a formal, substantive commitment to sustainability by
including it in their strategic plans (AASHE, 2008a). The inclusion of sustainability
commitments in strategic plans can be easily compared from one institution to the next.
However the inclusion of sustainability in a strategic plan is the high level and publicized
result of an institution’s motivations, and not the nuanced details about how and why
sustainability was included in a strategic plan.
In this article, Shriberg also reviewed eleven sustainability assessment tools that
have been used for institutions of higher education. These eleven sustainability tools
66
were chosen because they represented the most far-reaching and widely used tools at the
time (Shriberg, 2002b). Shriberg also notes that these eleven tools, while displaying
advantages, did not address all five of the ideals proposed.
One of the things that Shriberg’s work highlights is that there have been several
approaches to assessing sustainability at institutions of higher education. Additional
approaches have also been identified by Cole (2000), Lozano (2006b), McIntosh et al.
(2008), Rodriquez et al. (2002), Corcoran & Wals (2004), and Venetoulis (2001) to name
just a few. A quick Internet search for college sustainability assessments turns up an
even larger number of campus sustainability assessment efforts. The fact that the STARS
framework contains the ideals that Shriberg identified as necessary for a crossinstitutional assessment indicates the process AASHE used to develop the STARS
framework was informed by past efforts to assess campus sustainability. This
demonstrates an advantage of the STARS framework, and suggests that institutions of
higher education throughout the U.S. and Canada might find this a relevant tool with
respect to their own work in sustainability.
STARS Advantages and Disadvantages
Many authors have written about the advantages and disadvantages of
sustainability assessment tools (Shriberg, 2002b; Bell & Morse, 2004; Pope, 2004;
Devuyst, 1999). However, this has never been done for an assessment tool developed
specifically for use by institutions of higher education, such as the STARS framework. I
am in an appropriate position to provide a review of this cross-institutional assessment
tool, having recently coordinated the implementation of STARS at Evergreen. This
67
aspect of my research will provide a greater understanding of the strengths and
weaknesses of the STARS assessment tool to the higher education community.
Advantages
First, the development of the STARS framework by AASHE included extensive
involvement from the higher education community
(www.aashe.org/stars/committees.php#steering), and the coordination process for the
STARS pilot project at Evergreen included participation by over 50 community
members, who either provided data and completed STARS credit reporting forms,
provided feedback on data I had collected, or helped me identify appropriate contacts for
various credits. I also found that engaging community members in the STARS
framework implementation provided an opportunity for Evergreen to learn by identifying
an improved process for tracking sustainable food purchasing, and by informing
discussions about how to adequately track sustainability in the curriculum. This aspect of
my research will be discussed in greater detail later in this chapter.
This sustainability assessment process also helped inform the managers and
institutional leaders about the success of the institution’s sustainability work and the areas
for possible improvement. This was accomplished by engaging institutional managers
and leaders in the data collection process, and by presenting the results of the STARS
framework to those same community members, as well as the Sustainability Council.
Moreover, Rosenström and Kyllönen (2007) found in their research on the Finnish
Sustainable Development Indicator exercise from 1998-2002 that the focus on more
technocratic participation and the lack of democratic or community participation resulted
in a lack of social learning and the ultimate failure of sustainability initiatives. Thus the
68
community participation in the development of the STARS framework and in the
implementation of the framework at individual institutions is an advantage that may
ultimately lead to successful sustainability movements. In chapter 5, I provide
recommendations about enhancing community participation to ensure that the assessment
is successfully completed, and the results are promoted among the campus community.
The importance of community participation in the sustainability assessment
process is certainly not unique to institutions of higher education. Several authors
(Stirling, 1999; Macnaghten & Jacobs, 1997; Fraser, 2006) have reported similar benefits
of informing decision makers, empowering community members and encouraging social
learning from community participation in the process of identifying sustainability
indicators and assessing sustainability in other sectors of society. What my research
provides is a confirmation and new evidence of the importance of community
participation in assessing sustainability. This is relevant to the STARS framework
because although AASHE does not recommend community participation as part of the
process of completing the campus sustainability assessment, it will help achieve one of
their stated goals; facilitate information sharing about higher education sustainability
practices and performance. Information sharing was an important aspect of the STARS
process at Evergreen and as discussed throughout this report, occurred during interviews
and meetings with Evergreen community members about the STARS data needs, and the
STARS framework results for Evergreen.
A second advantage I found while implementing the STARS framework at
Evergreen was the level of student involvement, and the potential for greater student
participation in future STARS implementation efforts. In chapter three I reported that
69
students provided approximately 34% of the time commitment necessary to complete the
framework implementation. A vast majority of this student time (89.92%) was provided
by me during the coordination of STARS. However there are many opportunities to
expand the level of student participation in the future. In particular, the ARAMARK
Sustainability Intern, Halli Winstead, provided a total of 85 hours or 53% of the total
staff time. This position is classified as a paid student internship with ARAMARK, the
campus food services provider. Halli filled this internship as an undergraduate, and upon
her graduation in June of 2008, stayed on for another year in the internship position.
Halli’s effort to track local and organic food purchases during the STARS pilot project
was counted as staff hours; however, this work was also done by Halli as a student prior
to her graduation, and could be done by a student in the future.
Student involvement reduces the overall cost of conducting this type of
assessment, and also helps provide a practical education in sustainability to students, a
key component of Evergreen’s work in sustainability
(www.evergreen.edu/sustainability/interimreport.htm). Based on a quick review of the
STARS indicator credits that were part of the pilot project, I estimate that the data
collection for 57 of the 76 Tier 1 credits, and all of the Tier 2 credits could easily involve
student participation.
The level of student participation during the pilot project, and potential for
increased student participation during future STARS implementation highlights the
learning and experience that students can gain through involvement in campus
sustainability work, and the benefit this work provides to the institution. In addition to
the coordination effort that I carried out, sustainability project descriptions and data for
70
STARS credits was provided by student interns and research assistants working on a
sustainable prisons program, developing sustainability curriculum for the bioregion, and
coordinating Evergreen’s commute trip reduction program.
A third advantage of the STARS framework is the potential for improving the
efficiency of the institution’s work. The time commitment provided by the ARAMARK
Sustainability Intern resulted in an improvement to the process of tracking local and
organic food purchases. This was reported to me by the intern and the Director of
Residential and Dining Services as a major process improvement that will help the
college track the breakdown of local and organic food purchases better, with the very
likely possibility of leading to a greater amount of local and organic food being
purchased. During these same discussions the intern also mentioned that the contracted
food services provider on campus, ARAMARK, was considering using the tracking
process developed through the STARS implementation at the other campuses they serve.
Further, much of the time commitment provided by this intern was required for
the development of the new sustainability food purchasing tracking system. This is a
large amount of work that will not be necessary during the next STARS cycle at
Evergreen. In follow-up discussion with the intern, and the Director of Residential and
Dining Services, they estimated the same data could now be provided for the relevant
STARS credits in about 2 to 4 hours, as opposed to the 85 hours that were required
during the pilot project. The time commitment required to coordinate the data collection
and reporting process will also be reduced significantly, although not to the same extent.
Approximately 70% of my time was spent collecting data, meeting and communicating
with staff, faculty and students, and analyzing the STARS data. The remaining 30% of
71
my time was spent developing the spreadsheet for the data collection process (Appendix
C). This spreadsheet could easily be used again during future STARS efforts at
Evergreen. In addition, chapter 2 and appendices A, B, C and D can be used as a “howto” guide to aid in future STARS implementation at Evergreen.
A fourth advantage of the STARS framework, while not part of the pilot project
implementation, will be the option for institutions to seek third party verification of
assessment results (AASHE, 2008a). I found that the Evergreen community members
who participated in the STARS implementation process for this project identified the
importance of outside verification of the results. One participant identified third party
verification as an important consideration in determining what assessment tool the
institution should use. While there is a lack of research on the importance of third-party
verification for sustainability in the higher education community, research from
agriculture and forestry disciplines identify verification by a third-party as an important
way to demonstrate independence, objectivity, and transparency in an attempt to increase
trust and legitimacy among stakeholders and the public (Hatanaka et al., 2005; Van
Kooten et al., 2005). Verification of results can also reduce the risk of institutional bias
inflating scores or ratings.
An issue that needs to be addressed in relation to third party verification of
STARS results is how this process would work considering the extensive participation by
an institution’s community members. At Evergreen, as I mentioned above, over 50
community members participated in the STARS data collection process to some extent,
with approximately 28 individuals providing data for STARS credits. The intricacies of
some of the data collection, such as tracking sustainability in the curriculum, green
72
purchasing, and sustainable food purchasing may require a single point of contact
between the third party verifier and the institution. This single point of contact could
help organize meetings between the individuals and work groups that provided data and
the third party verifier if necessary. This could also help focus the inherent pressure that
would come from a third party verification process, by having one individual deal
directly with the third party verifiers, and not introducing more work onto already full
workloads. The recommendation I make in chapter 5 for a single STARS coordinator at
Evergreen might help address this issue.
However, the design of many of the STARS credits may provide some difficulties
to third party verification in general. I did a quick analysis and found that about 22 of the
Tier 1 credits worth a possible 54 points might not provide information that is easily
verified. These 22 included credits such as ER-5, ER-6, ER-7 and ER-8, the Education
and Research Category credits that deal with sustainability in the curriculum. During my
data collection, I found I had to personally interpret the course descriptions for signs of
sustainability in the curriculum. And further the data collection process I used for these
credits was difficult and time consuming. Also the credits that address sustainable
purchasing, green house gas inventories and air travel also required extensive time
commitments from Evergreen community members during the data collection process,
and a third party verifier would likely have to commit similar amounts of time, and
consult regularly with the necessary Evergreen community members to verify the results
of these credits. This may not be a critical issue when considering third party verification
at a single institution, but could become substantial when compounded for all the
institutions that might use the framework and seek third party verification. This does not
73
discount the potential advantage for third party verification; it simply presents an
opportunity for AASHE to think critically about how to make third party verification
work successfully with the STARS framework. Also, a real strength of the STARS
framework is not the potential for third party verification, but rather what it reveals about
the motivations and how it informs the processes behind an institution’s sustainability
movement.
Finally, participating institutions will be able to update information in their profile
and submit additional information as often as they wish, and they will be able to apply for
a new rating once per year (AASHE, 2008b). When asked to provide recommendations
on future implementation, many of the participating community members at Evergreen
indicated that a yearly or biannual implementation cycle would be ideal for ensuring
consistent and meaningful participation at Evergreen. Lozano (2006b), and Glasser and
Nixon (2002) also support this annual or biannual implementation in their research on
assessing campus sustainability. If too much time passes between assessments the steps
taken to collect and report the necessary data can be lost, and the individuals who were
previously involved in the assessment process may no longer be with the institution.
Shorter assessment intervals will ensure that data is accurately tracked each year, and the
institutional knowledge gained through the previous assessment process are retained and
passed on as faculty, staff or students leave the institution. Additionally a STARS
implementation cycle of greater than two years would be inconsistent with the strategic
decision making at Evergreen and other institutions that operate on a biennial funding
cycle.
74
Disadvantages
One disadvantage of the STARS framework to Evergreen, and all institutions of
higher education is the lack of specificity to each individual institution. An example of
this at Evergreen is the indicator credits that I determined not to be applicable due to
Evergreen’s unique educational structure. These credits included ER-7, ER-9, ER-10,
and ER-11. These four credits relate to established degree programs and academic
departments. The educational structure at Evergreen does not include focused degree
programs or academic departments. These credits appear to be important components of
the STARS framework, as collectively they are worth 12 points, or 32 percent of the
possible points in the Curriculum section of the Education and Research Category. While
Evergreen doesn’t have academic departments, the institution does have informal
curriculum teaching units that focus on different academic disciplines. This presents an
opportunity for Evergreen to work with AASHE to identify possible ways the
institution’s sustainability work could be recognized within the spirit of these credits.
The above example may not be a great disadvantage for STARS overall because
most four-year institutions of higher education include formal degree programs and
academic departments, but if the process of institutionalizing sustainability requires
institutions to change the overall educational structure so that these or other credits were
no longer applicable it could limit the usefulness of STARS. However, the STARS
framework appears to be designed such that changes in sustainability best practices and
needs could easily be incorporated into new indicator credits within the framework.
75
Attempting to develop a framework that is relevant to all institutions of higher
education requires a lack of specificity to individual institutions. While Shriberg (2002b)
identified comparability across institutions as an ideal of a sustainability assessment tool,
other authors (Fraser et al., 2006; Bell & Morse, 2004; Reed, 2006; Valentin &
Spangenberg, 2000) have identified the benefit of community participation in identifying
indicators specific to their locations and situations. I present this as a disadvantage to
individual institutions, but I argue that the tradeoff between specificity to individual
institutions and relevance to the higher education community as a whole is a good one,
and therefore the advantage of cross-institutional comparability should outweigh the
disadvantage of lack of specificity when considering the use of the STARS framework.
While the coordination of STARS framework implementation at Evergreen did
not take longer than I had anticipated it did require an extensive time commitment, both
on my part and on the part of other participants. The extra accuracy and detail that
participatory processes bring to indicator-based assessments introduce an extra layer of
complexity. Therefore, participatory processes may take much longer than anticipated
(Fraser et al., 2006).
The lesson that can be learned from Fraser et al. (2006) and applied to future
implementation of the STARS framework is that careful planning and coordination is
necessary to ensure that the assessment is completed in a practical timeframe, while still
ensuring sufficient community participation. I attempted to accomplish this in my
coordination of the STARS implementation at Evergreen. Early on I worked closely with
the Director of Sustainability, and my faculty thesis advisor to identify who needed to be
included in the data collection process. The Sustainability Director then organized
76
separate meetings with the individuals and groups that would be providing data for a
majority of the credits. This allowed me to quickly pass the required data needs on to the
appropriate individuals and focus on data collection for the remaining credits. Working
with the Director of Sustainability was an essential element in the success of this project
as I discuss in chapter 5. I routinely made contact with the community members who I
had met with and passed the data needs on to. This ensured that they were continually
reminded of the time frame for data collection, and engaged in the process. Deadlines for
submitting data to me were determined during the initial meetings organized by the
Director of Sustainability. I set deadlines for data submission so that I would have ample
time to review and format the data, well before the STARS deadline.
The lack of overlap with existing work conveyed to me by several of the
participating community members is another disadvantage. This lack of overlap by some
resulted in increased workloads on the part of some at Evergreen. This is an important
issue for Evergreen as a goal of sustainable workloads was identified in the Evergreen
Strategic Plan 2007 Update (www.evergreen.edu/president/docs/strategicplanup07.pdf).
Of the 256 total hours required to complete the STARS pilot project at Evergreen,
individual time commitments for faculty and staff ranged from 16 hours to 1 hour, and
the average time commitment for faculty and staff combined was approximately 2 hours.
This should be an issue for consideration at other institutions of higher education
as well. Increased workload on faculty and staff can have a negative effect on the level
of services provided at institutions of higher education. In the follow-up interviews I
conducted, participating community members mentioned already substantial workloads,
as a reason that enforcement of sustainability related policies may not be occurring as it
77
could. This provides increased evidence that the practice of assessing sustainability
should become standard and institutionalized. Conducting assessments on a regular
basis, as discussed above, can aid in this standardization process by avoiding the need to
relearn the data collection and reporting process every several years. This may also help
better incorporate the necessary data collection into existing workloads. During the
follow-up interviews, many individuals mentioned that through the pilot project
participation they have a better understanding of what data collection would be necessary
in the future, and the need to collect this data could be easily incorporated into future
workloads. The only major exception to this was the data collection process required for
the sustainable purchasing credits, OP-19, OP-20 and OP-22. It was conveyed to me that
the data needs for these credits, and the process required to get the data from the
purchasing tracking system is unique enough to the STARS process that it would not be
easily overlap with existing work duties and workload.
Finally, Evergreen’s non-standard structure and learning style influences the
results, not necessarily leading to a lower score, but resulting in 14 indicator credits not
being applicable. This was a concern for some community members and may provide a
misunderstanding of Evergreen’s STARS scores and results to outside audiences. For
example during my meeting with the Evergreen Sustainability Council it was noted that
identifying credits related to academic departments and focused degree programs as not
applicable to Evergreen might cause confusion and misunderstanding to potential
students. Although Evergreen doesn’t have formal academic departments or degree
programs, the institution does have academic planning units and students can create a
focused education experience. Evergreen could complete the credit related to academic
78
departments, treating the academic planning units as department for the purpose of the
STARS framework. To address the concern raised about the non-applicability of focused
degree programs, Evergreen could work with AASHE to include a note of clarification on
the published STARS results, and in any reports that Evergreen produces.
The STARS framework is being developed as a cross-institutional assessment tool
for use by all institutions of higher education. This focus on the entire higher education
community means that while it will be relevant over a large population, it will have much
less specificity to any one individual institution as discussed above.
Encouraging Organizational Learning
In order to determine if the implementation of the STARS framework would lead
to organizational learning I first looked at what kinds of experiences and processes lead
to learning. I then looked for accepted definitions and compared those definitions to my
notes from the STARS data collection process, the follow-up interviews and my meeting
with the Sustainability Council. If the STARS framework implementation at Evergreen
created favorable factors for learning, and also resulted in learning it suggests that a
similar outcome could result from STARS implementation at other institutions.
Factors Encouraging Organizational Learning
A key to organizational learning is the integrated involvement of an
organization’s stakeholder community in decision-making (Meppem & Gill, 1998).
During the STARS implementation process at Evergreen, community participation led to
improved understanding of the environmental, social and economic complexities of the
organization’s work, and provided an opportunity for differing opinions, values and ideas
79
to help inform decision-making. This was accomplished through the interactions and
discussions that occurred when I met with different members of the Evergreen
community during the STARS data collection process, and when I presented the
framework results to those same community members, many of who have direct
involvement in the decision making process.
