International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education

Campus sustainability plans in the United States: where, what, and how to evaluate?
Stacey Swearingen White,
Downloaded by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ISLAMABAD At 06:15 19 March 2019 (PT)

Article information:
To cite this document:
Stacey Swearingen White, (2014) "Campus sustainability plans in the United States: where, what, and
how to evaluate?", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 15 Issue: 2, pp.228-241,
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-08-2012-0075
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-08-2012-0075
Downloaded on: 19 March 2019, At: 06:15 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 27 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2694 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2015),"Place branding in strategic spatial planning: A content analysis of development plans, strategic
initiatives and policy documents for Portugal 2014-2020", Journal of Place Management and Development,
Vol. 8 Iss 1 pp. 23-50 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/JPMD-12-2014-0031">https://doi.org/10.1108/
JPMD-12-2014-0031</a>
(2014),"Why, how and to what effect do firms deviate from their intended marketing plans?: Towards a
taxonomy of post plan improvisations", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48 Iss 3/4 pp. 453-476 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-09-2011-0466">https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-09-2011-0466</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:543672 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1467-6370.htm

IJSHE
15,2 Campus sustainability plans
in the United States: where, what,
and how to evaluate?
Downloaded by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ISLAMABAD At 06:15 19 March 2019 (PT)

228
Stacey Swearingen White
Department of Urban Planning, University of Kansas, Lawrence,
Received 23 August 2012
Revised 27 November 2012 Kansas, USA
Accepted 16 January 2013
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe and analyze the use of integrated campus
sustainability plans at US institutions of higher education. The paper also offers a preliminary
framework for the evaluation of these plans.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper examines 27 campus sustainability plans.
It determines the types and characteristics of the institutions that have adopted these plans. It then
uses content analysis techniques to determine their typical contents and emphases. Finally, the paper
draws on literature pertaining to sustainability plans and plan evaluation to present a preliminary tool
for evaluating campus sustainability planning efforts.
Findings – Campus sustainability plans in the USA are extremely diverse. Environmental aspects
are most prominent in these plans, and social equity aspects are least prominent. Campus operations
receive more attention than do academic or administrative aspects. Most campuses have taken an
inclusive, campus-wide approach to developing their sustainability plans. The evaluation of these
plans should consider both their process and their substance and should account for circumstances
unique to higher education.
Research limitations/implications – The research is focused on US colleges and universities and
may have overlooked some campus sustainability plans that have other titles. Nevertheless, it is a
fairly comprehensive analysis of campus sustainability planning efforts to date in the USA.
Practical implications – Campus sustainability plans are an important integrative tool.
Understanding the details and potential evaluation of these plans can help determine their broader
adoption and implementation.
Originality/value – As an emerging tool for campus sustainability efforts, sustainability plans
allow colleges and universities to examine operational, academic, and administrative functions in an
integrated manner. To date, there has been very little scholarly attention to these plans, and no prior
attempt to consider how they might be evaluated.
Keywords Campus sustainability, Campus planning, Plan evaluation, Sustainability plans,
US higher education
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Colleges and universities across the USA have demonstrated sustainability innovation
and leadership in many areas (Keniry, 1995; Barlett and Chase, 2004; Johnston, 2013).
From the broad scope of the American College and University Presidents’ Climate
International Journal of Sustainability
Commitment (ACUPCC), to specific efforts to increase recycling, provide more local
in Higher Education foods, and purchase environmentally preferable materials, higher education has
Vol. 15 No. 2, 2014
pp. 228-241 undoubtedly played a critical role in advancing sustainability concepts and practices.
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1467-6370
DOI 10.1108/IJSHE-08-2012-0075 The author would like to acknowledge the helpful comments of the anonymous referees.
 As a city in microcosm (Turner, 1987), a university is able to test new ideas in areas Campus
ranging from transportation to housing to waste. These ideas can then be scaled to sustainability
other settings. Moreover, higher education serves as the training grounds for future
leaders. In that they are able to bridge academic, operations, and administrative plans
functions, campus sustainability efforts may help shape the views and practices of
these leaders (Orr, 1994). As Anthony Cortese (2003, p. 19) asks, “If higher education
Downloaded by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ISLAMABAD At 06:15 19 March 2019 (PT)