During the STARS implementation process the knowledge and data that
Evergreen community members provided was shared among the various stakeholders
within the institution. Fraser et al. (2006) found that this type of community participation
in sustainability increased organizational learning. When I met with individuals and
work groups during the follow-up meetings I would present the results I calculated for all
categories of the framework. During these meetings the focus of discussions was mainly
about the credits and data that the specific individuals I was meeting with where involved
in, but the discussion would often expand to how that information was also beneficial for
other parts of the institution. For example, my follow up meeting with the college
registrar included discussions about how to improve data collection in the future, but
expanded to how the information provided to AASHE and the STARS scores I calculated
for curriculum would be useful for the college admissions staff in their student
recruitment efforts.
Future implementation of STARS could include identifying and fostering these
potential linkages and cross-disciplinary opportunities. This is a way that the institution
can cultivate, and share the experiences and knowledge created by different individuals.
When the experiences and understandings of individuals is promoted and shared among
the organization the result is increased learning (Nonaka, 1994; Giesecke & McNeil,
80
2004). Based on my professional experience, and the observations I made during the
STARS implementation process, employees are often focused solely on their area of
responsibility, even though their knowledge and experience might benefit some other
aspect of the organization. The STARS framework provides an opportunity for
collaboration between the different disciplines within institutions administrative, and
educational sectors. Using the process for STARS implementation that I employed, and
discuss in detail in Chapter 2, an institution’s STARS coordinator could work closely
with the institution’s sustainability officer or high-level committee to identify and
facilitate collaboration, through cross-disciplinary meetings such as the institution’s
Sustainability Council.
Defining Organizational Learning at Evergreen
Organizational learning occurs when different members of an organization
develop varied interpretations of information and outcomes, thus changing the range of
the organization’s potential behavior (Huber, 1991). Huber also states that organizational
learning occurs when any of the organization’s units acquire information that is
recognized as potentially useful. I found that both of these situations had occurred at
Evergreen as a result of the STARS framework implementation. As I mentioned
previously in this section, my discussions with the college registrar clearly indicated that
the data generated about sustainability in the curriculum is useful to the admissions and
recruitment staff. Additionally, participating community members at Evergreen
recognized that information obtained through the process would help to inform the
decision making process at the college, assist the Director of Sustainability in furthering
sustainable initiatives, facilitate discussions with the community about advancing
81
sustainability, and convey the institution’s commitment to sustainability to prospective
students, and stakeholders.
Second, the data needed for STARS submission required that a system for
tracking sustainable food purchases be modified to track different food categories, rather
than overall food purchases. While this modification took about 85 hours to complete,
the new tracking process will better inform the food purchasing decisions and aid in the
effort to reach a goal of 40% local food purchasing by 2010 (Halli Winstead pers. com.,
2008). This new tracking process not only benefits Evergreen, but also could be used by
different organizations, and as mentioned previously in this chapter, Evergreen’s food
services provider is considering using this new tracking process at the other institutions
they serve.
Third, discussions with participating community members’ uncovered different
interpretations of what the results of this assessment would mean for the institution. For
example, some participants recognized the importance of sharing assessment results with
decision-makers and senior staff, but not necessarily the student community, while others
recognized information sharing with the student community a primary purpose of
assessing sustainability. These differing interpretations can lead to the range of the
organization’s potential behavior changing, and organizational learning. I previously
discussed how STARS implementation could help an institution identify areas for intraorganizational collaboration. The existence of different interpretations of the same
process is another opportunity where the Director of Sustainability could facilitate
collaboration. When more of the institution’s community members understand the
82
different interpretations that exist, it can help enhance cooperation and lead to new
approaches to the work of the organization.
In sum, I found that the implementation of the STARS framework at Evergreen
provided an experience that was favorable to encourage organizational learning, and there
was evidence that organizational learning occurred. This demonstrates that the use of
STARS at other institutions of higher education may also lead to organization learning,
which can improve the actions of an organization through better knowledge and
understanding (Foil & Lyles, 1985).
Evergreen’s Commitment to Sustainability
What defines an institution’s commitment to sustainability? Institutions of higher
education are a complex dynamic of three distinct populations (students, faculty, and
staff) (Sharp, 2002), displaying diverse values and opinions within and between each
population. This dynamic interaction shapes and informs the sustainability work an
institution does. An institution’s commitment is expressed verbally through strategic
plans and policy statements, and visually through procedures, practices and sustainability
projects (Rowe, 2007), such as green building, sustainable food purchasing, and
sustainability in the curriculum. For a list of the verbal and visual sustainability
commitments at Evergreen refer to the matrix in Appendix F. An institution’s
commitment to sustainability can also be expressed through the actions and reactions of
the various members of this dynamic community to new process and information, such as
the STARS pilot project.
The implementation of the STARS framework at Evergreen allowed me to
quantify the institution’s verbal and visual commitments to sustainability. I reported in
83
chapter 3 this commitment was calculated as 67% overall and 76%, 49% and 63% for the
Education and Research, Operations, and Administration and Finance aspects of the
institution respectively. But what do these hard numbers tell us? Careful investigation of
the results for each category will provide valuable information to the managers and
decision-makers and widely promoted results will also help increase the visibility of
successful sustainability projects; such as the level of sustainability offered in the
curriculum, and green cleaning effort. The framework results will also encourage
discussions and identification of areas for improvement. Examples of this include the
low scores awarded for the Building section of the Operations Category, local and
organic food purchasing, employee satisfaction, and student participation in community
service.
The participation of the Evergreen community in the development of the STARS
framework and the implementation of the STARS pilot project is also indicative of the
institution’s commitment to sustainability. Velazquez et al. (2005) argues that the lack of
time staff and faculty are able to devote to sustainability projects hampers sustainability
progress at institutions of higher education. In my research at Evergreen, I found that
while the time constraints on faculty and staff still existed, there was a strong willingness
by all participants to assess and track sustainability, and a consistent understanding that
future sustainability assessments should be a priority. All community members that I
relied on for various data needs were willing and able to get the necessary data to me by
the pilot project reporting deadline of January 2009. During follow-up interviews many
of these same community members identified the increased workload that data collection
84
required, but also recognized this assessment effort as a meaningful and important
process to go through.
The process I carried out to complete the STARS pilot project at Evergreen
allowed me to qualitatively analyze the institution’s commitment to sustainability, as
expressed through actions and reactions of various members of the campus community.
Beyond the positive action and reaction to participation in the pilot project, as previously
discussed, the reactions to various results of the STARS framework are also highly
informative. One of the most striking and important reactions to this process was the
different motivations to Evergreen’s sustainability commitment that I discovered. During
four of the follow-up interviews the participating Evergreen community members
indicated that through their work in sustainability the value of the institution was
enriched. They also recognized the importance of their work to society, and felt an
increased sense of community identity and empowerment. Additional motivations
included the need to pursue sustainability best practices to reduce the cost of doing
business, the need to “green” the campus because it is what other institutions are doing,
and the benefit to college recruitment efforts by embracing sustainability.
I have chosen four areas of the STARS framework to discuss in greater detail that
highlight the different reactions, and, when considered in combination with the verbal,
visual and quantified commitments discussed above provide a deeper understanding of
the overall institutional commitment to sustainability at Evergreen.
Operations Category – Building Section
Evergreen only received 2.5 of the 13.5 points total for this section of the STARS
framework. This section was made up of four Tier 1 credits, and two Tier 2 credits. One
85
point out of four possible was awarded for credit OP 1: New Construction, Renovations,
and Commercial Interiors. I awarded this point because the renovations of the Daniel J.
Evans Library were completed as LEED equivalent non-certified building space. In
order to receive additional points, renovations would have to be LEED Silver or higher.
AASHE considers LEED silver a starting point on the path to sustainability (AASHE,
2008b).
The Evergreen community members participating in follow-up discussions
indicated that Evergreen’s decision not to pursue LEED certification for the library
renovation was related to overall cost and cost-recovery of the project. A stronger
commitment to sustainability requires that institutions overcome the expected barriers of
the current institutional structure and dynamic, such as lack of funding and institutional
inertia (Shriberg, 2002a). In the “Effectiveness of the STARS Framework to Evergreen
Sustainability” section of this chapter I discussed the process that Evergreen went
through to build and renovate other buildings on campus. In those instances the decision
making process included participation from students and faculty, and in one instance the
student body even voted in favor of financing the renovation of an existing building
through additional student fees. The result of those previous processes was LEED Gold
certification for the Seminar II building, and planned LEED Gold certification for the
future Campus Activities Building (CAB) renovation. Additionally the Seminar II
building, which was completed in 2004, was in fact the first publicly funded LEED Gold
certified building in the state of Washington
(www.evergreen.edu/sustainability/operationsfacilities.htm). This example of
collaboration between the three different campus populations strengthens Lozano’s
86
(2007) argument that collaboration is a necessary component of successful sustainability
movements.
Also in the Building section of the OP Category, Evergreen received zero of five
possible points for credit OP-2: Building Operations and Maintenance. This credit
awards points for institutions that have received some LEED-EB certification at any level
for some portion of eligible buildings. The LEED for Existing Buildings (EB) Rating
System helps building owners and operators measure operations, improvements and
maintenance on a consistent scale, with the goal of maximizing operational efficiency
while minimizing environmental impacts. It can be applied both to existing buildings
seeking LEED certification for the first time and to projects previously certified under
LEED (www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=221).
Evergreen has not pursued LEED-EB certification for any of the institution’s
existing buildings. In follow-up interviews Evergreen community members stated that
although LEED-EB has been considered in the past, it has not been pursued primarily
because of the cost of certification, and because the operations and maintenance of
existing buildings was carried out in a manner similar to what would be required for
LEED-EB certification. While existing buildings may be maintained and operated in a
manner consistent with LEED-EB certification requirements, certification ensures thirdparty verification of a building's features, increases an institution's familiarity with the
LEED certification criteria, and tends to improve building performance (AASHE 2006a).
Further discussions about this credit focused on how the framework could be
modified to recognize LEED certified new construction and renovations built before the
three-year time frame recognized by credit OP-1, in addition to discussions about
87
pursuing LEED-EB certification for existing buildings. The manner in which Evergreen
carries out its daily activities, including the operation and maintenance of its buildings is
an important demonstration of the ways to achieve a high level of sustainability and to
reinforce desired values and behaviors in the whole community. These activities provide
unparalleled opportunities for teaching, research, and learning (Cortese, 2003). The
reactions of the Evergreen community members to the results of this credit clearly led to
discussions about several options to address this credit in the future, an indication that the
range of potential behavior of the institution has changed, which is evidence of
organizational learning.
Operations Category – Dining Services Section
One of Evergreen’s verbal commitments to sustainability is to increase the
purchase of local and organic food to 40% by 2010 (Pumilio et al., 2006). Credits OP-5
and OP-6 in the Operations category award points based on the percentage of local and
organic food purchased, respectively. Recent reporting by the Office of Sustainability
indicates that Evergreen currently purchases 32% of its food from local and organic
sources (www.evergreen.edu/sustainability/sustainablefood.htm). This compares to
approximately 15% local and 7% organic food purchases as calculated through the
STARS framework. The discrepancy in the numbers reported on Evergreen’s
sustainability website, and the numbers calculate for STARS relates to the different
criteria used by Evergreen and AASHE for defining local food. AASHE (2008a) defines
local food as food that is grown and processed within 150 miles of the institution. Under
this definition the purchase of all bakery goods by Evergreen from a locally owned and
operated business does not qualify as local because they don’t purchase all of their
88
ingredients from local sources. This is mainly due to limited availability of wheat grown
within 150 miles of the Evergreen campus.
Evergreen’s own definition of local includes all of Washington, Oregon, Idaho
and part of British Columbia. But Evergreen goes beyond just proximity of food
production to the campus, and includes the economic, environmental and social
implications of purchasing from different producers within the Pacific Northwest region.
This approach recognizes the use of transport fuels and consequent carbon emissions to
the atmosphere as well as the community-wide sustainability impacts through local
economic development and social justice (Koester et al., 2006).
The reactions of the Evergreen community members I interviewed focused on the
adequacy of the AASHE definition of local, and the limitations that are placed on
participating institutions by simply drawing a 150-mile radius around campuses. The
discussions highlighted the current process the institution is going through to develop a
definition of local food that, as discussed above, includes determining the environmental,
social and economic implications of food purchasing. As part of this process, Evergreen
is developing official guidelines for sustainable food purchasing, and a decision tree for
determining the economic and environmental sustainability and social justice of food
purchasing decisions.
This process indicates a strong commitment to meeting Evergreen’s goals for
sustainable food purchasing. Additionally, as presented in previous sections of this
chapter, Evergreen’s participation in the STARS pilot project resulted in a new process
for tracking sustainable food purchasing that will provide better data and information to
inform future food purchasing decision. Also, the work to develop this new process, and
89
report the food purchasing numbers to STARS required approximately 85 hours of work,
but, as previously reported, the ARAMARK Sustainability Intern and the Director of
Residential and Dining Services both predict that the data reporting process will only
require about 2 to 3 hours in the future, a strong indication of organizational learning.
Education and Research Category – Curriculum Section
Credits ER-5, ER-6 and ER-8 award points for the percentage of sustainability
focused and related courses offered, and the percentage of student credit hours in
sustainability courses, respectively. These credits recognize the opportunities available
for students to gain knowledge and experience in sustainability, and the degree to which
the student population is taking courses focused or related to sustainability. I estimated
that Evergreen would receive six of the six points possible for each of these credits.
To determine the number of courses offered that include some level of
sustainability in the course curriculum I relied on the End of Program Review (EPR)
survey. The Institutional Research and Assessment Program conducts this survey at the
end of each academic year. For the first time during the 2008 assessment, faculty were
asked to what extent (1-extensively, 2-moderately, 3-a little, 4-not at all) was
sustainability included in their courses. However, the EPR only includes those courses
taught during the regular academic year. To account for the courses taught in the
summer, and the graduate courses, which are also not included in the EPR, I reviewed the
relevant course catalogs to determine the level of sustainability based on the descriptions
for each course.
During the follow-up interviews I discussed this data collection process with
participating Evergreen community members. These discussions lead to brainstorming
90
about how better and more accurately to capture the level of sustainability in all of the
academic offerings at Evergreen. This interest in fully understanding the level of
sustainability being taught at Evergreen indicated to me that the institution is committed
to better understanding, and furthering this aspect of its work in sustainability. A more
complete understanding of the academic offerings will help the institution ensure that
sustainability is a major component of the academic experience at Evergreen. This is
important considering recent research indicates that US college students are not learning
nearly enough about how to create a more just and sustainable future (Uhl & Anderson,
2001).
The potential process that was discussed for better tracking sustainability in the
curriculum would rely on faculty identifying the level of sustainability offered in their
courses during the development of the catalog of academic offerings. If during the
course development and listing process faculty are asked about sustainability in their
courses it would help to engage them to think more critically about their role in
advancing sustainability in the curriculum. It might even encourage faculty to think
about how to incorporate issues of sustainability into courses that do not traditionally
include such components.
Administration & Finance Category – Investment Section
I determined that Evergreen would receive 1.25 of the 8.5 total points available
for the Investment section of the AF category. This category included five Tier 1 credits
and two Tier 2 credits. The credits in this section award points if institutions have a
committee on investor responsibility, they screen for negative investments, they track
91
their positive sustainability investments, and they engage with companies in which they
hold investments to address social and environmental responsibility (AASHE, 2008a).
The Evergreen State College official investment policy states:
"It is the policy of The Evergreen State College to participate as investors or as
shareholders only in companies or financial institutions which do not conduct
business in/with, or maintain direct involvement with nations which, by their
laws, violate human rights. By asserting this principle, the board of trustees
affirms that human rights shall be a factor in determining the acceptability of an
investment."
At this time, Evergreen does not have an investment committee to oversee the proper
implementation of the college investment policy. Nor has the institution screened for
negative investments, tracked their positive sustainability investments, or engaged with
companies in which they hold investments to address social and environmental
responsibility.
Evergreen has two main investment portfolios; College Investments controlled by
the college worth approximately $33 million in June of 2008
(www.evergreen.edu/sustainability/docs/College%20Investments.pdf), and Evergreen
Foundation Investments, a separate legal entity from the college. The Foundation
Investments are managed by the University of Washington (UW) through the UW
Foundation and had a net worth of approximately $7 million in June of 2008
(www.evergreen.edu/sustainability/docs/College%20Investments.pdf.).
The Foundation Investments are managed by the University of Washington
Foundation due to the lack of human and financial resources at Evergreen and the
consistently high rate of return from the UW Foundation. Additionally, according to the
Sustainable Endowments Institute's 2008 College Sustainability Report Card
(www.greenreportcard.org/report-card-2009/schools/university-of-washington), UW
92
received an “A” for its investment priorities, which recognized the UW for its practice of
investing in renewable energy sources and for community development loan funds. The
UW also received "B's" in both Endowment Transparency and Stakeholder Engagement
categories.
In follow-up discussions with participating community members there was an
indication that a more hands on approach to managing the institution’s investment could
be taken, a committee on sustainable investing has been considered in the past, and
STARS framework implementation might be the catalyst needed to make this happen. I
also noted an interest from the essential community members to take a more active
participatory role in future STARS implementation. Community members I interviewed
saw increased involvement as a starting point for ensuring the institution’s investment
policy was implemented, and sustainable investing was pursued more fully. This
demonstrates a commitment to furthering sustainability at Evergreen by better
understanding the environmental, economic, and social implications of the institution’s
investment practices. This is also another sign that the range of potential behavior of the
institution has changed through the STARS process and organizational learning has
occurred, as discussed previously in this chapter.
Administration & Finance Category – Community Service Credits
Credits AF-15 and AF-16 award points based on the number of students
participating in community service and the student hours contributed to community
service, respectively (AASHE, 2008c). These credits award points for community
service that is coordinated through the institution. I determined that Evergreen would
receive two out of a possible six points for these two credits. The method I used to
93
determine the level of community service participation at Evergreen included reviewing
the Center for Community Based Learning and Action (CCBLA) Annual Report, which
identifies the number of students and hours contributed to community service through the
CCBLA. In addition, I reviewed the Evergreen Student Experience Survey for 2004 and
2006. This survey tool questions a representative sample of the undergraduate
population. As part of this survey, participants are asked a series of questions about how
often they participate in community activities including community service. One of the
areas of community service that I was not able to capture for these credits, but would
affect the results is the amount of community based projects or service learning that is
part of individual courses at Evergreen. This type of community service is not tracked by
the CCBLA, but is tracked through the End of Program Review Survey (EPR). The
2007-08 EPR reported 26.7% of all courses surveyed included some community projects
or service learning
(www.evergreen.edu/institutionalresearch/eprassessment.htm#epr2007-08). It would be
possible to use a similar data collection and analysis methods as I used for the curriculum
credits discussed above, and in Appendix B, to determine how many students participated
in the courses that included service learning. I did not attempt this because I was not
aware of the existence of this data until after I had concluded the data collection process
for my research.
The participating community members I conducted follow-up interviews with,
and the members of the Sustainability Council I met with, were surprised by the results
for these credits. In addition to expressing surprise, community members mentioned the
need to better track and encourage community service at the institution. There was a
94
general sense that the Evergreen student body is highly active in community service and
action, but that the results did not necessarily reflect that. Student involvement in
community service and volunteerism represents a powerful tool for enhancing student
development while also providing service to the community; therefore it is an effective
way for students to gain practical experience and knowledge in sustainability related
efforts and to gain a sense of community responsibility (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996; Astin
& Sax, 1998). This is evidence of the institution’s commitment to an important aspect of
sustainability; student development, and community service.
During my data collection process, as will be discussed in chapter 5 as a
limitation of my research, I was not able to meet with the Director of the CCBLA during
the data collection process for these credits. Involving the CCBLA Director in the data
collection may have led to a better understanding of the level of community involvement
by Evergreen students, such as the existence of the data from the EPR.
A Complex and Dynamic Commitment to Sustainability
Through my research I observed the dynamic and complex commitment to
sustainability displayed by Evergreen. This commitment includes strong verbalization of
the need to promote and advance sustainability through the Evergreen Vision for a
Sustainable Future, the Strategic Plan, Campus Master Plan and the 2006 Sustainability
Report. In addition to the strong commitments made on paper, Evergreen has and
continues to engage in projects and procedures designed to advance sustainability,
including willing and active participation in the STARS pilot project. And finally, this
commitment is expressed through the actions and reactions of the institution and its
community members to the process of assessing institutional sustainability.
95
I observed this commitment in advanced stages and as a starting point for
improvement. This demonstrates the complicated nature of sustainability movements at
institutions of higher education. The complex multi-structured framework of institutions
of higher education with distinct community populations impedes most attempts to fully
institutionalize a systematic commitment to sustainability (Sharp, 2002). Further the lack
of an interdisciplinary framework at institutions is limiting the ability to fully embrace
sustainability (Velazquez et. al., 2005). Evergreen’s unique structure with a focus on
interdisciplinary learning and regular interaction and cooperation between the three
distinct campus populations provides a good foundation for the institution to continue to
make advances towards a strong commitment to sustainability. As I have highlighted in
this section, this cooperation between faculty, staff and students has led to advances in
campus sustainability, through the design and construction of LEED Gold buildings.
Additionally, it is clear that the range of the institution’s potential behavior has changed
as a result of participation in STARS. This is a clear indication that the process resulted
in organizational learning at Evergreen, and that STARS can provide the benefit of
assessing campus sustainability, and encouraging learning.
STARS and the Sustainability Challenge
I see sustainability as a way to address the many environmental and social
challenges faced by society today, such as global climate change, social injustice,
environmental degradation, just to name a few. The idea that we can provide for the
needs of current generations, while not reducing the ability of future generations to have
their needs met is an ideal that holds great potential. Education needs to play a
fundamental role in how our society moves forward and addresses the sustainability
96
challenge (Uhl & Anderson, 2001). However, the current organizational structure of
institutions of higher education does not support this need. In this section, I will provide
a brief discussion of some of the limitations faced by higher education in fully
institutionalizing sustainability, and discuss how the knowledge created by my research,
and the STARS framework might help address these limitations.
Limitations to Institutionalization of Sustainability
Education is about the fundamental level where the way in which we view our
relationships with the world and others begins to take shape (Cole, 2003). Higher
education needs to focus on increasing our understanding about this complex relationship
between humans and their environment because the future leaders, decision-makers and
intellectuals of the social, political, economic and academic sectors are created, formed
and shaped within the world’s higher education institutions (Lozano, 2006b).
However, the current reality is that the educational and administrative framework
of most institutions of higher education does not support the organizational practice that
is needed to force the change that is necessary. The different subcultures that exist within
institutions of higher education (faculty, staff, and students) create inherent tensions
within the structure of the institutions that becomes a roadblock to change (Sharp, 2002).
The separation between the three subcultures and especially between the student and
faculty communities, and the administrative communities often times excludes the
students and faculty from the planning and decision making process.
Additionally, many institutions treat sustainability as a label that can be stamped
on projects and included in verbal commitments so that the institutions appear more
“green” to stakeholders and the public. Institutions that ignore the impending risks that
97
we face as a global community, and fail to embrace sustainability will compromise their
capacities to carry out their functions by operating inefficiently and by losing credibility
and trust with stakeholders (Litten & Newport, 2004), and by not adequately shaping the
leaders of tomorrow to successfully address the challenge of sustainability.
In large part, graduates from today’s institutions of higher education continue to
contribute to Earth’s decline, rather than mitigate the growing array of social and
environmental problems facing current generations (Uhl & Anderson, 2001). Core
requirements at many universities and colleges include the components of sustainability
education (Rowe, 2007). This often results in unintended consequences at traditional
institutions of higher education, as an ever-increasing demand for more curricular
requirements within an undergraduate program can introduce competing claims for the
scarce resources known as academic credit hours (Koester et al., 2006). This highlights
the inadequacy of the current educational framework at most colleges and universities in
response to the need for fully embracing sustainability across the curriculum. Institutions
must provide opportunities for all students, regardless their area of study, to incorporate
issues of sustainability into their education. If only limited numbers of students at
institutions are adequately exposed to sustainability, the opportunities to transfer that
knowledge and experience beyond the campus walls will also be limited.
Universities should be systems to foster the change that is needed to ensure
sustainability becomes institutionalized in higher education systems and society as a
whole (Lozano 2006b). The need to more effectively inform students and society about
sustainability requires a renewed focus on institutional change. Colleges and universities
must demonstrate their commitment to make society more sustainable by incorporating
98
sustainability directly into teachings, research, operations, facilities management,
purchasing, and their interactions with local and regional communities (Glasser & Nixon,
2002).
Given the educational and research capacity, the external partnerships, and the
position of higher education as an influential voice in society, there is ample opportunity
for higher education to help shift societal norms toward a healthier environmental, social,
and economic sustainability (Rowe, 2007). A sustainability framework within which a
broad range of environmental, technological, and cultural problems can be researched,
addressed, and solved, should be an important central organizing idea for higher
education (Uhl et. al., 2000). A new focus of higher education should include providing
opportunities for students to work on actual, real-world problems facing their campus,
community, government and industry (Cortese, 2003). STARS may help institutions of
higher education address this and the other problems faced in fully embracing
sustainability.
In summary, I have recognized four limitations to fully embracing sustainability
at institutions of higher education. These limitations are; (a) Inherent tensions between
the different campus populations, (b) Sustainability seen as an add on or “green” stamp,
(c) Insufficient educational structure to support sustainability in the curriculum, (d)
Existing organizational framework that does not support institutionalization of
sustainability.
STARS and Institutional Change
My research has demonstrated that the STARS framework can be a catalyst for
organizational learning and foster change at institutions of higher education. The
99
implementation of STARS at Evergreen provided me with a greater understanding of the
organizational culture at the institution, which I hope can inform a strategy for achieving
new levels of institutional engagement in sustainability. The STARS framework
provides a relevant and highly appropriate instrument for monitoring and analyzing
sustainability at institutions of higher education, which is needed to help ensure
sustainability is fully realized at colleges and universities (Velazquez et al., 2006).
Previously in this chapter I identified increased community participation in the
implementation of the STARS framework as an advantage of its use. The use of this tool
can help overcome the inherent tensions between the different campus sub-cultures
discussed by Sharp (2002). Including faculty, staff and students in the data collection
process and during the presentation of the assessments results will help inform future
decision making through a process that includes the diverse views of the different subcultures of the institution. Examples of this in my research include the discussions and
interactions of the students, faculty and staff on the Sustainability Council during the
presentation of my research results. I also experienced this directly when I, as a student,
met with faculty and staff and discussed the data needs, and later the results of my
research. These meeting often led to the discussion of various options for future data
collection, and how to address limitations in Evergreens sustainability work that were
identified through the use of the STARS framework.
The focus on process and motivations in the STARS framework delves into the
planning, decision making, incentives and other process-oriented outcomes, and will help
identify mechanisms for organizational change by asking why and how campuses pursue
sustainability initiatives and projects that are currently being done (Shriberg, 2002a).
100
Through the coordination of the STARS pilot project at Evergreen I was able to gain
insights into those processes and motivations of sustainability work, as previously
discussed. These insights delved deeper into the “how” and “why” of campus
sustainability than what STARS actually requires, and I was able to understand the spirit
in which sustainability is happening at Evergreen. I gained these insights through
interactions with the Evergreen community members whose work, and interests involve
them in various aspects of the institution’s sustainability movement. Through my
research, I learned about motivations at Evergreen that included very personal feelings of
community identity and empowerment from several Evergreen community members, to
addressing the need to publicize Evergreen’s work in sustainability to potential students,
and the need to “green” the campus because it’s what is being done in society today.
These varying motivations for pursuing sustainability result in the complex and dynamic
commitment to sustainability at Evergreen.
The use of the STARS framework will help institutions move beyond using
sustainability as simply an add-on. Institutions that pursue sustainability as an add-on or
“green” stamp may find that they lack specific requirements for some of the STARS
credits. For example credits AF-8 and AF-9 award points specifically for having a
formal campus sustainability plan, and climate action plan, respectively. Additionally
several of the credits include requirements for sustainability related policies, such as
green building and sustainable purchasing policies. Institutions that view sustainability
as an add-on and not an integrated part of the institution’s framework may be unlikely to
pursue plans and policies that are required for STARS credits.
101
Understanding and quantifying the current opportunities available and the level of
sustainability being taught to students is the first step in the process of successfully
transferring knowledge beyond the campus walls. In my experience with the STARS
framework at Evergreen, the process of collecting data, and presenting results of the
assessment to members of the campus community led to discussions about how best to
track the level of sustainability in the curriculum and brainstorming on how to continue to
expand the opportunities for students to learn about sustainability. I would assume that a
similar outcome is possible at other institutions that use the STARS framework. In
addition to tracking the level of sustainability in the curriculum the STARS framework
also tracks what I consider non-traditional learning opportunities at institutions. For
example, credits in the Education and Research category award points for sustainability
related outreach campaigns, peer-to-peer sustainability training programs, and
sustainability literacy assessments.
The need to provide students with a practical education in sustainability has been
identified by Evergreen (Pumilio et al., 2006), and throughout the higher education
community (Cortese, 2003). While the STARS framework does not directly track
opportunities for practical sustainability education, in a follow-up interview I conducted
with the facilities staff we discussed the possibility of incorporating students into
addressing some of the areas of deficiency identified through the STARS assessment.
The Director of Facilities gave an example of a previous student who had looked into
LEED-EB certification for several existing buildings on campus. One future possibility
that I mentioned and was briefly discussed was to include student participation in
developing ideas for using non-potable water for irrigation on campus. However, along
102
with this, we also discussed the limitations of using reclaimed wastewater at Evergreen
due to the distance of the campus away from the local wastewater treatment facility,
approximately 5 miles, across a saltwater inlet. The outcome of pursuing ideas like this
could be students helping to address real-world sustainability problems faced by colleges
and universities, such as reducing potable water usage for irrigation, or tracking and
improving sustainable investing. As with other outcomes I experienced, it is not
unreasonable to think that similar discussions might result from STARS implementation
at other campuses.
My experience implementing the STARS framework and the resulting actions and
reactions of Evergreen community members led me to believe that the process of
assessing sustainability at institutions of higher education can help address some of the
limitations to institutionalization of sustainability in higher education. Further, the
STARS framework includes indicators that specifically address some of the limitations
that have been identified by others, including addressing the processes and motivations of
sustainability planning and implementation at institutions of higher education.
Chapter Summary
The first thesis question I presented in chapter 1 was how effective was STARS at
evaluating Evergreen’s sustainability work. To answer this question I looked at the
amount of Evergreen’s work in sustainability that is recognized by STARS, the “ideals”
that the STARS framework contains, and the advantages and disadvantages of the
framework. Through the Sustainability Report and Evergreen’s sustainability website I
identified many components or “indicators” of Evergreen’s sustainability work. As
discussed in chapter 3, the STARS framework recognized the majority of these
103
“indicators”. In addition the framework contained all five “ideals” recommended by
Shriberg (2002b). And the many advantages of the framework outweighed the
disadvantages, such as encouraging community participation, providing students an
opportunity for practical education in sustainability, and improving organizational
efficiency and knowledge.
While the framework recognized the publicized aspects of Evergreen’s work in
sustainability there are many nuances to sustainability at Evergreen that may not be
highlighted by the STARS framework but the reporting method for the STARS did allow
for additional information to be included. Such additional information could include the
nuances of an institution’s sustainability work. In many aspects, it is these nuances, such
as Evergreen’s process for defining local food, or community participation in green
building design at that are the truly informative aspects of the institution’s commitment to
sustainability.
The STARS framework’s focus on the general aspects of an institution’s
sustainability work does not reduce the usefulness of the STARS tool. As discussed
previously, for a cross-institutional sustainability assessment tool to be relevant to all
4,100 institutions of higher education in the United States, it will have to be much less
specific to the nuances of sustainability work at individual colleges and universities.
My second thesis question posed in chapter 1 looked at the potential for the
STARS framework to be a tool that led to organizational learning. My experience with
the Evergreen community during the STARS pilot project led me to believe that
organization learning did occur as a result of this process. Organizational learning is
important because it results in organizations creating, acquiring, and transferring
104
knowledge and modifying their behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights
(Giesecke & McNeil, 2004). This is extremely relevant to the sustainability movement in
higher education because of the need to change the current structure of higher education
institutions to fully embrace and institutionalize sustainability. Regular implementation
of STARS should continue to encourage organizational learning and potentially lead to
organizational change. Future research should focus on this assumption and also look at
if the resulting change is moving society towards a more sustainable future.
The final thesis question allowed me to gain a better understanding of Evergreen’s
commitment to sustainability through the implementation of STARS. As discussed
previously in this chapter, this commitment is very dynamic and complex, and includes
many nuances that the STARS scores only brush the surface of. The fact that Evergreen
participated in the STARS pilot project and community members were encouraging the
us of the framework in the future tells me that there is a strong commitment to gaining a
deeper understanding of sustainability at Evergreen, and advancing the sustainability
movement. The newly created knowledge that the STARS framework provides
Evergreen should help to strengthen this commitment and allow Evergreen to continue to
be leader in the higher education sustainability movement.
While the STARS framework only provides one indication of Evergreen’s
sustainability commitment, it is an important one. It provides a comprehensive and
comparable way for potential students to gauge an institution’s level of sustainability,
which recent research indicates is an important factor for consideration by potential
students. It also provides institutions with important indications of how successfully they
are implementing sustainability, and possible areas for improvement. However, more
105
importantly the STARS framework provides a tool that, if implemented correctly, can
engage the campus community in the dialogue of sustainability, and provide greater
understanding of the motivations and processes behind an institution’s sustainability
commitment.
In order to effectively bring about transformational change that is needed to
address the many environmental and social problems faced by society today institutions
of higher education need to adequately prepare the decision makers and leaders of
tomorrow. To effectively address this need colleges and universities must change from
the current structure and paradigm to one in which sustainability is fully embraced and
institutionalized, serving as laboratories for sustainable living. My research has shown
that through the process of implementing the STARS framework, students can become
involved in the sustainability work of an institution and gain practical knowledge that
will help shape them as future leaders and decision makers. I also found that the STARS
framework can be used as an effective tool for informing the higher education
community on the current state of sustainability in higher education.
106
Chapter 5. Recommendation, Limitations and
Future Needs
Introduction
In this chapter I provide recommendations to Evergreen and AASHE. These
recommendations are focused mainly on the use of the STARS framework in the future,
and how this might further sustainability. I have avoided making recommendations to
Evergreen about sustainability projects that could be implemented because that was not
the focus of my research. I also discuss the limitations of my research and how these
limitations might have affected my work. And finally I discuss the future research needs
that my work has highlighted.
Recommendations to Evergreen
Recommendation 1 – Participate in STARS
Evergreen should continue to participate in the STARS framework in the future.
All participating Evergreen community members interviewed consider the participation
in this program to be a benefit to Evergreen. The college is clearly among the leading
institutions of higher education, as evidenced by 13 national and local sustainability
related awards and recognitions (www.evergreen.edu/sustainability/awards.htm).