does not lead the sustainability effort in society, who will?” 229
One emerging area for US campus sustainability efforts is the development of
comprehensive plans for setting sustainability goals. These plans differ from typical
campus master plans and environmental management systems (EMS). Unlike master
plans, campus sustainability plans encompass a large array of issues that affect not only
campus land use, but also operations, academics, and administration. Unlike EMS, these
sustainability plans consider economic and equity issues, in addition to environmental
issues. Broadly speaking, they allow colleges and universities to consider fully the
various efforts they are making with respect to sustainability, and to establish
integrated goals, objectives and strategies for the future. This integrated nature of the
plans also distinguishes them from campus sustainability programs that address many
issues, but in parts rather than as a whole. To date, very little scholarly attention has
focused on campus sustainability plans with respect to which institutions are
developing them, what their typical emphases are, or how they might be evaluated.
This paper seeks to understand campus sustainability plans as a recent development
in US higher education. Drawing on an analysis of 27 sustainability plans from a variety
of colleges and universities throughout the USA, it asks: what campuses are developing
these plans, what do they look like, and how might they be evaluated? The sections that
follow: review recent literature on sustainability in planning, campus sustainability and
campus planning, and plan evaluation; describe the methods used to review the
27 campus sustainability plans; and present findings, analysis, and a preliminary
evaluative framework.

Plans, campuses, and sustainability: what do we know? How might we

assess?
Plans and sustainability
Most studies that investigate plans and sustainability focus on cities and emphasize
the ways and extent to which those plans address sustainability concepts (Berke and
Conroy, 2000; Jepson, 2004; Conroy and Berke, 2004; Conroy, 2006; Saha and Paterson,
2008). Many of these studies look specifically at local land use plans, as such plans are
a focal point of community planning efforts and because very few cities have adopted
specific sustainability plans (Saha and Paterson, 2008). Berke and Conroy (2000, p. 28),
for example, find the more common elements of such plans to include transportation,
environment, energy, land use and design, and public facilities. In their later work
Conroy and Berke (2004) analyze comprehensive land use plans from 42 US
communities to determine factors that support sustainable development. They find
that state planning mandates and the involvement of a variety of groups in the
planning process increase a plan’s overall support for sustainability principles. Even
within plans that include such sustainability principles, however, the emphasis tends
to be on ecological aspects rather than economics and equity concerns (Saha and
Paterson, 2008).
 IJSHE Campus sustainability and planning
15,2 Literature on campus sustainability and planning is more diffuse, and relatively recent.
Campuses may approach sustainability issues from a number of perspectives, including
land use, operations, and academics. The development of journals such as the
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education reflects the burgeoning
academic interest in these areas. New programs, such as the ACUPCC, have prompted
Downloaded by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ISLAMABAD At 06:15 19 March 2019 (PT)

230 some attention to their adoption in the USA (White, 2009; Abbott and Kasprzyk, 2012).
Campuses in the USA are also the subject of numerous rating and ranking systems
such as the Sustainable Endowments Institute’s College Sustainability Report Card
and the Sierra Club’s Cool Schools list. With the development of the Association for the
Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education’s (AASHE) Sustainability
Tracking Assessment and Rating System (STARS), it is likely that many campuses
will pursue this program as a means of assessing their efforts through more
standardized and comprehensive criteria.
With respect to planning, institutions of higher education clearly rely on a variety of
planning efforts to address issues ranging from capital investments, to academic
strategies, to land use. Calhoun (2011) suggests that sustainability is an important driver
in an emerging recognition of the importance of integration of these different planning
efforts. Here, the journal Planning for Higher Education, a publication of the Society for
College and University Planning (SCUP), provides one forum for this sort of discussion.
A 2003 special issue of this journal, in fact, was devoted to the topic, “Sustainability:
taking the long view.” In general, there appears to be a growing recognition of the
difficulties of and the need for integrated approaches to campus sustainability
(Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar, 2008; McMillin and Dyball, 2009; Krizek et al., 2012).
Campus sustainability plans are one such integration approach. But, as noted above,
these plans have yet to be analyzed in the academic literature.