Evergreen must continue to advance sustainability both on campus, and throughout the
higher education community to continue to be a leader and help shape the future of the
sustainability movement.
107
Based on my experience and research with the tool, and conversations with the
Director of Sustainability at Evergreen, who has been involved in the development of the
STARS framework, this tool has the potential to become a primary tool for assessing and
tracking sustainability in higher education. In fact, even before the conclusion of this
thesis project I received inquiries from another institution of higher education that was
just beginning to implement the framework. To continue to provide leadership in the
higher education sustainability movement, Evergreen must fully embrace the use of the
STARS framework, as was done during the STARS pilot project, if it is clear that it will
be the national standard for assessing campus sustainability.
As discussed in the chapter 3, the STARS data collection and reporting process
required a total of 259.5 hours from about 30 Evergreen community members. However,
this time commitment should go down substantially for the next STARS process. The
ARMARK Sustainability Intern provided almost one third of the entire time commitment
(85 hours). As discussed in the Advantages section of the previous chapter, the time
required to provide the local and organic food purchasing data should only require about
two to four hours. This would reduce the total time commitment needed to complete
STARS to 176 hours.
As discussed previously, the time required to coordinate the STARS data
collection process would also be reduced, however, not to the same degree. About 70%
(56 hours) of the time commitment I provided was for data collection, meetings with
community members and data processing and analysis. This work will still need to be
done during future STARS implementation. However, chapter 2 and appendices A, B ,
108
C, and D are designed as a “how to” guide for future STARS implementation and should
further reduce the time commitment needed for coordination.
Recommendation 2 – A Single STARS Coordinator
A single individual working closing with the Office of Sustainability should
conduct the coordination of the STARS framework implementation in the future. All of
the participants I interviewed at Evergreen very much appreciated having one person
coordinate the data collection and reporting process. Several participants mentioned the
benefit of having someone in a coordination role so that deadlines for data collection
were set and followed. Without a primary project coordinator in place for STARS
implementation the data collection needed by various Evergreen community members
would not receive the attention required to ensure timely reporting. In addition, through
the process of coordinating the pilot project and interacting with various individuals at
Evergreen I gained important insights into the motivations behind the sustainability
movement at Evergreen. The most important of these motivations included strong
feelings of community identity and empowerment through individuals work in
sustainability. This is a motivation that goes beyond pursuing sustainability simply
because it is an add-on or green stamp, to pursuing sustainability because it is the right
thing to do and provides individuals with a personal feeling of satisfaction in the work
they do. This is a very important aspect of Evergreen’s sustainability work that may not
have been identified if STARS was implemented in a less coordinated fashion.
A single coordinator would also provide an opportunity for practical sustainability
education and experience for a student if the STARS coordinator were a student. As a
student who coordinated the STARS pilot project implementation I can say that this type
109
of coordination is effective and economically efficient for Evergreen. My coordination
efforts were well received by all the Evergreen community members I interacted with and
I was able to successfully collect the necessary data for all credits, with exception of the
credits I determined to be not applicable to Evergreen. The skills and qualifications that
aided me in my successful coordination included: (a) a familiarity with and strong
interest in sustainability, (b) strong communication and interpersonal relation skills, (c)
experience working with diverse individuals within an organization, and (d) a strong
work ethic. The institution should look for similar qualifications in a future STARS
coordinator. Additionally, as a student earning credits for graduate work, I was
essentially paying the institution to coordinate the STARS effort. The benefit to me was
not financial, but rather educational. One option for ensuring future STARS coordination
through student participation is to develop a high quality fellowship opportunity through
the Cargill grant for sustainability fellowships that the institution has recently received
(Pumilio pers.com. 2009).
A major assumption underlying this recommendation is that Evergreen continues
to support the Director of Sustainability position, and the Office of Sustainability. The
success of my coordination of the STARS pilot project was due in large part to the
support and involvement I received from the Director of Sustainability. This
involvement included assistance identifying the necessary contacts and coordinating predata collection meetings with essential Evergreen community members, and data
collection for 17 of the Tier 1 credits in all three STARS categories. The Director of
Sustainability also helped keep data procurement on schedule, and I gained important
knowledge about sustainability in higher education and Evergreen’s sustainability
110
movement through our discussions. At this time, it should be noted that the Director of
Sustainability I worked with has moved on to lead sustainability efforts at Colgate
University, and this position remains unfilled and in danger of elimination due to current
budget shortfalls. Therefore, a secondary recommendation along with a single STARS
coordinator is a Director of Sustainability that can support the STARS process. This one
position provides a very important and necessary component of Evergreen’s
sustainability movement and without this position filled and in place I don’t see STARS
being implemented at Evergreen in the future.
Recommendation 3 – Increase Community Participation
Throughout this chapter I have presented evidence that the result of participation
by Evergreen community members was increased learning and process improvements.
The coordinator of future STARS implementation at Evergreen should try to increase
community participation as much as practical. Community participants should be
considered in three categories; (a) Data Providers, (b) Planners and Decision Makers, and
(c) Wider Community. While there may be overlap in terms of individuals in each of the
three categories, separating participation into these distinct categories helps to better
understand how to include individuals in each category in the process.
Data Providers can be thought of as individuals within the faculty, staff and
student populations who have access to the data needs for the STARS indicator credits.
Examples of this in my coordination efforts include the Director of Facilities, who
facilitated the data collection for all credits related to the facilities management. Through
his involvement, several facilities staff members were also included, by providing the
necessary data to the Director of Facilities for summarization before he provided me with
111
the completed credit reporting forms. Another example of this is the Purchasing and
Contracts Manager who provided me with all the necessary data on sustainable
purchasing. On the student population side, involvement included the Graduate Research
Assistant with the Curriculum for the Bioregion Initiative, who works to better prepare
undergraduates, and others, to live in a world where the complex issues of environmental
quality, environmental justice, and sustainability are paramount
(www.evergreen.edu/washcenter/project.asp?pid=62). The Graduate Research Associate
provided information on the Curriculum for the Bioregion Initiative for several STARS
indicator credits.
In addition to all the Data Providers that were involved in the STARS pilot project
implementation, as described in Chapter 2, future STARS implementation should be
include the Director of the Center for Community Based Learning and Action (CCBLA),
any faculty involved in sustainability research at Evergreen, and students involved in
Evergreen sustainability work. The involvement of the Director of the CCBLA will help
ensure that accurate data on student involvement in community services is provided, and
may lead to ideas about how to improve tracking of community service, and increase
opportunities for student involvement in community service. The participation of faculty
involved in sustainability research at Evergreen would ensure that the Research credits in
the Education and Research Category are included in future STARS participation, a
recommendation made by several of the community participants in the pilot project
implementation.
There were four students, including myself, who provided much of the data for
the STARS pilot project. In follow-up discussions with these students it was clear that
112
the STARS pilot project provided an opportunity for their work to be recognized. Future
student participation would ensure that practical education and recognition continues to
be provided to students. The three students who provided data to me for the STARS pilot
project were involved in sustainability work through internships or work-study
opportunities. These opportunities provide practical experience and education in
sustainability to students, and provide a benefit to the institution. The work conducted by
these students is often a core component of Evergreen’s sustainability work, as was the
case with my STARS coordination effort, and results in high quality work being
conducted at a low cost to the institution. Along with involving more students in the data
collection process for STARS, Evergreen should continue to offer unique internship and
work study opportunities to students. Such opportunities could be offered in areas related
to facilities and grounds management, sustainable investing and institutional research to
name a few. All of these areas included work and data collection that was necessary for
the STARS framework. By supporting these types of opportunities, the increased work
created by the STARS reporting process could be partially absorbed by the internship or
work-study. In addition, this is consistent with the recommendation to create six to
twelve permanent student positions presented in the 2006 Sustainability Report (Pumilio
et. al., 2006).
Outreach to the Data Providers could be done through emails and face-to-face
meetings where the relevant STARS credit descriptions, criteria, and data needs are
provided. The results of the STARS framework could also be presented to these
community members at the completion of the data collection and reporting process, as I
did during my research. Outreach should also be done to Sustainability and Justice
113
planning unit faculty members with assistance from the curriculum deans. This outreach
could include solicitation for student participation in STARS data collection, as well as
faculty participation. The STARS coordinator and the Director of Sustainability could
also work with active student organizations on campus to identify potential student
participants.
Planners and Decision Makers include the individuals who are in positions to
make decisions about sustainability related projects and programs. During my
coordination of the STARS pilot project at Evergreen Planners and Decision Makers
involved in the process included the Director of Facilities, the Director of Financial
Services, the Vice President of Finance and Administration, and the members of the
Sustainability Council, to name a few. During future STARS implementation at
Evergreen involvement of Planners and Decision Makers should include the Academic
Deans, the Vice Presidents, the College President and the Academic Vice President and
Provost. The results of STAR framework assessments must directly and quickly feed
back into the planning and decision making process at Evergreen. The required data
needs to be collected at as local a level as possible, and both summarized quickly for
policy makers, and made available for more careful monitoring and follow-up (Fraser et
al., 2006).
These Planners and Decision Makers can be involved through both the data
collection process, when they are the necessary Data Providers, and during the
presentation of the STARS framework results. Results could be presented to the
Sustainability Council, as I did. The Director of Sustainability and Sustainability Council
members could then present these results to the Academic Deans, Vice Presidents,
114
Provost, and President, possibly along with recommendations about how to address areas
of improvement identified through the STARS framework. Decision makers must use
the results of the STARS framework to help guide future decisions to ensure a continued
commitment to advancing sustainability. The STARS data and results can help inform a
wide range of decisions and planning processes. The data and results for the Education
and Research category can help faculty decide how sustainability can continue to be
incorporated into the educational experience at the college. By providing detailed
information about the nuances of Evergreen’s sustainability work and the motivations
behind this work planners and decision makers can make more informed decisions about
such issues as faculty and student involvement in green building design, and increasing
the ability of the college to meet policy goals and objectives, such as green purchasing
and sustainable investing.
The wider Evergreen community should be involved during the presentation of
the STARS results. Broad and systematic participation helps to strengthen the local
identity by providing the means for all members to better identify with their community
and its development, and broad participation also increases the potential effectiveness and
success of sustainability initiatives (Valentin & Spangenberg, 2000). The involvement of
the wider Evergreen student, faculty and staff community could be done through a
campus presentation and forum, and by publishing the STARS results on the Evergreen
website and through campus wide email distribution lists for faculty, staff, and students,
and the entire campus community. The various distribution lists in Evergreen’s email
system will allow for targeted information to be distributed to the interested population.
115
Recommendations to AASHE
Advancing sustainability is often about determining the most sustainable practice
based on current resources and technology (Pumilio, pers. com, 2008). Because
resources and technology are continually changing so too are the most sustainable
practices. This will require regular input from the higher education community and
modification of the STARS framework so indicators evolve over time as circumstances
change (Carruthers and Tinning, 2003). During the STARS pilot project process
recommendations and feedback were sought from participating institutions for each
indicator credit. Similar opportunities for input and feedback should be available for
future STARS participants and the information provided should continue to shape future
versions of STARS.
Institutions should not be penalized simply for the regional or local limitations on
the availability of agricultural products, the way the STARS criteria does. One way to
accomplish this is provide regional definitions, or award points based on a
comprehensive evaluation of the sustainable food purchasing practices. Sustainability in
relation to purchasing decisions is not simply about reducing the distance between the
production and us of purchased good. When considering food purchasing decisions it is
also about supporting agricultural practices that minimize environmental, social and
economic impacts. It should also be about supporting the local economy and community.
Defining local simply by way of a 150 mile radius around campuses does not take into
account the complex nature of food production and distribution and could result in
institutions receiving points for unsustainable practices simply because they are
purchasing products that are grown and processed within 150 miles of the institution.
116
Based on my research community participation was a major factor in the
successful implementation of the STARS framework at Evergreen, and clearly resulted in
organizational learning. Considering this, AASHE should encourage wide campus
participation in the STARS framework, as I have recommended Evergreen do in this
section. Although similar organizational learning opportunities may arise from different
methods of implementing STARS, the methods I used and recommend expanding on
have been proven by this research to result in clear learning opportunities for
organizations. As part of AASHE’s efforts to promote the use of STARS, the
organizational learning results of my research can be used as an example of how
institutions might benefit from involvement of campus community members in the data
collection during use of the STARS framework.
Research Limitations and Future Needs
I have experienced limitations in my research that need to be addressed, as well as
identified areas where future research can address some of the limitations I experience,
and some of the questions my research creates.
Limitations
A conscious limitation of this case study is that it focuses on one institution of
higher education in the U.S. out of over 4,000. Several authors have argued that case
studies are not suitable for generalizing research results from a single case to a wider
population (Stake, 1978; Yin, 1989; Firestone, 1993;) I would argue that single-case
studies do provide opportunities to generalize results broadly across a population and the
case study method may be central to scientific development via generalization as a
117
supplement or alternative to other research methods as referenced by Flyvbjerg (2006).
Flyvbjerg goes on to argue that good social science employs the methods that are best
suited to answer the research question at hand. My research was focused on gaining
detailed understandings about the use of the STARS framework. The extensive
knowledge that I was able to gain was a direct result of the focus on a single case, The
Evergreen State College. That being said, this focus on a single subject does present
some generalization difficulties related to Evergreen’s unique educational structure,
which doesn’t include established undergraduate major and minor programs, or distinct
academic departments. This unique structure makes it easier for the institution to broadly
incorporate sustainability into the educational experience. As discussed previously, the
curricular requirements at many institutions of higher education often limits the ability
for broad inclusion of sustainability into formal degree programs (Koester et. al., 2006).
The result of this unique educational structure at Evergreen was that several of the
credits in the Curriculum section of the Education and Research Category were not
applicable. Specifically credits ER-7, ER-10 and ER-11, which award points in relation
to sustainability incorporated into established academic departments and formal degree
programs. Although the non-applicability of these credits did not negatively impact the
overall STARS scores I calculated for Evergreen, they may lead to misunderstandings
about the educational offerings and opportunities at Evergreen by an outside audience.
Although Evergreen does not have established academic departments or focused degree
programs, the educational structure is set up to allow students to design a curricular
pathway that can be very focused on one of many academic disciplines. In the end, this
difference will serve as a comparison between Evergreen’s educational structure with
118
team teaching, interdisciplinary learning, and emphasis on critical thinking, and more
common educational structures in integrating sustainability into the curriculum. This
would only help to expand the base of knowledge around sustainability at colleges and
universities.
In most areas of the STARS framework I would not expect Evergreen’s unique
structure to lead to different results than many other institutions. For example, most of
the credits in the Operations Category should not be affected by Evergreen’s educational
structure, and should provide a similar comparison to other institutions of similar size and
with similar operating budgets. I would expect any difference in the outcomes for this
category to be more the result of differing motivations and process at various institutions,
rather than the educational structure of the institution. I also expect the same would be
true for much of the Administration and Finance Category.
The “participant-as-observer” approach I took to the participant observation
method, as described in chapter 2, could have biased the results of my data collection and
the STARS scores I calculated. In addition to observing and participating in meetings, I
was also directly involved in the data collection process for the STARS framework
implementation. Researchers who take up more of a participant role may lose sight of
their observer role as they become too immersed in the setting (Sharma, 2007). During
the STARS data collection process I was treated as an active member of different subcultures I was working with and therefore I had to often remind myself not to forget my
role as a participant observer in this research process.
If my role did have an effect on the research, which I believe it did not, it would
most likely present itself in the conclusions I draw about Evergreen’s commitment to
119
sustainability, and the motivations behind the campus sustainability movement. Because
of the active participatory role I took, community members I interacted with could have
been more comfortable with my presence and more open and honest during discussions
and follow-up interviews, which would have benefited my research. However, it is
possible that statements I made, rather than the true feelings and motivations of the
community members, shaped the direction of discussions and follow-up interviews.
Again, because I was aware of this potential limitation, I took all necessary precautions to
restrict my input during meetings and interviews so as not to overly affect the direction of
the discussions.
Another limitation of the participant-as-observer role that I employed is that the
researcher can develop strong emotional attachment to the people or process being
studied (Gold, 1958). In my research this limitation would mostly likely result in inflated
STARS scores. Throughout the data collection and STARS analysis process I had to
continually step-back and ensure that I was interpreting the data collected and scoring the
STARS credits in the spirit of each credit. An example of this is the process I went
through to collect data and score credit ER-18: Sustainability New Employee Orientation.
Addressing sustainability during new employee orientation helps establish sustainability
as an institutional priority and part of the campus culture and encourages the adoption of
environmentally and socially preferable habits, routines, and choices (AASHE, 2008c).
Through my research process I learned that Evergreen includes information on
commuting options, diversity and equity program and policies, and human resources
related issues. I had to fight the urge to give Evergreen a point for this credit because
these are issues associated with sustainability, and doing so would have improved
120
Evergreen’s score. In the end I determined that the information provided in the new
employee orientation did not meet the spirit of the STARS credit in that the overall
concept of sustainability is not addressed, but rather issues that are considered part of the
sustainability process.
Previously in this chapter I discussed the importance of community participation
in sustainability assessments and tracking projects. However, I was able to collect a
significant amount of the data for the Administration and Finance Category of the
STARS framework from the Evergreen website. Of the 32 credits available to Evergreen
in this category, all the data for 9 credits was collected entirely from the website. These 9
credits represent approximately 30% of the total points possible for this category. More
importantly I collected the data for the three credits dealing directly with community
service and student participation entirely from the website. I attempted to include the
Director of the Center for Community Based Learning and Action in the data collection
for these credits, but our schedules were not able to coincide until after the STARS data
collection process was complete.
The result of limiting community participation by collecting data through the
website could be a less than accurate accounting of certain aspects of Evergreen’s
sustainability work. This also limited the opportunity for organizational learning to a
larger population of the campus community. This limitation is the reason I recommended
expanding community participation in future STARS implementation efforts at
Evergreen.
A final potential limitation of my research is one similar to that of research
conducted by Shriberg (2002b). While I attempted to objectively evaluate the use of a
121
sustainability assessment tool, I also propose the use of such a tool is an integral part of
this change process. A goal of this research was also to assist colleges and universities in
making decisions about using the STARS framework, and implementing its use. The comingling of providing an objective review of the use of this tool and advocating for
assessing sustainability in higher education use may bias the results, despite attempts to
analytically separate objective evaluation from advocacy. For example, it occurred to me
that my coordination efforts at one of approximately 70 institutions that implemented the
STARS framework during the pilot project phase provided me with unique experience
with this tool. My research could help justify further use of STARS at Evergreen or other
institutions and I would be in a position to benefit from my experience. While this may
have been something I thought about mainly when considering taking on this project, I
can comfortably say that this thought did not play a part in any of my data collection or
analysis. Rather the realization of this possibility ensured they I made a conscious effort
to conduct professional and unbiased research so that the experience and knowledge I
gained would adequately prepare me for the future.
Future Needs
During my research several questions came to mind that I was not able to answer
through my project. The questions presented here through future research needs would
expand on the knowledge that I have created and continue to enlighten the higher
education community and others about the current state of sustainability in higher
education.
One of the outcomes I observed was evidence that organizational learning had
occurred through the implementation of the STARS framework. Future research should
122
delve deeper into this aspect of STARS and determine if continued implementation of
STARS reinforces the learning I observed and results in organizational change and the
advancing Evergreen’s commitment to Sustainability. This is a research question that
could easily be relevant to all institutions of higher education. Does organizational
learning also take place at other institutions that implement STARS?
During my interactions and discussions with Evergreen community members, one
concern that consistently came up was how AASHE would normalize STARS
participation. In order to provide accurate comparability between institutions the results
of the STARS framework must be normalized so that institutions are essentially treated
the same regardless of student population size, endowment and other budgetary factors,
or location. One issue that came to mind during my coordination process was how
credits such as OP-3: Potable Non-Irrigation Water Consumption, which awards points
for continual reductions in potable water consumption, would be fairly normalized
between institutions. I can imagine a possibility in which one institution has historically
reduced water consumption, and must report an already low baseline to STARS and is no
longer achieving significant reductions, while a second institution has more recently
begun to reduce water consumption and has a much higher water usage baseline to report.
The second institution would receive more points because it is reducing its use, while the
first institution would receive fewer points even though it is using less water annually. I
would argue that the institution with lower water consumption is more advanced
sustainably, as long as it continues to pursue the latest technology and best practices to
achieve new reductions in the future. Both of these institutions could be of similar size
and endowment and normalized into the same category by AASHE. Future research
123
could be conducted on the STARS normalization process to determine its fairness, or to
highlight any issues that AASHE could address in an effort to continually improve the
STARS framework.
The Princeton Review 2009 "College Hopes & Worries Survey" asked
respondents “If you (your child) had a way to compare colleges based on their
commitment to environmental issues (from academic offerings to practices concerning
energy use, recycling, etc.), how much would this contribute to your (your child’s)
decision to apply to or attend a school?” The results of the survey indicate that 66% of
potential students, or parents, surveyed said that they would use this information to help
make decisions about where to go to school. AASHE identifies this need as a reason for
conducting sustainability assessments and use of the STARS framework. Future research
should identify if the comparability of the STARS ratings provide a useful tool for
individuals making decisions about what schools to attend and if potential students are
actually using this information in their college and university application decisions?
124
References
AASHE. (2008a) Sustainability Assessment, Tracking & Rating System for Colleges and
Universities: Guide to Pilot Phase 1. The Association for the Advancement of
Sustainability in Higher Education, Lexington, KY. February 2008.
AASHE. (2008b) Sustainability Assessment, Tracking & Rating System for Colleges and
Universities: Version 0.5. The Association for the Advancement of Sustainability
in Higher Education, Lexington, KY. April 2008.
AASHE. (2008c) Sustainability Assessment, Tracking & Rating System for Colleges and
Universities: Guide to Pilot Phase 2. The Association for the Advancement of
Sustainability in Higher Education, Lexington, KY. September 2008.
Bell, S., S. Morse. (2004) Experiences with sustainability indicators and stakeholder
participation: a case study relating to a “Blue Plan” project in Malta. Sustainable
Development 12(2004: 1-14
Bossel, H. (1999) Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method,
Applications. Winnipeg, Can.: Int. Inst. Sustain. Dev.
Bringle, R. G., J. A. Hatcher. (1996) Implementing service learning in higher education.
Journal of Higher Education 67(2): 221-239
Brundtland, G.H., (1987) Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and
Development, Oxford University Press, 1987.
Butterfield, A. K. J., T. M. Soska. (2004) University-community partnerships: An
introduction. Journal of Community Practice 13(3/4): 1-11
Carruthers, G., G. Tinning. (2003) Where, and how, do monitoring and sustainability
indicators fit into environmental management systems? Australian Journal of
Experimental Agriculture 43(3): 307-323
125
Clugston, R. M. and W. Calder (1999). Critical dimensions of sustainability in higher
education. Sustainability and University Life. W. L. Filho, Ed. New York, Peter
Lang: 31-46.
Cole, L. (2003) Assessing sustainability on Canadian university campuses: developing a
campus sustainability assessment framework. Masters of Environment and
Management, Royal Roads University
Corcoran, P.B., A.E.J. Wals (2004) (Eds.). Higher education and the challenge of
sustainability. Problematics, promise, and practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Cortese, A. (2003). The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future.
Planning for Higher Education, 31, 15-22.
Cox, M. D. (2004) Introduction to faculty learning communities. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning 97(Spring 2004): 5-23
Denner, J., C. R. Cooper, E. M. Lopez, N. Dunbar. (1999) Beyond “giving science
away”: How university-community partnership inform youth programs, research
and policy. Social Policy Report 13(1):
Derwall, J., N. Guenster, R. Bauer, K. Koedijk. (2005) The Eco-Efficiency Premium
Puzzle. Financial Analysts Journal 61(2): 51-63
Devuyst, D. (1999). Sustainability assessment: the application of a methodological
framework. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 1(4):
459-487
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) Buildings theories from case study research. The Academy of
Management Review 14(4): 532-550
Filho, W. L. (2000) Dealing with misconceptions on the concept of sustainability.
International Journal Of Sustainability in Higher Education 1(1): 9-19
126
Fiol, M. C., M. A. Lyles. (1985) Organizational Learning. The Academy of Management
Review 10(4): 803-813
Firestone, W.A. (1993) Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to
qualitative research. Educational Researcher 22(4): 16-23
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative
Inquiry 12(2): 219-245
Giesecke, J., B. McNeil. (2004) Transitioning to the learning organization. Library
Trends 53(1): 54-67
Glasser, H., A. Nixon. (2002) Operations: from the state of the world to the state of the
academy: campus sustainability assessment – a bright star on the horizon. The
Declaration 6(1)
Gold, R. L. (1958) Roles in sociological field observation. Social Forces 36(3): 217 –
223
Hansen J. A., M Lehman. (2006) Agents of change: Universities as development hubs.
Journal of Cleaner Production 14(2006): 820-829
Hatanaka, M., C. Bain, L. Busch. (2005). Third-party certification in the global agrifood
system. Food Policy 30(2005): 354-369
Huber, G. P. (1991) Organizational learning: the contributing processes and literature.
Organization Science 2(1): 88-115
Jones, R. (1981) Experiment at Evergreen. Cambridge, Mass.:Shenkman
Kates, R. W., T. M. Parris. (2003) Long-term tends and a sustainability transition. PNAS
100(14): 8062 – 8067
Koester, R. J., J. Eflin, J. Vann. (2006) Greening of campuses: a whole systems approach.
Journal of Cleaner Production 14(2006): 769 – 779
127
Legacy, C. (2004) Campus Sustainability: Sustainability Assessment Framework at the
University of Waterloo ERS 490 / 475 Final. University of Waterloo, Ontario,
Canada.
Lerner, J., A. Schoar, J. Wang. (2008) Secrets of the academy: The drivers of university
endowment success. Journal of Economic Perspectives 2(33): 207-222
Lozano, R. (2006a) Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities:
Breaking through barriers to change. Journal of Cleaner Production 14(2006):
787 – 796
Lozano, R. (2006b) A tool for a graphical assessment of sustainability in universities
(GASU). Journal of Cleaner Production 14(2006): 963–972
McIntosh, M., K. Gaalswyk, L. J. Kinery, D. J. Eagan. (2008) Campus Environment
2008: A National Report Card on Sustainability in Higher Education. The
National Wildlife Foundation.
Meppem, T., R. Gill. (1998) Planning for sustainability as a learning concept. Ecological
Economics 26(2): 121-137
Nonaka, I. (1994) The Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation.
Organization Science 5(1): 14-37
Orr, D. W. (1991) What is education for? In Context 27(1991)
Orr, D. 1992. Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern
World. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Orr, D. W. (1995) Educating for the environment, Change 27(3): 43-47
Orr, D. W. (2002) Four Challenges of Sustainability. Conservation Biology 16(6): 14571460
128
Pope C., S. Ziebland, N. Mays. (2000) Qualitative research in health care: analyzing
qualitative data. British Medical Journal 320(8): 114 – 116
Pope, J., D. Annandale, A. Morrison-Saunders. (2004) Conceptualising sustainability
assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24(2004): 595-616
Pumilio, J., N Parkes, S. Trotter, S. Beck, R. Cole, R. Davis, K. Haskett, C. Johnson, J.
Lauer, J. MacGregor, C. Mahmood, M. Rosemeyer. (2006) Sustainable
Evergreen. Comprehensive Plan for Strategic Areas. The Evergreen State
College, Olympia, WA.
Reed, M. S., E. D. G. Fraser, A. J. Dougill. (2006) An adaptive learning process for
developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities.
Ecological Economics 59(4): 406-418
Rodriguez, S. I., M. S. Roman, S. C. Sturhahn, E. H. Terry, (2002) Sustainability
Assessment and Reporting for the University of Michigan's Ann Arbor Campus.
Center for Sustainable Systems, Report # CSS02-04, The University of Michigan,
April 2002.
Rosenström, U., S. Kyllönen. (2007) Impacts of a participatory approach to developing
national level sustainable development indicators in Finland. Journal of
Environmental Management 84(3): 282-298
Rowe, D. (2007) Education for a sustainable future. Science. 31(7): 323 – 324
Sharma, A. (2007) Multi-stakeholder organising for sustainability. A PhD dissertation
submitted to Auckland University of Technology.
Sharp, L. (2002) Green campuses: the road from little victories to systematic
transformation. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 3(2):
128 – 145
Shriberg, M. P. (2002a) Sustainability in the U.S. Higher Education: Organizational
Factors Influencing Campus Environmental Performance and Leadership. PhD
Dissertation submitted to the University of Michigan
129
Shriberg, M. P. (2002b) Institutional assessment tools for sustainability in
higher education: strengths, weaknesses, and implications for practice and theory.
Higher Education Policy 15(2002): 153 – 167
Smith, April A, Campus Ecology: A Guide to Assessing Environmental Quality and
Creating Strategies for Change, The Student Environmental Action Coalition,
Living Planet Press, Los Angeles, 1993
Smith, L. M. (1978) An evolving logic of participant observation, educational
ethnography, and other case studies. Review of Research in Education 6 (1978):
316-377
Stake, R. E. (1978) The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher
7(2): 5-8
Snyder, T.D., S.A. Dillow, C.M. Hoffman (2009). Digest of Education Statistics 2008
(NCES 2009-020). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.
Uhl, C., A. Anderson (2001) Green destiny: universities leading the way to a sustainable
future. Bioscience 51(1): 36 – 42
Uhl, C., A. Anderson, G. Fitzgerald (2000) Higher education: good for the planet?
Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 81(2): 152 – 156
Uiterkamp, A. J. M. S., C. Vlek. (2007) Practice and outcomes for multidisciplinary
research for environmental sustainability. Journal of Social Issues 63(1): 175 –
197
Valentin, A., J. H. Spangenberg. (2000) A guide to community sustainability indicators.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20(2000): 381 – 392
Van Kooten, C. G., H. W. Nelson, I. Vertinsky. (2005) Certification of sustainable forest
management practices: a global perspective on why countries certify. Forest Policy and
Economics 7(2005): 857-867
130
Van Maanen, J. (1979) The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography. Qualitative
Methodology 24(4): 539 – 550
Velazquez, L., N. Munguia, M. Sanchez. (2005) Deterring sustainability in higher
education institutions: An appraisal of the factors which influence sustainability in
higher education institutions. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education 6(4): 383-391
Venetoulis, J., (2001) Assessing the ecological impact of a university: The ecological
footprint for the University of Redlands. International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education 2(2): 180-196
Wright, E. P. (2002) Ecological footprint of Colorado College: an examination of
sustainability. Independent Study, Colorado College
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yin, R. K. (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Second Edition. Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Internet references
www.nationmaster.com/cat/ene-energy - Internet resource for country statistics
www.aashe.org/about/about.php - Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in
Higher Education information page
www.nacubo.org:80/documents/research/NES2008PublicTableAllInstitutionsByFY08MarketValue.pdf - National Association of College and University
Business Officers 2008 Endowment Study Results
www.evergreen.edu/about/home - The Evergreen State College information page
www.evergreen.edu/tacoma/home.htm - The Evergreen State College Tacoma Program
website
http://nwindian.evergreen.edu/home.html - Northwest Indian Applied Research Institute
website
131
www.evergreen.edu/sustainability/ - The Evergreen State College Office of Sustainability
webpage
www.aashe.org/stars/pilot.php - AASHE STARS Pilot Project webpage
www.evergreen.edu/president/budget/home.htm - The Evergreen State College budget
home page
www.aashe.org/resources/resource_center.php - AASHE Resource Center page
www.aashe.org/stars/committees.php#steering - AASHE Steering Committee page
www.evergreen.edu/sustainability/interimreport.htm - Evergreen Sustainability Task
Force 2006 Interim Report
www.evergreen.edu/president/docs/strategicplanup07.pdf - The Evergreen State College
Strategic Plan 2007 update
www.evergreen.edu/sustainability/operationsfacilities.htm - The Evergreen State College
Office of Sustainability operations and facilities sustainability projects page
www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=221 - U.S. Green Building Council web
page
www.evergreen.edu/sustainability/sustainablefood.htm - The Evergreen State College
Office of Sustainability sustainable food page
www.evergreen.edu/sustainability/docs/College%20Investments.pdf - The Evergreen
State College sustainable investing document
www.greenreportcard.org/report-card-2009/schools/university-of-washington - The
College Sustainability Report Card University of Washington page
www.evergreen.edu/institutionalresearch/eprassessment.htm#epr2007-08 - The
Evergreen State College 2007-08 End of Program Review page
www.evergreen.edu/sustainability/awards.htm - The Evergreen State College
sustainability awards page
www.evergreen.edu/institutionalresearch/enrollmentcounts.htm - The Evergreen State
College enrollment statistics page
www.evergreen.edu/extendededucation/ - The Evergreen State College Extended
Education Program page
132
www.evergreen.edu/summer/eeindex.htm - The Evergreen State College Extended
Education summer course index (I reported on summer 2008 courses, which no longer
show up on this page)
www.evergreen.edu/washcenter/home.asp - The Washington Center for Improving the
Quality of Undergraduate Education home page
www.evergreen.edu/washcenter/project.asp?pid=62 – The Curriculum for the Bioregion
webpage
www.evergreen.edu/communitybasedlearning/ - The Community Based Learning and
Action web page
www.evergreen.edu/institutionalresearch/studentexperiencesurvey.htm - The Evergreen
State College Student Experience Survey web page
www.evergreen.edu/institutionalresearch/pdf/Surveys/eses/StudentExperienceSurveyFina
lReport.pdf - The Evergreen State College Student Experience Survey Final Report
document
www.evergreen.edu/institutionalresearch/pdf/Surveys/eses/studentexperiencesurvey2006
methodology.pdf - The Evergreen State College 2006 Student Experience Survey
methodology document.