Plan evaluation
Campus and community planners alike use plans as the primary tool for envisioning
the future and determining a path toward that vision. Despite being such a vital tool,
there is limited consensus as to how to evaluate plan quality or plan outcomes. Baer’s
(1997) seminal article on the topic of plan evaluation, for example, observed that such
evaluation is possible at many stages, and may be guided by very different ideas of
desirable outcomes. One may evaluate a plan’s implementation through a conformance
approach, with respect to its outcomes, and the degree to which plan contents are
reflected “on the ground,” or a performance approach, which focuses instead on plan
processes (Laurian et al., 2004a).
One fairly consistent finding in recent studies of plan implementation is low levels of
correlation between the specifics of plans and ensuing development (Berke et al., 2006;
Brody and Highfield, 2005; Laurian et al., 2004a). In other words, plans do not often lead to
the outcomes they prescribe. Laurian et al. (2004b, JEPM) identify several key factors –
plan quality, developer capacity and commitment, planning staff and agency capacity and
commitment, and agency and developer interactions – as most important to a plan’s
conformance. Burby (2003), on the other hand, found that implementation success was
higher in cases with greater stakeholder involvement in the planning process.
With respect to potential evaluation of campus sustainability plans, then, it would
seem that more information on their typical formats and contents is necessary prior
 to determining appropriate evaluative measures. Once the elements of such plans are Campus
understood, those elements that contribute to a high quality plan can be considered. sustainability
It is likely that both standard plan evaluation criteria and criteria specific to higher
education will be most useful in this endeavor. plans
Downloaded by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ISLAMABAD At 06:15 19 March 2019 (PT)

Study approach and methods

This study began with the compilation of sustainability plans from colleges and 231
universities across the USA available as of Fall 2011. These plans were identified in
two primary ways. First, the AASHE web site maintains an online inventory of what it
calls “Campus sustainability and environmental plans.” An examination of the list of
documents associated with 40 institutions identified 14 different college and university
sustainability plans. This review revealed that the remaining documents were not plans,
per se, but white papers, policies, or other strategies. A subsequent internet search using
terms such as “campus sustainability plan” yielded a list of 13 additional plans from
other campuses.
Working from an understanding of a campus sustainability plan as a detailed
proposal for integrating operational, academic, and administrative aspects of campus
sustainability, the 27 plans identified here appear to be the majority if not nearly all of the
campus sustainability plans in place as of Fall 2011 at institutions of higher education
in the USA. It is possible, of course, that some existing plans were not identified,
particularly if they have a different type of title. It should also be noted that many
campuses that are widely perceived as US exemplars of campus sustainability efforts
may not have a comprehensive plan linking those efforts together. This study does not
intend to detract from those laudable efforts, but instead seeks to highlight campus
sustainability plans as an emerging, integrative strategy. Further, this study focuses on
the USA, and therefore does not consider efforts of universities in Europe that Krizek et al.
(2012) and others have held up as exemplars of fully integrated campus sustainability.
Finally, strict climate action plans, developed in response to ACUPCC membership, were
excluded from this study, as they are not comprehensive in the same way a broader
sustainability plan is. As observed earlier, US campuses have been leaders and
innovators on a number of environmental and sustainability issues, but comprehensive
sustainability plans are fairly recent addition to their efforts. As the findings below will
show, most of these plans have been developed in the last three to four years.
For each of the 27 plans, the following information was determined: type of
institution (public, private, or community college), its enrollment, the date of the plan,
and its length. Because participation in the ACUPCC has impelled a good deal of
campus planning with respect to greenhouse gas emissions reductions, a campus’s
status as an ACUPCC signatory was noted, as was its participation in the AASHE
STARS program mentioned above.
Content analysis for each plan used a coding strategy (Robson, 1993; Silverman, 1993)
that reflects ideas of plan assessments and core elements of campus sustainability
activity. With respect to ideas from the relevant literature of what might make a good
plan, details on the planning process, and in particular, whether students were involved,
were gathered. In addition, the analysis identified the presence and types of typical
“plan language” with respect to goals, objectives, and strategies. Links between this plan
and other planning documents at each institution, attention to the institution’s regional
context, implementation details, and the extent to which costs of recommended actions
 IJSHE were further elements of the coding of these documents. Each of these items reflects the
15,2 basic elements of a plan that may influence its overall quality.
The analysis of the plans’ more substantive contents focused on elements one might
expect to find in a campus sustainability plan given recent criteria found within campus
sustainability rating efforts such as AASHE STARS. These criteria are important in
that they reflect common views of the core aspects of campus sustainability. The
Downloaded by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ISLAMABAD At 06:15 19 March 2019 (PT)