www.evergreen.edu/sustainability/climateactionseries.htm - The Climate Action Series
webpage
www.evergreen.edu/president/govrelations/home.htm - The Evergreen State College
Office of Government Relations webpage
www.evergreen.edu/diversity/fund/home.htm - The Evergreen State College Diversity
Fund webpage
www.evergreen.edu/diversity/docs/appendices.1.pdf - The Diversity Disappearing Task
Force (DTF) Charge
www.evergreen.edu/diversity/docs/presidentreport.pdf - The Diversity DTF Report to the
President
www.evergreen.edu/diversity/docs/Presidentsresponse.pdf - The Evergreen State College
President’s response to the Diversity DTF
www.evergreen.edu/institutionalresearch/diversityatevergreen.htm - The Evergreen State
College Diversity webpage
133
www.evergreen.edu/news/archive/2006/03/key.htm - The Evergreen State College KEY
Student Services and Upward Bound program archived 2006 news release
www.evergreen.edu/upwardbound/mission.htm - The Upward Bound Program Mission
www.evergreen.edu/key/home.htm - The Evergreen State College Key Student Services
program webpage
134
Appendix A
Appropriate Contacts as of 1/01/2009
Table 4. STARS Credits by Evergreen Community Members Contacts
Contact
Laura Coghlan - Director of Institutional Research and
Reporting
Steve Trotter - Executive Director of Operational Planning
and Budget
Steve Schimdt - Program Coordinator, Extended
Education/ Summer School
Paul Smith - Director of Facilities
Sharon Goodman - Director of Residential and Dinning
Services
Student, Staff,
Faculty
Relevant Credits
Staff
Institutional Normalization Data, ER-5, ER-6,
ER-8
Staff
Institutional Normalization Data
Staff
Institutional Normalization Data, ER-13
Staff
Staff
Halli Winstead - ARAMARK Sustainability Intern
Staff
Natalie Pyrooz - Graduate Sustainability Coordinator
Student
OP-1, OP-2, OP-3, OP-8, OP-9, OP-10, OP12, OP-13, OP-16, Tier Two Buildings, Tier
Two Energy and Climate, Tier Two Grounds
OP-4, OP-5, OP-6, OP-7, OP-14, OP-15,
OP-21
OP-5, OP-6, OP-7, OP-14, OP-15, Tier Two
Dinning Services, Tier Two Materials
Recycling and Waste Minimization
OP-4, OP-21
OP-17, OP-18, Tier Two Materials Recycling
and Waste Minimization
Robyn Herring - Environmental Health and Safety Officer
Staff
Peter Robinson - Radiation Officer
Staff
Kathleen Haskett - Purchasing and Contracts Manager
Staff
OP-18
OP-19, OP-20, OP-21, OP-22, OP-23, OP24, Tier Two Purchasing
John Pumilio - Director of Sustainability*
Staff
OP-11, OP-25, OP-26, OP-28, AF
Prerequsite-1, AF-6, AF-7, AF-8, AF-9, AF10, AF-11, AF-12, AF-18, AF-19, ER-1, ER2, ER-3, ER-14, ER-15, Tier Two
Sustainability Infrastructure
Victor Sanders - Student Transportation Coordinator
Student
Collin Orr - Director of Business Services
Staff
OP-27, Tier Two Transportation
AF-1, AF-2, AF-3 AF-4. AF-5, Tier Two
Investments
Scott Hollis - Canopy Lab Manager
Lucienne Guyot - Graduate Research Assistant, The
Curriculum for the Bioregion Initiative
Ellen Short Sanchez - Director of the Center for Community
Based Learning and Action
Julie Anderson - Interim Director of Financial Aid
Student
AF-12, AF-18,
Student
AF-12, ER-16
Staff
Staff
AF 14, 15, 16
AF-17
AF-20, AF-21, AF-22, AF-23, Tier Two
Diversity
Paul Gallegos - Diversity and Equity Officer
Allan Toothaker - Associate Vice President for Human
Resources
Staff
Staff
AF-27, AF-32
Ladonna Herigstad - Payroll and Benefits Manager
Staff
AF-28
John Hurley - Vice President of Finance and Administration Staff
Todd Sprague - Director of Marketing, Communications
and College Relations
Staff
AF-33, AF-34
Andrea Coker-Anderson - College Registrar
Staff
ER-5, ER-6, ER-8
Paul Przybylowicz - Academic Dean, Curriculum
Faculty
ER-12
Bill Ransom - Academic Dean, Curriculum
Nancy Murray - Academic Dean, Faculty Hiring and
Development
Linda Hohman - Associate Vice President for Human
Resources
Faculty
ER-12
Faculty
ER-16
ER-17, ER-18, ER-19, Tier Two Human
Resources
Rich Davis - Facilities
Staff
Tier Two Energy and Climate
Mark Kormondy - Grounds
Staff
Tier Two Grounds
Staff
AF-33, AF-34
*As of the publication of this document John Pumilio is no longer the Director of Sustainability at The Evergreen State
College, and is now the Sustainability Coordinator at Colgate University. In response to potential staff turnover please
refer to position titles rather than individuals names for future STARS data collection.
135
Appendix B.
Detailed STARS Credit Data Collection
Education and Research (ER) Credits
ER – 5: Sustainability Focused Academic Courses; ER – 6:
Sustainability Related Academic Courses
At the end of each academic year the Institutional Research and Reporting program at
TESC conducts an End of Program Review (EPR) assessment for all academic programs
(TESC defines academic offerings as programs not courses). For the first time during the
2008 assessment faculty were asked to what extent (1-extensively, 2-moderately, 3-a
little, 4-not at all) sustainability was included in their programs. On October 10th, 2008
the director of sustainability emailed me the preliminary EPR data for sustainability. I
followed this up with an email inquiry and subsequent phone conversations with
Institutional Research staff. Through these conversations I received the final EPR
sustainability data and the EPA questionnaire sent to team teaching faculty members.
The EPR data includes the Programs that were identified as including sustainability and
to what extent. Institutional Research provided the data in an Excel spreadsheet. I
modified this spreadsheet to include a columns to include the number of students enrolled
and credits offered each quarter, and if the program was sustainability-focused or related.
I determined that programs rated as a 1 were sustainability-focused and courses rated 2
and 3 were sustainability-related. This determination was based on a comparison of the
136
descriptions of extent ratings on the EPR questionnaire and STARS definitions of
sustainability-focused and sustainability-related courses (AASHE, 2008c).
The EPR assessment only includes academic programs offered during the regular
academic year. I wanted to try and capture all of the programs offered at TESC during
the 2007-08 academic year, including summer programs and graduate programs. I
reviewed the online catalog for the summer 2008, Masters of Public Administration
(MPA), Masters in Education (M.Ed), and the 2007-08 Masters of Environmental Studies
(MES) programs, which were provided by the MES Director. I reviewed all program
descriptions and determined which ones were sustainability-focused and related, and
included them on the spreadsheet.
The total number of courses offered during the 2007-08 academic year was
determined from on-line course catalogs for summer 2008, MES, MPA, M.Ed, and from
total number of EPR surveys distributed as provided by Institutional Research. The
Percent of sustainability-focused and sustainability-related courses was calculated using
Excel.
ER – 7: Sustainability Courses by Academic Department
The Evergreen State College does not have traditional academic departments for
formal degree programs so my initial reaction was that this credit was not applicable to
TESC. To be sure of this I posted a message on the STARS on-line forum asking about
the applicability of this credit to TESC. The STARS Pilot Forum is a place to share
information and ask questions about the STARS pilot program
(http://www2.aashe.org/stars/forum/). A STARS Intern provided the following response:
137
“Hi Kyle,
Are Evergreen's organized "areas of study" similar to traditional
degree programs? If so, are there department-like bodies associated with
each area of study? If you find that Evergreen uses systems or structures
that are equivalent to degree programs and academic departments, feel
free to use them in these credits.
If a school does not use systems or structures that are equivalent to degree
programs and academic departments, these credits would not apply.
If you find that these credits do not apply to Evergreen, do you have any
suggestions on how we could change them so that they would include
schools like yours?
Thanks for your participation in the forum!
Addie Davis
STARS Intern
addie@aashe.org”
I discussed this response with, the Director of Sustainability and my primary
faculty thesis reader and we determined that this credit was not applicable to TESC.
ER – 8: Academic Sustainability Course by Student Credit Hour
The data collection for this credit was carried out at the same time, and followed
the same process as for ER-5 and ER-6, using the EPR data, and through a review of
online catalogs, and program descriptions provided by the MES Director, to determine
the sustainability programs.
In addition I acquired the program credit information that was available through
online catalogs. I also contacted the Academic Dean for Evening and Weekend Studies
138
(EWS), Allen Olson, and was provided with student enrollment numbers for the
sustainability EWS programs. I then contacted Registration and Records and asked if
they could provide me with enrollment figures for each program. The registrar, Andrea
Coker-Anderson, replied that this was possible and I emailed her the Excel spreadsheet
with the sustainability programs.
Registration and records returned the spreadsheet with student enrollment and
credit information for each program. Using the student enrollment numbers, and credits
awarded for each program I was able to calculate the total student credit hours for
sustainability course.
To calculate the total student credit hours at TESC I reviewed the Institutional
Research enrollment count webpage
(www.evergreen.edu/institutionalresearch/enrollmentcounts.htm) and found total
graduate and undergraduate full time equivalent (FTE) enrollment data. I assumed for
graduate students, an FTE student would take 12 credits per quarter for 3 quarters for a
total of 36 credits. I assumed that an FTE undergraduate would take 16 credits per
quarter for 3 quarters for a total of 48 credits. Using these assumed FTE credit loads and
the FTE enrollment data from the institutional research webpage I was able to calculate
the total student credit hours for TESC.
ER – 13: Non Credit Sustainability Courses
I reviewed the 2008-09 Extended Education on-line course catalog
(www.evergreen.edu/extendededucation/) and the 2008 summer quarter course catalog
(www.evergreen.edu/summer/eeindex.htm). 2008-09 Extended Education course catalog
was used because the course catalog for the previous academic year could not be located.
139
The catalogs identify courses that are offered to non-credit students. I reviewed the
descriptions for these courses for sustainability related themes. I recorded the number of
courses I determined to be sustainability-related on the STARS credit reporting form. I
also reported the total number of non-credit courses offered by TESC as required for the
credit reporting form.
ER – 16: Incentives for Developing Sustainability Courses
On October 16th, 2008 I emailed the Academic Dean for Faculty Hiring and
Development, Nancy Murray, and inquired about incentives available to TESC faculty to
encourage the development of sustainability courses. Nancy emailed back the same day
and asked if we could talk on the phone on October, 20th, 2008. I responded through
email and we set up a time for me to give her a call. On October 20th, 2008 I called
Nancy and we discussed various incentives available to TESC Faculty. Nancy mentioned
several incentives available, including financial support for attending conferences and
workshops, and the Curriculum for the Bioregion Initiative at the Washington Center for
Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education (Washington Center).
I followed up my phone conversation with Nancy by reviewing the Washington
Center webpage (www.evergreen.edu/washcenter/home.asp). On October 20th, 2008 I
emailed Lucienne Guyot, Graduate Research Assistant with the Washington Center, and
requested a description of the Curriculum for the Bioregion Initiative. I included the
description provided by Lucienne Guyot and the other incentives discussed with Nancy
Murray on the STARS credit reporting form.
140
Administration and Finance (AF) Credits
AF – 12: Inter-Campus Collaboration on Sustainability
On November 8th, 2008 I met with John Pumilio, Director of Sustainability and
discussed ways in which Evergreen collaborates on sustainability projects with other
institutions. John and I discussed various projects and we identified appropriate contacts
for this credit. I followed up this discussion by contacting Lucienne Guyot, Graduate
Research Associate with the Washington Center for Improving the Quality of
Undergraduate Education, and Scott Hollis, Canopy Lab Manager. Lucienne provided
information on the Curriculum for the Bioregion Initiative, and Scott provided
information on the Green Prisons Project being conducted through the Canopy Lab. I
also included information provided by Gaylon Finley with Facilities on Evergreen’s
partnership with Western Washington University for purchase of green cleaning
products.
AF – 14: Community Service Staffing
I reviewed the Annual Report for the Center for Community Based Learning and
Action (CCBLA) found on the Center’s webpage
(www.evergreen.edu/communitybasedlearning/). The Annual Report provided all the
relevant information needed for the credit. In addition, I emailed the credit reporting for
to Ellen Short-Sanchez, Director of the CCBLA. I received a response from Ellen after
the STARS data submission deadline. However, she confirmed the accuracy of the
information I had collected.
141
AF -15: Student Participation in Community Service
I reviewed the Annual Report for the CCBLA found on the Center’s webpage
(www.evergreen.edu/communitybasedlearning/). This document reports on the total
number of students participating in community service through the CCBLA. I also
reviewed the 2004 and 2006 Student Experience Surveys found on the Institutional
Research and Reporting webpage
(www.evergreen.edu/institutionalresearch/studentexperiencesurvey.htm). This report
contains information on the percentage of respondents that participated in community
service and volunteer work. The information for 2004 is found on page 44 of the 2004
Student Experience Survey, and is question number 22 in the 2006 survey report. I then
reviewed the survey methodology documents for each survey to determine the total
number of respondents. The document for the 2004 survey is found at
www.evergreen.edu/institutionalresearch/pdf/Surveys/eses/StudentExperienceSurveyFina
lReport.pdf and the number of respondents is found on page 3 of the Executive Summary.
The methodology document for the 2006 survey is found at
www.evergreen.edu/institutionalresearch/pdf/Surveys/eses/studentexperiencesurvey2006
methodology.pdf, the number of respondents is found in the table on page 2.
From the survey results, and the total number of respondents I was able to
calculate the total number or respondents who participated in community service. I
included the data from the CCBLA Annual Report, and the data calculated from the 2004
and 2006 student surveys on the credit reporting form.
142
AF-16: Student Hours Contributed to Community Service
The CCBLA Annual Report provides data on the hours of community service
contributed by Evergreen students that participate through the CCBLA. I calculated the
total number of student hours, based on the number of students as reported by the
CCBLA, and based on the total enrollment figures found in the institutional
normalization data that was reported to AASHE.
AF – 18: Community Sustainability Partnerships
On November 7th, 2008 I met with Scott Hollis, Canopy Lab Manager. Scott and
I discussed the Green Prisons Program, which is a partnership between the Canopy Lab
and the State of Washington Department of Corrections to provide practical experience in
sustainability to prison inmates. Scott provided me with a written description of the
program for the credit reporting form.
On November 8th, 2008 I met with John Pumilio, Director of Sustainability. John
and I discussed the climate change symposium partnership being developed between
Evergreen and several local community members. I consulted the Climate Action Series
webpage (www.evergreen.edu/sustainability/climateactionseries.htm) for a written
description to include on the credit reporting form.
AF – 19: Public Policy Engagement
At our meeting on November 8th, 2008 John Pumilio and I discussed ways in
which Evergreen is engaged in public policymaking. After our conversation I reviewed
the Evergreen Office of Government Relations webpage
(www.evergreen.edu/president/govrelations/home.htm) and reviewed the list of
143
legislative bills the college has been tracking and engaged in during the past two years. I
listed these bills and the information from my discussion with John on the credit
reporting form.
AF – 21: Diversity and Equity Officer, AF-23: Diversity and Equity
Plan
John Pumilio spoke with Paul Gallegos, the Diversity and Equity Officer and
informed him that I would be contacting him regarding the STARS framework. I
followed up after John’s initial with an email to Paul that included the data needs for AF21 and AF-23. Paul emailed back the necessary data and I transferred it to the
appropriate credit reporting forms.
AF – 22: Diversity and Equity Attitudes Assessment
I reviewed the President’s Diversity Fund webpage
(www.evergreen.edu/diversity/fund/home.htm), the President’s Diversity Disappearing
Task Force (DTF) Charge (www.evergreen.edu/diversity/docs/appendices.1.pdf), the
Diversity DTF report to the President
(www.evergreen.edu/diversity/docs/presidentreport.pdf), and the President’s response to
the Diversity DTF report (www.evergreen.edu/diversity/docs/Presidentsresponse.pdf).
Reviewing these documents allowed me to summarize the programs, procedures, and
policies in place at Evergreen related to diversity and equity.
As discussed in the description for credits AF-21 and AF-23 I contacted Paul
Gallegos and emailed him the data needs for credit. Paul directed me to the Institutional
Research and Assessment (IR) program. I then contacted Laura Coghlan, Director of IR
144
about the data needs. Laura directed me to the diversity reports on the IR webpage
(www.evergreen.edu/institutionalresearch/diversityatevergreen.htm). I found the
required data on the above listed site under the Student Experience heading.
AF – 26: Affordability and Access Programs
Using the search function on the Evergreen webpage I typed in “low-income
students” and found an archived new release highlighting the KEY and Upward Bound
programs (http://www.evergreen.edu/news/archive/2006/03/key.htm). I reviewed the
webpage for each of these programs and found program descriptions, description and
program results. This information was found on the following pages for the Upward
Bound Program:
Program description and mission, www.evergreen.edu/upwardbound/mission.htm
Program success, www.evergreen.edu/news/archive/2006/03/key.htm, this
information covers the previous 29 years from 2006.
The necessary information for the KEY program was found on the following pages:
Program description, www.evergreen.edu/key/home.htm
Program success, www.evergreen.edu/news/archive/2006/03/key.htm. This page
does not indicate how many years the data covers.
I then sent inquiries to the Director of Upward Bound, Felix Braffith, and the
Director of Key Student Services, Stacy Schwenke inquiring about program success for
past three to five years. Stacy responded back with same data found on website. She
indicated she could get more detailed information at the end of the fall 2008 quarter. I
reported the information I had on the credit reporting form.