232 AASHE STARS program criteria also allow for more comprehensive scrutiny, because
they evaluate campuses for operations, academics, and administrative efforts, and
include social justice aspects. Specifically, each plan was examined for the presence of
the following topics: energy; climate change; grounds/landscaping; procurement; food;
waste; transportation; built environment; water; curriculum; research; administration;
community engagement; and social justice. The first part of the analysis asked simply
whether the element is included in a particular plan; if it was, further analysis considered
whether the issue was a central (present in a separate section, or referenced in many
sections) or peripheral (a small part of one or two sections) element.

Results and discussion

What institutions are developing campus sustainability plans? The 27 campus
sustainability plans examined for this study are from colleges and universities in
16 different states and the District of Columbia. Most states have only a single institution
that has developed such a plan, although California has five. Fifteen of the plans are from
public institutions, ten are from private institutions, and two are from community
colleges. These schools range in enrollment size from 1,560 students at Pomona College
to nearly 40,000 students at Purdue University. The plans themselves range in length
from two to 202 pages, with an average length of 45 pages. The oldest plans are those
from the universities of Colorado and Oregon, which were prepared in 2000 but updated,
respectively, in 2004 and 2005. Twenty-one of the plans were completed between 2008
and 2011 (two plans were not clearly dated). Eighteen were from signatory institutions to
the ACUPCC, and 15 were from institutions participating in the AASHE STARS
program. Table I summarizes this information.
Like signatories to the ACUPCC, campuses that have developed sustainability plans
are difficult to characterize (White, 2009). They represent community colleges and public
and private colleges and universities in states throughout the USA. Their enrollments
range from very small to very large. While two-thirds of the plans (18 of 27) are from
institutions that have also signed the ACUPCC, the relationship between those climate
action efforts and these broader sustainability efforts is not immediately clear. It is
possible that the ACUPCC pledge impels campuses to develop these broader plans, but it
is also possible that the broader planning efforts lead to further commitments with
respect to climate action. Similarly, while participation in the AASHE STARS program
(56 percent of institutions) could prompt a broad campus sustainability planning effort,
it could also be the case that these broad planning efforts lead to STARS involvement.
What is clearly apparent is that many types of institutions from across the USA are
seeking ways to coordinate and enhance their sustainability efforts through planning.
How were these plans developed? The planning processes for these campus
sustainability plans were not clearly described in six of the documents. The majority of
the remaining documents (13 of 21, or 62 percent) involved a participatory process that
developed the plans through working groups, subcommittees, campus-wide
 Downloaded by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ISLAMABAD At 06:15 19 March 2019 (PT)

Plan length in ACUPCC/AASHE

State No. of plans Institution name(s) (type; enrollment) Plan date (updates) pages STARS?

Arizona 1 Northern Arizona University (public; 23,600) February 2004 12 Yes/yes

California 5 UC Berkeley (public; 35,383) July 2009 10 Yes/no
UC Merced (public; 4,381) Spring 2010 55 Yes/yes
UC Santa Barbara (public; 22,026) April 2008 72 Yes/yes
UC Santa Cruz (public; 16,332) April 21, 2010 30 Yes/yes
Pomona College (private; 1,560) May 2010 (April 2011) 89 Yes/yes
Colorado 2 Colorado College (private; 1,900) University of February 2008 44 Yes/yes
Colorado, Boulder (public; 29,952) 2000 (2004) 50 Yes/yes
District of 1 University of the District of Columbia (public; 5,855) May 2011 27 No/no
Columbia
Illinois 2 Elmhurst College (private; 3,410) Unclear 2 No/no
Illinois Institute of Technology (private; 7,774) Fall 2010 32 No/yes
Indiana 1 Purdue University (public; 39,726) January 2010 18 No/no
Kansas 1 University of Kansas (public; 29,464) July 2011 57 No/yes
Massachusetts 2 Babson College (private; 3,250) January 2011 29 Yes/yes
Suffolk University (private; 9,563) December 2009 No/no
Michigan 1 Grand Rapids Community College (CC; 18,142) November 2005 13 Yes/no
Minnesota 2 Macalester College (private; 1,987) November 2009 ( July 2011) 45 Yes/yes
Minnesota State University, Mankato (public; 14,500) December 2010 49 No/no
New York 1 Monroe Community College (CC; 18,995) Unclear 3 Yes/no
North Carolina 1 Meredith College (private; 2,131) Spring 2009 5 No/no
Ohio 2 Ohio University (public; 21,303) June 2011 19 Yes/no
Xavier University (private; 7,019) October 2010 111 Yes/no
Oregon 1 University of Oregon (public; 23,389) October 2000 25 Yes/yes
(November 2005)
South Carolina 2 Clemson University (public; 19,000) December 2010 45 Yes/no
Furman University (private; 2,600) November 2009 40 Yes/yes
Virginia 1 Virginia Tech (public; 28,687) April 2009 202 No/yes
Wisconsin 1 University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh (public; 13,002) February 2008 124 No/yes

Campus sustainability
sustainability
Campus

plans

plans
233

Table I.
 IJSHE public meetings, and so on. Interestingly, four schools hired consultants to assist with
15,2 the plan development, and in three of these cases, that consultant appears to have been
the primary entity involved. Most plans (19 of 27, or 70 percent) clearly involved
students in their development. In one case, Minnesota State University, Mankato,
a group of students prepared their school’s plan for a class project. With respect to
Downloaded by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ISLAMABAD At 06:15 19 March 2019 (PT)

authorship of the plans, they are typically presented as the product of group effort,
234 with less focus on individuals. In the two cases where an individual seems to be a
primary author, that individual worked for the campus sustainability office.
With respect to the format of the plans and their use of typical planning terminology,
no clear patterns emerged. Two-thirds of the plans had clearly identified goals, but these
goals were not always supported by more specific objectives and strategies. In some
cases, the term “objective” is used instead of “goal” to reflect a similarly broad intended
accomplishment. In other cases, such as the University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh plan,
goals are extremely specific, e.g. “Reduce the amount of TSS (total suspended solids)
coming off the campus by 20 percent before 2008 and 40 percent before 2013.” Very few
plans (four of 27, or 15 percent) had fully integrated goals, objectives and strategies,
as one would expect to find in a community comprehensive plan.
The implementation details of the 27 plans are similarly diverse. A large majority of the
plans (19 of 27, or 70 percent) have at least tentative ideas about implementation.
Twelve plans, in particular, provide quite specific details as to how goals within them will
be achieved. The University of California, Santa Cruz plan, for example, links each plan
objective to a list of “collaborators” who are responsible for implementation. Similarly,
Colorado College links each of its plan’s action steps to a responsible party. Pomona
College’s plan, on the other hand, contains a separate “Implementation plan” section at the
end, which provides information on reporting, progress indicators, and financing.
Though implementation details were common, links between the sustainability
plans and other campus planning documents such as strategic, master, or capital plans,
were much rarer. Seven plans (26 percent) clearly stated a connection to other plans.
These ranged from noting that other plans prompted the development of the
sustainability plan, to discussions of how sustainability elements were integrated into
other campus planning efforts.
Details concerning the financing of campus sustainability plan activities prove to be
a very unusual part of these plans. Besides Pomona College, which estimates the costs
for every strategy within its plan, only four other plans contain specific cost details. In a
handful of other plans, financing ideas are presented, but without specific associated
costs.
Overall, it appears that campus sustainability plans typically bring together a large
number of individuals and groups from across campus during the process of their
development. This diverse involvement, not typically overseen by individuals one
might call “planners,” on one hand likely helps to explain the lack of consistency
among the plans with respect to regular plan language of goals, policies, and
objectives. On the other hand, the plans likely reflect the interests and concerns of
faculty, staff, students, and administrators. Implementation of the plan elements is not
consistently addressed, but is an identifiable element of most plans. That integration
with other plans is uncommon, though, suggests some campuses may be struggling
with ways to ensure sustainability concerns are embraced throughout an institution’s
other planning efforts. Similarly, given that costs are only rarely estimated, it would
 appear that many campuses wish to pursue implementation of their plans’ elements as Campus
opportunities, including necessary funds, present themselves. sustainability
What sustainability issues do the plans address? Because sustainability efforts on
college and university campuses have extended to numerous areas of operations, plans
administration, and academics, it is reasonable to expect that campus sustainability
Downloaded by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ISLAMABAD At 06:15 19 March 2019 (PT)