145
146
Appendix C
Data Tracking Spreadsheets
Table 5. Complete Institutional Normalization Data Tracking Spreadsheet
Basic Information
Intitution Name
Address
Carnegie Classification
Control
Community Type
Athletic Conference
Other Affiliations
Sustanability Website
Response
The Evergreen State College
2700 Evergreen Parkway NW,
Olympia, Washington 98505
Contact
Public
Urban/Suburban
Cascade Collegiate Conference
www.evergreen.edu/sustainability/
Contact Information for Primary Contact Person
Description of property boundaries covered by
STARS Submission
Common Time Frames for Reporting
12-month Academic Year
12-month Fiscal Year
Population Information
Insitutional Population
Start Date
September 2007
July 1, 2007
End Date
2007-08
2006-07
Aug-08
30-Jun-08
2005-06
Contact
http://www.evergreen.edu/institutiona
lresearch/factpage.htm
Total Enrollement
4586
4416
4470
Residential Students
902
842
865
Full-time non-resident students
3050
2919
2951
Part-time non-resident students
non-credit students
Full-time faculty
Part-time faculty
Full-time staff
Part-time staff
634
811
158
84
471
46
655
643
158
74
455
47
654
325
158
63
456
49
Source of Information
Institutional Research,
Laura Coghlan
Institutional Research,
Laura Coghlan
Institutional Research,
Laura Coghlan
Institutional Research,
Laura Coghlan
Facilities Infrastructure
Response
Year Institution was founded
Percentage of Buildings with Historical Designation
Percentage of Buildings constructed before 1900
Percentage of Buildings Constructed between 19011950
Percentage of Buildings Constructed between 19512000
Percentage of Buildings Constructed after 2000
Description of any circumstances related to the age
of the buildings that may influence STARS
Performance
Contact
1967 Paul Smith
0.00% Paul Smith
0.00% Paul Smith
0.00% Paul Smith
99.00% Paul Smith
1.00% Paul Smith
Campus Space
This Reporting Period
Total Area Included in STARS Boundary (acres)
Area of Campus Lawn, Outdoor Athletic Fields, and
Gardens (Acres)
Area of Undeveloped Land and/or Natural Area
(acres)
Area of Campus that is Paved or Built (acres)
Total Campus Conditioned Building Area (gross
square feet)
Teaching and Research Lab Space (gross square
feet)
Medical/Clinical Space (gross square feet)
1,003.00
One Year Prior
Two Years Prior Contact
1,003.00
1,003.00 Paul Smith
380.00
380.00
380.00 Paul Smith
548.00
75.00
548.00
75.00
548.00 Paul Smith
75.00 Paul Smith
1,145,166.00
1,145,166.00
1,145,166.00 Paul Smith
83,789.00
5,291.00
83,789.00
5,291.00
83,789.00 Paul Smith
5,291.00 Paul Smith
Financial Information
US Dollars
147
Operating Budget
Endowment
Total Research Expenditures
Administration-allocated Funding for Sustainability
Officer, Office, or Committee
Discretionary Funding for Sustainability Officer, Office
or Committee
Student Fees Allocated to Sustainability Officer,
Office or Committee
Sustainability Revolving Loan Fund Value
Contact
$149,173,000.00 Steve Trotter
$2,658,847 Laura Coghlan
$66,093 Laura Coghlan
$120,000.00 John Pumilio
$3,000.00 John Pumilio
$0.00 John Pumilio
$0.00 John Pumilio
Notes
FY2007-09
end of FY 2007
FY 2007
148
Table 6. Example Education and Research Category Tracking Spreadsheet
Description
Reporting Time
Frame
Contact
ER Credit-1
Student Sustainability Educators
Program
2007-08
ER Credit - 2
Student Sustainability Outreach
Campaign
2007-08
ER Credit-3
Sustainability in New Student
Orientation
2007-08
Curriculum
Description
Reporting Time
Frame
Contact
ER Credit-4
Sustainability Course Identification 2007-08
Website where sustainability courses are listed
brief description of how the list of sustainability
courses is shared with the campus community
Description of methodology used to identify
sustainability courses
ER Credit-5
Sustainability-Focused Academic
Courses
Total number of sustainability-focused academic
courses
Credit #
Co-Curricular
Education
2006-07, 2007-08
2006-07, 2007-08
ER Credit-6
Sustainability-Related Academic
Courses
2006-07, 2007-08
Date of Contact Notes on Status Deadline
Reviewed
Required Documentation
Program Name
Date Program Started
Brief Description of Program
Name, title and department of program
coordinator or supervisor
URL for program
Description of Campaigns, names, start and end
dates, website URL
Description of how campaigns have advanced
sustainability and results from campaigns
Description of how sustainability is incorporated
into new student orientation
URL where new student orientation outreach
materials are posted
Date of Contact Notes on Status Deadline
Reviewed
Required Documentation
Total number for for-credit academic courses held
URL where course descriptions, and/or course
catalog is posted
Total number of sustainability-related academic
courses
Total number for for-credit academic courses held
Table 7. Example of Operations Category Tracking Spreadsheet
Reporting Time
Frame
Contact
Credit #
Description
Prerequisite 1
Recycling Program
Buildings
Description
OP Credit 1
New Construction,
Renovations & Commercial
Interiors
Past 3 years
OP Credit 2
Building Operations and
Maintenance
OP Credit 3
Potable Non-Irrigation
Water Consumption Trend
OP Credit 4
Green Cleaning Services
Date of Contact
Notes on Status
Deadline
Reviewed
Required Documentation
Description of program & materials collected
URL for recycling program
Reporting Time
Frame
Contact
Date of Contact
Notes on Status
Deadline
Reviewed
Required Documentation
URL for green building policy
Date policy was adopted
Description w/square footage & budget of each
new building, renovation & interior
improvement that was completed during the
last three years.
Date and level of LEED certification for each
applicable project.
LEED scorecard for certified projects &
documentation to demonstrate the
achievement of LEED criteria for non-certified
projects.
A brief description of each building LEED-EB
certified, or meets LEED-EB standards.
Name and primary function of each building
Square footage of each building
Data and level of LEED-EB certification if
applicable
LEED-EB scorecard for certified building, and
documentation of achievement of criteria for
non-certified buildings.
Description of tools, strategies, policies in
place to encourage the adoption and
maintenance of LEED-EB criteria
2000-01 & 2007-08
Gallons of potable non-irrigation water
consumed in 2000-01
Gallons of potable non-irrigation water
consumed 2007-08
Total square feet of floor area in 2000-01
Description of policies, practices and programs
implemented to reduce potable, non-irrigation
water consumption.
Date of Green Seal Certification, if applicable
Documentation indicating Green Seal criteria
are met, if not certified.
Description of how institution ensures
compliance with Green Seal's standards.
149
150
Table 8. Example of Administration and Finance Category Tracking Spreadsheet
Credit #
Description
AF Prerequisite 1
Sustainability Committee
Investments
Description
AF Credit 1
Investment Transparency
Af Credit 2
Committee on Investor
Responsibility
Reporting Time
Frame
Contact
Date of Contact
Notes on Status
Deadline
Reviewed
Required Documentation
Charter or mission statement of committee or brief
description of the committee's purview or activities
Committee membership, including affiliations
Committee meeting schedule
Reporting Time
Frame
Contact
Date of Contact
Notes on Status
Deadline
Reviewed
Required Documentation
Website URL where investment information is
located.
Charter or mission statement of committee or brief
description of the committee's purview or activities
Committee membership, including affiliations
Committee meeting schedule
Summary of committee's activities or annual report
URL of committee's website, if applicable
AF Credit 3
Screening for Negative
Investments
AF Credit 4
Positive Sustainability Investments
Past 3 years
The date of the most recent screening
Industry or industries excluded from investments
The divestment efforts in which school participated
in the past 3 years
Copy of letters sent to fund managers encouraging
divestment or negative screening
Value of holdings identified and sold due to
screening (optional)
The investment pool's total value
The amount invested in sustainability investment
funds, including CDFIs, and the names of the funds
The amount invested in positively screened mutual
funds and names of the funds
AF Credit 5
Shareholder Engagement
Past 3 years
Copy of correspondence with the companies that
was sent during the previous 3 academic years
Copy of the relevant shareholder resolutions that
were filed or co-filed during the previous 3
academic years
Table 9. Example of Tier Two Credits Tracking Spreadsheet
Credit #
Curriculum & Research
Description
Contact
Y/N
Co-Curricular Education
Description
Contact
Y/N
1
2
3
Institution has a wilderness or outdoors program that organizes hiking, backpacking, kayaking, and other outings for
students and follows Leave No Trace principles
Institution has active student organizations focused on sustainability
Institution has sustainability-theme housing (residential hall, floor, or theme house)
Contact
Y/N
Contact
Y/N
Contact
Y/N
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Curriculum
1
2
Institution has an on-campus, organic garden where students are able to gain farming and/or gardening experience.
Institution has a formally designated model dorm room that is open to students during regular hours and
demonstrates sustainable living principles
Institution produces outreach materials for students about on-campus sustainability efforts, such as electronic
newsletters, signage about sustainability features, information kiosks, sustainability websites, and sustainability
maps.
Institution has a student-run sustainable enterprise, such as a café, through which students gain sustainable
business skills.
Institution has a student publication focused on sustainability
Main student newspaper covers sustainability regularly
Institution holds major events related to sustainability, such as conferences, speaker series, or symposia that have
students as the intended audience
Institution has held sustainability-themed quarter or year during the past three academic years.
Description
Institution's common book is sustainability related
Institution's first year experience is sustainability themed
Operations
Buildings
1
2
Dining Services
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Description
Institution has systems in place to detect and repair water leaks
Institution has a green building policy
Description
Institution does not use trays in its dining services operations
Institution offers complete-protein vegan and vegetarian dining options for every meal
Institution does not sue trans fats or ingredients that include trans fats in its dining operations
Institution has a sustainable food buying policy
Institution has sustainability policies for franchisees operating on campus
Institution has guidelines for seafood buying
Institution participates in The Real Food Challenge
151
152
Table 10. Evergreen Community Member Contacts Tracking Spreadsheet
Name
Relevant Credits
Method of Contact
Notes
Date of Initial Contact
Date of Follow Up
# of Contacts to
Date
Appendix D
Outreach Email
153
Appendix E
Follow-up Interview Questions and Response Summary
STARS Follow-Up Questions
1. How much time and effort was required by you in this process.
2. What, if anything, did you learn about your areas of responsibility through this exercise?
3. Aside from the time commitment needed, does an effort such as STARS make your
unit’s work easier or harder?
4. Would you find it necessary or useful to share credit documentation or results for you
area of responsibility with other sectors of the institution? How are you or will you use
the information gained through this process?
5. What do you see as a benefit for participation, at the unit level, and above?
6. Is there are time of year when this exercise would be best to implement?
7. Do you think TESC should participate in STARS in the future?
8. Do you have any recommendations on how future efforts should be conducted?
9. Have you already made provisions to ensure the information or process needed for each
credit is available in the future?
154
Table 11. Follow-Up Interview Response Summary
Follow-Up Question
STARS Participant
Purchasing
Facilities
Residential and Dining Services (RAD)
Business Services
155
Learned about area of
responsibility
work (other than increased lesson with other units
work load)
seen as useful
Fortunate that Evergreen has lots of
policies in place that ensure progress
towards sustainability. Main impact
on work unit was increased work
Yes - Informs senior staff and
load.
decision makers
7 employees for total of 16 hours
Confirmed need for additional
staffing in Purchasing office.
Current Staffing levels don't
allow for detailed search of
most sustainable products for
Learned about different
methods for determining
conditioned building space.
Increased knowledge about
3 employees 85 hours total. 80
hours by one employee.
Improved process for tracking
local and organic food
purchases. Expanded
understanding of the food
industry and the complexities
around sustainable food
purchasing.
Allowed for a different way to look at
the same data, but added work load.
Evergreen's working definition for
local food purchasing is different
than STARS criteria. Next person
who tracks local purchasing for
STARS will have to be aware of this
in the future. ASSHE definition of
local resulted in smaller percentage
of local food purchases than
previously calculated for TESC. This
lead to a little tension within the
community. New process for
tracking local and organic food
purchases, developed for STARS
made work easier, breaking local and
Expanded knowledge of
Evergreen sustainability work.
Sustainability investing and
purchasing can have a positive and
negative affect on overall costs. But
plenty of opportunities exist for
improving economic well being of
Yes - informs community about
college while pursuing sustainability. costs sustainable practices.
Learned about the wide variety
of disciplines that include
sustainability in courses, and
the large number of courses
that include sustainability.
Learned about another need for
data being collected by IR.
Began thinking about how to
improve efficiency of STARS
data collection in relation to
other data collection needs and
This is good information to school to
have. Does not create a burden on
the registration staff. Raises lots of
good questions and its part of our
value system at Evergreen.
It generates data needs, and
questions, which generates more
work. STARS could be a way to
standardize a lot of the data
collection and reporting done by IR
and at Evergreen.
Resource Commitment
10 hours by two employees
1 employee 1 hour total
Registration
1 employee 16 hours total.
Institutional Research & Reporting (IR)
2 employees 25 hours total
Yes - assists Director of
Sustainability with furthering
sustainability work at Evergreen.
Yes - process improvement
developed through STARS will be
used at other locations served by
Food services provider. Informs
campus community in Evergreens
commitment to sustainability.
Yes - helps convey commitment to
sustainability to prospective
students.
Yes - facilitates discussion and
learning about sustainability.
156
Follow-Up Question
STARS Participant
Purchasing
Facilities
Residential and Dining Services (RAD)
Business Services
Registration
Institutional Research & Reporting (IR)
Benefit of
participation
best time of year to
implement
Should TESC Participate
Sharpens knowledge of the
benefits and impact of our
work. Helps us think about
what we should or could be
doing differently.
Winter
Important to measure level
of sustainability to support
verbal and written
Fall
Facilitates discussions
around concept of "local
food". Resulted in TESC
developing a more
comprehensive definition of
local food. Good tool for
communicating goals
around campus community.
Allows for benchmarking of Summer
Yes - questions about how STARS
will be standardized across
institutions.
Yes - necessary to track
sustainability work.
Recommendations
for future
coordination
Ensure process and data
available in future
Good to have one individual
coordinate the process. If
left to individual staff in
different areas, it would
probably get pushed to
Not applicable
Should be coordinated
through sustainability office,
need someone to coordinate Not applicable
Standardized monthly
reporting could be
Yes - Third party standardized
implemented at TESC. It
review of campus sustainability is
was good to have a
necessary for advancing
coordinator foster the
sustainability in HE
process along.
Need to take a harder look
Yes- good to have standardized
at investment credits next
Keeps people informed of
reporting to compare Evergreen to time and try to get some
the issues that are
other institutions, as well as to
more credits. Good to have
important to them.
Anytime but Spring
itself over time.
a STARS coordinator,
Information helps better us
Need to capture all
as individuals and solidify
Yes- how will STARS be
curriculum data for STARS
our commitment to our
standardized for institutions of
not just that reported in
community. Adds and
similar size. If Evergreen is going EPR. This could be done
enriches the value of our
Depends on how data is
to be committed to STARS it must through the "Cataloger"
institution. Good for
captured.
be supported by institution.
process.
Include Research credits in
the next go around.
Helps reaffirm importance of
our work. Puts data behind
Yes - will be interesting to see what Possible fellowship to ensure
AASHE does with all the data they consistent coordination of
verbal sustainability
next process. Conduct a
commitment.
Spring - not Fall or Winter are collecting for this framework.
Developing a training manual
that will have STARS process in
it.
Not applicable
If sustainability courses are
already identified it is easy, just
a searchable element in a
database.
STARS is now on IR annual
reporting calendar.
Appendix F
STARS Recognition Matrix
Table 12. Evergreen to STARS Effectiveness Matrix
TESC Sustainability Component
Relevance Rating
Rationale
Sustainability Vision
############################################################ Partially Recognizes
The STARS Framework tracks sustainability indicators for curriculum,
operations and several aspects of that speak to the quality of life of
students, faculty and staff.
2006 Sustainability Report
Credits ER-9, ER-10, ER-11 and Tier 2-Curriculum captures Evergreens
work to establish a curricular path in sustainability.
Establish a curricular pathway in sustainability
Fully Recognizes
Increase opportunities for a practical education in sustainability
Fully Recognizes
Initiate a robust plan for the reduced and efficient use of resources
Fully Recognizes
Credits ER-9, ER-10, ER-11, ER-13, Er-14 and Tier 2-Curriculum award
points for practical education in sustainability.
Credits OP-3, OP-8, OP-9, OP-19, OP-13 and OP-14 capture efficiency
and sustainable resource use.
Fully Recognizes
Credits OP-19, OP-20, OP-21, OP-22, OP-23, OP-24 and Tier 2Purchasing capture the sustainable purchasing policies and practices at
Evergreen.
Does not Recognize
Participation in the STARS framework could address this aspect of
Evergreen's sustainability work by providing a venue to track the
history of sustainabiliy goals, achievements and indicators. But it is not
a component of the framework
Does not Recognize
Participation in the STARS framework could address this aspect of
Evergreen's sustainability work if the implementation is coordinated
correctly.
Strengthen bonds & relationships with Evergreen's neighbors & greater community region
Fully Recognizes
Credits AF-14, AF-15, AF-16, AF-17, AF-18, AF-19 and Tier 2 Community Relations and Partnerships capture this aspect of
Evergreen's Sustainability work.
Improve campus spirit and internal wellness and foster healthy relationships
Fully Recognizes
Become carbon neutral by 2020
Fully Recognizes
Examine and implement best sustainable practices/purchases policies
Increase communication and assemble the history behind Evergreen's sustainability goals,
achievements, and indicators
Strengthen bonds and relationships among all Evergreen’s programs
157
Credits AF-27, AF-28, AF-32 and Tier 2-Human Resources credits all
relate in part to campus spirit and internal wellness.
Credits OP-9, OP-10, OP-11, Tier 2- Energy & Climate all address
energy usage, and green house gas emissions and will help Evergreen
track progress towards carbon neutrality.
158
Become a zero waste college by 2020
Fully Recognizes
Increase our locally produced food purchases to 40% by 2010
Fully Recognizes
Reduce our energy consumption by 30%, on a per full time equivalent basis, by 2010
Fully Recognizes
Reduce our paper consumption to 50% by 2010
Fully Recognizes
Reduce the number of computers per capita by 15% by 2010
Partially Recognizes
Reduce the number of individual desktop printers by 50% and photocopiers by 10% by 2010
Partially Recognizes
Credits OP-14, OP-15, OP-16, OP-17, OP-18, Tier 2-Materials,
Recycling & Waste Minimization are all directly related to waste
minimization and will allow Evergreen to track progress towards zero
waste goal.
Credits OP-5, and Tier 2-Dining Services directly track purchase of
locally produced food. These credits will help Evergreen track progress
towards goal of 40% local food purchases.
Credits OP-8, OP-9,and OP-10 all track energy consumption and could
assist Evergreen in tracking the progress towards energy reduction
goals.