plans would be similarly diverse with respect to their contents. Over the last decade,
the proliferation of campus sustainability ratings and rankings has also spurred action 235
on many fronts, and those would also be reasonably reflected in planning efforts. At the
same time, campus operations may be the area in which one would expect to see the
most activity, given that sustainability efforts in this area can produce cost savings,
which is a motivating factor for any institution.
Within the 27 plans analyzed, operations elements are in fact the most common.
In particular, 26 of the 27 plans (96 percent) addressed energy use in some way, with the
remaining plan including a brief statement about lighting efficiency. Energy was often a
large section of the plans. In a similar vein, climate change and greenhouse gas emissions
were part of 20 plans (74 percent). In this case, however, half of the plans’ climate-related
aspects were combined with some other issue, often energy use. Other operations topics
also received considerable attention in the 27 plans. Large majorities of the plans analyzed
addressed: landscaping and grounds (67 percent), purchasing and procurement
(81 percent), food (67 percent), waste (93 percent), transportation (78 percent), the built
environment (89 percent), and water (85 percent). While the strength, emphasis, and
prominence of these areas varied from plan to plan, they were clear areas of interest.
With respect to their academic aspects, the plans reveal less consistency. Curricular
elements, or efforts to bring sustainability issues into course work, are evident in
22 of 27 plans (81 percent). These range from comprehensive looks at expanding
sustainability content across departments and schools, to more focused objectives to
offer sustainability certificates and other learning experiences. Bringing sustainability
into the research apparatus of these institutions, on the other hand, is much less
common. Eleven plans (41 percent) address research specifically, and most of these plans
promote the notion of using the campus itself as a focal point for sustainability-oriented
research activities. It is also possible that the type of institution may influence the
prominence of research in campus sustainability plans, though further analysis would
be necessary to determine whether or not this is the case.
While involvement of college and university administration in sustainability efforts
is noted in 17 of the 27 plans (63 percent), these aspects have limited commonality. Many
campus sustainability planning efforts began at the behest of upper administration,
such as an institution’s chancellor or president. Eight of the plans (30 percent) begin with
a letter of introduction from that Chancellor or President. Beyond this, though, there is
little similarity among the plans with respect to how they envision action or change at
the administrative level. Some plans (e.g. Virginia Tech) call for the establishment
of an Office of Campus Sustainability. Others (e.g. the University of Kansas, p. 13)
seek to integrate sustainability into all “ongoing administrative, developmental, and
institutional planning decisions.” The Illinois Institute of Technology’s plan establishes
a very strict process for varying from its goals, whereby any such variation must start at
the level of a Dean or Vice President.
Another prominent aspect of the 27 plans is ideas of community engagement.
Colleges and universities are uniquely positioned to work with other communities,
 IJSHE perhaps mostly those communities in which the campuses are located. Twenty-one
15,2 of the plans (78 percent) touch on the notion of community engagement, though
among those, most seem to focus on the campus community as a whole. Co-curricular
activities, such as student organizations, are a common focus.
Several schools also seek to engage community partners in their sustainability
Downloaded by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ISLAMABAD At 06:15 19 March 2019 (PT)

efforts. Purdue University’s plan, for example, has a separate section on “Community
236 relationships,” in which it sets goals related to partnerships among the campus, city, and
county, and connections with alumni. Similarly, 12 of the plans (44 percent) demonstrate
awareness of and connections to their regional context. Northern Arizona University, for
example, establishes a goal to “Promote development projects to benefit NAU and the
Greater Flagstaff community that are based on renewable resources and sustainable
business practices” (p. 10).
Finally, it would appear that social justice/equity aspects of campus sustainability
plans are rather uncommon. Only eight of the 27 plans (30 percent) contain some content
related to the social aspects of sustainability. Of these only four plans make these aspects
explicit, and usually with less specificity than other operations and academics topics.
For example, the Illinois Institute of Technology explains each of its plan’s topical foci
with respect to their economic, environmental, and social elements. Ohio University’s
plan includes “justice” as one of its three overarching goals. The University of Kansas
includes “social justice” as a guiding principle for its plan, though this is primarily part
of an appendix. Thus, while colleges and universities may recognize the notion of
sustainability’s “three Es” or “triple bottom line,” bringing ideas for social justice into
sustainability plans is uncommon and inconsistent.
This analysis shows that campus sustainability plans address a variety of topics,
reflective of the many ways through which colleges and universities have engaged
sustainability issues. Because campuses have been innovators in efforts to grapple
with issues such as greenhouse gas emissions, waste reduction and recycling
programs, and transportation, it is not surprising that these operational elements are
core components of campus sustainability plans. Though academic topics are also
important to these plans, changes to degree programs and course work are much more
prevalent than suggestions for changes to research agendas. Given that research is
highly individualized, this is to be expected, but it is noteworthy that several schools
promote the idea of a campus as a “living laboratory,” whereby teaching and research
efforts could be integrated through the study of various campus systems. Similarly,
community engagement efforts and regional considerations provide a way for students
and faculty to assist in efforts to improve their surrounding communities.
Support from upper levels of campus administration will be key to the successful
implementation of campus sustainability plans. That many of these plans came to
fruition out of a President’s or Chancellor’s commission suggests that colleges and
university administrators recognize the ways that campus sustainability efforts can
positively influence their institutions. At the same time, however, the plans themselves
reveal a lack of consistency with respect to the ways that sustainability concerns can
bridge operations, academics, and administration. As many schools are currently
experiencing significant funding shortages, there may be concern about the short-term
costs associated with implementing some plan elements. On the other hand, campuses
may also recognize that many of these elements, particularly with respect to
operations, demonstrate relatively short-term returns on investment.
 As implementation of these plans proceeds, additional input and shaping from higher Campus
levels of administration seems likely. sustainability
Because college and university sustainability efforts initially emerged to address the
environmental impacts of campuses, the environmental or ecological prominence of the plans
elements of these 27 plans is perhaps to be expected. Though the economic feasibility of
suggested goals, objectives and strategies is not commonly addressed within the plans,
Downloaded by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ISLAMABAD At 06:15 19 March 2019 (PT)