Credits OP-22, and Tier 2-Materials, Recycling & Waste Minimization
don’t directly track paper consumption, but they do look for policies
and procedures that relate to Evergreen's goal of 50% reduction of
paper consumption.
The STARS framework does not track or award points for reduction in
number of computers, OP-17, OP-20 and OP Tier 2-Materials, Recycling
and Waste Minimization are related to the purchase and recycling of
electronic material.
The STARS framework does not track or award points for reduction in
number of computers, OP-17, OP-20 and OP Tier 2-Materials, Recycling
and Waste Minimization are related to the purchase and recycling of
electronic material.
Evergreen Sustainability Practices
Sustainability Planning and Leadership
Talloires Declaration
Relevance Rating
Rationale
Fully Recognizes
Credit AF Tier 2 - Sustainability infrastructure awards points for
institutions that have signed the Talloires Declaration.
American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment
Partially Recognizes
2007 Strategic Plan Update
Fully Recognizes
Campus Master Plan
Fully Recognizes
Evergreen Investment Portfolio
Fully Recognizes
Academics, Education and Student Activities
Relevance Rating
Integrating Sustainability Across the Curriculum
Fully Recognizes
Sustainability and Justice Academic Planning Unit
Fully Recognizes
Environmental Studies
Partially Recognizes
Evergreen Ecological Observation Network
Fully Recognizes
Sustainable Agriculture Programs
Fully Recognizes
The STARS framework does not award points based on the Presidents
Climate Commitment, but credits OP-11 and OP -28 relate to goals and
objectives that are included in the climate commitment.
Credit AF-06 awards points based on the institutions Strategic Plan
including sustainability goals and objectives
Credit AF-07 awards points based on the institutions Campus Master
Plan including sustainability goals and objectives.
STARS credits AF-1 and AF-4 capture the transparent and sustainable
nature of Evergreens investment portfolio.
Rationale
Credits ER-9, ER-10, ER-11 and Tier 2-Curriculum captures
sustainability in the curriculum
Credit ER-4 recognizes this work and awards points for sustainable
course identification.
Many but not all of the ES programs met the criteria for Credits ER-4,
ER-5, ER-6, and ER-8
The research on carbon sequestration by the Evergreen forest
conducted by the EEON was captured by one of the STARS Innovation
credits during the pilot project.
The Sustainable Agriculture Program was captured by Credits ER-5, Er6, ER-8 and Tier 2 - Co-Curricular Education
Sustainability related Learning Centers
Fully Recognizes
Community Outreach
Fully Recognizes
Clean Energy Initiative
Fully Recognizes
Public Transportation
Partially Recognizes
Bus Shelter Improvement Project
Partially Recognizes
Late-Night Public Transit
Partially Recognizes
Flaming Eggplant Café
Fully Recognizes
CAB Green Building Redesign
Partially Recognizes
Operations, Facilities and the Built Environment
Relevance Rating
Seminar II LEED Gold Certification
Partially Recognizes
Longhouse Leed Silver Renovation
Partially Recognizes
Energy Savings Plan
Partially Recognizes
Chiller Plant
Fully Recognizes
Building Monitoring
Fully Recognizes
Electric Vehicles
Fully Recognizes
Solar Energy Production - Dan Evans Library
Fully Recognizes
Pesticide and Herbicide Free Landscaping
Fully Recognizes
Single Stream Recycling
Fully Recognizes
Irrigation System Monitoring
Partially Recognizes
100% Recycled Paper Purchasing
Fully Recognizes
Green Cleaning Products
Fully Recognizes
Two of the learning centers were recognized by various STARS credits.
Learning centers included the CCBLA and Washington Center.
Credits AF-14, AF-15, AF-16, AF-17, AF-18, AF-19 and Tier 2 Community Relations and Partnerships capture this aspect of
Evergreen's Sustainability work.
Credits OP-8, OP-9, OP-10, OP-11 and Tier 2 - Energy and Climate are
capture the work of the Clean Energy Initiative
Credits OP-26, and OP-27 capture this aspect of Evergreen's work in
sustainability.
Aspects of Credit OP-27 relate to the Bush Shelter Improvement
Project.
Credits OP-26, and OP-27 capture this aspect of Evergreen's work in
sustainability.
Credit Tier-2 Co-Curricular Education awards 0.25 points for a student
run sustainable enterprise, such as the Flaming Eggplant Café.
Evergreen did not receive points during the pilot project for the CAB
Redesign, future versions of STARS would recognize the LEED Gold
certification of the CAB once it is complete.
Rationale
Credit OP-1 awards points based on the LEED certification of buildings
on campus. Institutions receive increased points for LEED Gold
certification
Credit OP-1 awards points based on the LEED certification of buildings
on campus. LEED Silver certification recieves points, put not maximum
points.
Many of the STARS credits recognize aspects of the Energy Savings
Plan.
The energy reductions realized by the installation of the Chiller Plant
are capture in credit OP-8.
Credit Tier-2 Energy and Climate awards points for central monitoring
of energy usage.
Credit OP-25 awards points for reductions in fleet greenhouse gas
emissions.
Credit OP-9 awards points for on-site renewable energy generation.
Credits OP-12, and Tier-2 Grounds awards points for Evergreen s
commitment to Integrated Pest Management and pesticide and
herbicide free landscaping.
Credits OP-Prerequisite 1, OP-14, and OP-15 awards points for
Evergreen's recycling efforts, and waste minimization results.
Credit OP-13 does not award points for reduction in potable irrigation
water usage, but it does recognize policies and procedures in place to
reduce potable water used for irrigation.
Credits OP-22, and Tier 2-Purchasing award points for sustainable
paper purchasing policies and practices.
Credits OP-4, and OP-21 award points for use and purchase of green
cleaning products.
159
Appendix G
STARS Summary Scoring Sheets
*Yellow Indicate less than full points awarded, red indicates no points awarded.
Table 13. ER Category Summary Scoring Sheet
Category 1: Education & Research (ER)
Credit Number
Credit Title
Possible Points
Estimated Points
Co-Curricular Education
ER Credit 1
ER Credit 2
ER Credit 3
Tier Two
Student Sustainability Educators Program
Student Sustainability Outreach Campaign
Sustainability in New Student Orientation
Co-Curricular Education Tier Two Credits
Total
ER
ER
ER
ER
Credit
Credit
Credit
Credit
4
5
6
7
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
Credit
Credit
Credit
Credit
Credit
Credit
8
9
10
11
12
13
Sustainability Course Identification
Sustainability- Focused Academic Courses
Sustainability - Related Academic Courses
Sustainability Courses By Academic Department
Academic Sustainability Courses by Student Credit
Hour
Sustainability Learning Outcomes
Sustainability-Focused Undergraduate Program
Sustainability - Focused Graduate Academic Program
Sustainability Immersive Experience
Non - Credit Sustainability Courses
Non - Academic Sustainability - Focused Certificate
Program
Sustainability Literacy Assessment
Curriculum Tier Two Credits
Total
1
1
1
3.75
6.75
1
1
1
2
5
1
6
6
1
6
6
Curriculum
ER Credit 14
ER Credit 15
Tier Two
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
1
3
0
3
2
2
0.25
27.25
0
0
0.00
22.00
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
0
0
3
Faculty and Staff Development and Training
ER
ER
ER
ER
Credit
Credit
Credit
Credit
16
17
18
19
Incentives for Developing Sustainability Courses
Staff Professional Development in Sustainability
Sustainability in New Employee Orientation
Employee Sustainability Educators Program
Total
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
Credit
Credit
Credit
Credit
Credit
Credit
Credit
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Sustainability Research Inventory
Faculty Involved in Sustainability Research
Departments Involved in Sustainability Research
Internal Funding for Sustainability Research
External Funding for Sustainability Research
Sustainability Research Incentives
Interdisciplinary Research in Tenure and Promotion
Research
Co-Curricular Education
Curriculum
Development & Training
Research
Total
160
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
38.00
Total Points
Category
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Percentage
74.07%
80.73%
75.0%
Not Applicable
76.32%
29.00
Indicates Less
than Full Points
Indicates No
Points
Table 14. AF Category Summary Scoring Sheet
Category 3: Administration and Finance (AF)
Prerequisite 1
Sustainability Committee
YES
Y
Investment
AF Credit
AF Credit
AF Credit
AF Credit
AF Credit
Tier Two
1
2
3
4
5
Investment Transparency
Committee on Investor Responsibility
Screening for Negative Investments
Positive Sustainability Investments
Shareholder Engagement
Investment Tier Two Credits
Total
AF
AF
AF
AF
6
7
8
9
Strategic Plan
Master Plan
Sustainability Plan
Climate Plan
Total
AF Credit
AF Credit
AF Credit
AF Credit
Tier Two
10
11
12
13
Sustainability Officer
Sustainability Recognition Program
Inter-Campus Collaboration on Sustainability
Specialized Sustainability Staffing
Sustainability Infrastructure Tier Two Credits
Total
AF Credit
AF Credit
AF Credit
AF Credit
AF Credit
AF Credit
Tier Two
14
15
16
17
18
19
Community Service Staffing
Student Participation in Community Service
Student Hours Contributed to Community Service
Financial Incentives for Public Service Careers
Community Sustainability Partnerships
Public Policy Engagement
Community Relations and Partnerships Tier Two Credits
Total
AF Credit
AF Credit
AF Credit
AF Credit
AF Credit
AF Credit
AF Credit
Tier Two
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Diversity and Equity Committee
Diversity and Equity Officer
Diversity and Equity Attitudes Assessment
Diversity and Equity Plan
Support for Under-Represented Groups
Support Programs for Future Faculty
Affordability and Access Programs
Diversity, Access and Affordability Tier Two Credits
Total
AF Credit
AF Credit
AF Credit
AF Credit
AF Credit
AF Credit
Tier Two
27
28
29
30
31
32
Sustainable Compensation
Faculty and Staff Health Care
Graduate Student Employee Health Care
Family Leave
Domestic Partner Benefits
Employee Satisfaction Survey
Human Resources Tier Two Credits
Total
AF Credit 33
AF Credit 34
Independent Monitoring of Logo Apparel
Designated Suppliers Program
Total
1
1
4
1
1
0.50
8.50
1
0
0
0
0
0.25
1.25
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
4
3
1
1
1
1.25
7.25
3
0
1
1
0.25
5.25
1
3
3
3
1
1
2.25
14.25
1
1
1
0
1
1
2.00
7.00
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Planning
Credit
Credit
Credit
Credit
Sustainability Infrastructure
Community Relations and Partnerships
Diversity, Access and Affordability
NA
NA
1
1.50
7.50
1
1.50
7.50
1
3
0
3
Human Resources
NA
NA
1
1
1
1.75
9
1
1
0
1.75
7
1
1
2
1
0
1
52.25
32.75
Indicates Less than Full
Points
Trademark Licensing
Total Points
Category
Investment
Planning
Sustainability
Infrastructure
Community Relations &
Partnerships
Diversity, Access &
Affordability
Human Resources
Trademark Licensing
Total Points
Percentage
14.71%
100.00%
Inidcates No Points
72.41%
49.12%
100.00%
77.14%
50.00%
62.68%
161
Table 15. OP Category Summary Scoring Sheet
Category 2: Operations (OP)
Credit Number
Prerequisite 1
Credit Title
Recycling Program
Possible Points
Y/N
OP Credit
OP Credit
OP Credit
OP Credit
Tier Two
New Construction, Renovations, and Commercial
Interiors
Building Operations and Maintenance
Potable Non-Irrigation Water Consumption Reduc
Green Cleaning Services
Buildings Tier Two Credits
Total
Estimated Points
Y
Buildings
1
2
3
4
4
5
3
1
0.50
13.50
1
0
1
1
0.50
3.50
3
3
1
1.75
8.75
1
1
1
1.25
4.25
3
5
3
5
2.75
18.75
3
2
0
1
2
8
1
2
2.50
5.50
1
0
2.25
3.25
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
0
1
1
2.50
9.50
2.00
8.00
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.75
6.75
1
1
1
1
0
0
0.75
4.75
2
3
1
1
1
8
0
1
1
1
0.25
3.25
70.75
35.00
Indicates Less than Full
Points
Dining Services
OP Credit 5
OP Credit 6
OP Credit 7
Tier Two
Local Food
Food Alliance and Organic Certified Food
Fair Trade Coffee
Dining Services Tier Two Credits
Total
OP Credit
OP Credit
OP Credit
OP Credit
Tier Two
Energy Intensity Trend
Renewable Electricity
On-Site Combustion with Renewable
Green House Gas Emissions Reductions
Energy and Climate Tier Two Credits
Total
Energy and Climate
8
9
10
11
Grounds
OP Credit 12
OP Credit 13
Tier Two
Organic Campus
Irrigation Water Consumption
Grounds Tier Two Credits
Total
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
Waste Minimization
Waste Diversion
Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion
Electronic Waste Recycling Program
Hazardous Waste Minimization
Materials, Recycling, and Waste Minimization Tier Two
Credits
Total
Materials, Recycling, and Waste Minimization
Credit
Credit
Credit
Credit
Credit
14
15
16
17
18
Tier Two
Purchasing
OP Credit
OP Credit
OP Credit
OP Credit
OP Credit
OP Credit
Tier Two
19
20
21
22
23
24
ENERGY STAR Purchasing
EPEAT Purchasing
Purchasing Green Cleaning Products
Environmentally Preferable Paper Purchasing
Environmentally Preferable Furniture Purchasing
Vendor Code of Conduct
Purchasing Tier Two Credits
Total
OP Credit
OP Credit
OP Credit
OP Credit
Tier Two
25
26
27
28
Fleet Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Commute Modal Split
Commuter Options
Air Travel
Transportation Tier Two Credits
Total
Transportation
Total Points
Category
Buildings
Dining Services
Energy & Climate
Grounds
Materials, Recycling, &
Waste Minimization
Purchasing
Transportation
Total
162
Percentage
25.93%
48.57%
42.67%
59.09%
84.21%
70.37%
40.63%
49.47%
Indicates No Points
Appendix H
STARS PDF Reporting Form
163
164
Appendix I
STARS Pilot Project Participating Institutions
Institutions are listed below according to their basic Carnegie Classification and student
population.
Associate's Colleges
Large (more than 12,500 students)
Cedar Valley College – Lancaster, Texas
De Anza Community College – Cupertino, California
Eastfield College – Mesquite, Texas
Grand Rapids Community College – Grand Rapids, Michigan
Monroe Community College – Rochester, New York
Mountain View College – Dallas, Texas
North Lake College – Irving, Texas
Richland College – Dallas, Texas
Santa Barbara City College – Santa Barbara, California
Santa Fe Community College – Gainesville, Florida
Medium (3,000 to 12,500 students)
Delta College – University Center, Michigan
Northwest State Community College – Archbold, Ohio
Districts
Dallas County Community College District – Dallas, Texas
Eastern Iowa Community College District – Davenport, Iowa
Baccalaureate Colleges
Small (fewer than 3,000 students)
College of St. Benedict – St. Joseph, Minnesota
Dickinson College – Carlisle, Pennsylvania
Gustavus Adolphus College – St. Peter, Minnesota
Middlebury College – Middlebury, Vermont
Mount Union College – Alliance, Ohio
Northland College – Ashland, Wisconsin
Randolph College – Lynchburg, Virginia
St. John's University – Collegeville, Minnesota
165
University of Minnesota, Morris – Morris, Minnesota
Williams College – Williamstown, Massachusetts
Canadian Institutions
Large (more than 12,500 students)
Concordia University – Montreal, Quebec
McGill University – Montreal, Quebec
University of British Columbia – Vancouver, British Columbia
Medium (3,000 to 12,000 students)
Acadia University - Wolfville, Nova Scotia
Doctorate-granting Universities
Large (more than 12,500 students)
Arizona State University – Tempe, Arizona
Ball State University – Muncie, Indiana
Colorado State University – Fort Collins, Colorado
Illinois State University – Normal, Illinois
Iowa State University – Ames, Iowa
New York University –New York, New York
Portland State University – Portland, Oregon
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey – New Brunswick, New Jersey
Syracuse University – Syracuse, New York
University of California, San Diego – San Diego, California
University of California, Santa Barbara – Santa Barbara, California
University of Central Florida – Orlando, Florida
University of Colorado at Boulder – Boulder, Colorado
University of Florida – Gainesville, Florida
University of Illinois at Chicago – Chicago, Illinois
University of Kansas – Lawrence, Kansas
University of New Hampshire – Durham, New Hampshire
University of Texas at Austin – Austin, Texas
Worcester Polytechnic Institute – Worcester, Massachusetts
Medium (3,000 to 12,000 students)
Case Western Reserve University – Cleveland, Ohio
Emory University – Atlanta, Georgia
Small (fewer than 3,000 students)
State University of New York, College of Environmental Science & Forestry – Syracuse,
NY
166
Master's Colleges and Universities
Large (more than 12,500 students)
Appalachian State University – Boone, North Carolina
Boise State University – Boise, Idaho
California State University, Chico – Chico, California
California State University, Sacramento – Sacramento, California
Eastern Kentucky University – Richmond, Kentucky
Grand Valley State University – Allendale, Michigan
University of Nebraska at Omaha – Omaha, Nebraska
Medium (3,000 to 12,000 students)
Florida Gulf Coast University – Fort Meyers, Florida
Pacific Lutheran University – Tacoma, Washington
Santa Clara University – Santa Clara, California
Seattle Pacific University – Seattle, Washington
The Evergreen State College – Olympia, Washington
University of Colorado at Colorado Springs – Colorado Springs, Colorado
University of Wisconsin - River Falls – River Falls, Wisconsin
Small (fewer than 3,000 students)
Monterey Institute of International Studies – Monterey, California
Special Focus Institutions
Small (fewer than 3,000 students)
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology – Terre Haute, Indiana
167