it will undoubtedly be a starting point of discussion in the plan implementation process. 237
Nevertheless, true campus sustainability must also develop a stronger emphasis on
social justice issues. The necessary grappling with the multi-faceted nature of
sustainability is challenging work, similarly rare in local government sustainability
planning efforts (Saha and Paterson, 2008). Campuses may well be able to innovate in
these areas as they have in other aspects of sustainability, but this remains to be seen.
How might we evaluate campus sustainability plans? Because most campus
sustainability plans are quite new, it is too soon to evaluate them based on their
outcomes. Still, evaluation of these plans is an important task, as it can help reveal the
extent to which they are contributing to more integrated campus sustainability efforts.
To begin this task, it is possible to use a slightly modified performance approach
(Laurian et al., 2004a) to evaluate elements of the plan that previous research suggests
will be more likely to produce successful results. For example, Burby (2003) found that
greater participation in the planning process yielded better plan implementation.
Similarly, clarity of plan elements is important to their success (Baer, 1997). As well,
a sustainability plan ought to embrace the full idea of sustainability, which
encompasses environmental, economic, and equity considerations (Berke and Conroy,
2000; Saha and Paterson, 2008). As Calhoun (2011) further notes, campus sustainability
efforts are sparking understanding of the need for integrated planning.
Table II contains a preliminary set of criteria with which campus
sustainability plans might be evaluated. These include: planning process; use of
plan terminology; measurability; implementation details; the “Three Es” of
sustainability; addressing operations and academics; links to other campus plans;
and accessibility. While some of these are general plan evaluation criteria, others are
specific to campus plans.
Using these criteria, which could be rendered more specific through the addition of
scoring measures or other such tools, it would be possible to consider campus
sustainability plans with respect to their quality and likelihood of success. Such efforts
are important because campus sustainability plans are still relatively new and unusual
within higher education. Efforts to pinpoint their success factors will be useful to
informing both the existing plans and plans yet to be developed by other institutions.
As Baer (1997, p. 333) puts it:
Each time a plan is prepared, the preparers should specify the criteria by which they expect it
to be evaluated; the effort inevitably sharpens their understanding of what they are about.

Conclusion
Institutions of higher education have been at the forefront of efforts to test, evaluate, and
pursue sustainability initiatives in a variety of ways and with a variety of emphases.
After many years of exploring specific topics, colleges and universities are now
beginning to develop comprehensive sustainability plans that address operations,
 IJSHE
Criterion Evaluative questions Rationale
15,2
Planning How inclusive was the process of Previous research (Burby, 2003) shows
process developing the plan? Were students that greater participation yields more
involved? successful plan implementation
Downloaded by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ISLAMABAD At 06:15 19 March 2019 (PT)

Use of plan Does the plan contain goals and Without use of these aspects of “plan
238 terminology objectives? Are these clear? language,” it is difficult or impossible to
assess plan outcomes
Measurability Does the plan provide enough specificity Without a specific understanding of
to measure its performance? Does the current performance, it is impossible to
plan draw on or call for the development understand when improvements have
of baseline data? occurred
Implementation Does the plan specify implementation Without implementation details, colleges
details costs and/or an implementation schedule and universities will be challenged to
or process? decide next steps
Three Es of Does the plan account for the Actions that are not simultaneously
sustainability environmental, economic and equity environmentally conscious, economically
aspects of the issues it addresses? feasible, and socially equitable will not be
sustained over the long term
Addresses Does the plan address campus operations While operations are the traditional focus
operations and and academics? Are there connections of campus sustainability efforts,
academics between these areas? sustainability must also be a part of
curricula. The concept of campus as
“living laboratory” provides further
opportunity to facilitate sustainability
research
Links to other Does the plan explicitly create or provide Many types of plans influence a campus.
campus plans linkages to campus strategic plans, If they are not integrated into other
master plans, and/or capital plans? planning activities, campus
sustainability plans risk being
marginalized in times of financial or
other challenge
Accessibility Is the plan clearly presented? Is it well- While this criterion is true for any plan
organized, readable, and visually (Baer, 1997), it may be especially
Table II. appealing? important for campus plans whose
Preliminary campus development processes engaged many
sustainability plan types of stakeholders and even student
evaluation criteria course work

academics, and administrative aspects of their campuses. These plans are important
in that they help organize, focus, and ultimately measure sustainability efforts. The
notion of campuses as “living laboratories” or “cities in microcosm” further suggests
that lessons from the development and implementation of these plans will be very useful
to sustainability efforts in other settings and at other scales.
This evaluation of 27 early campus sustainability plans in the USA has shown them
to be extremely diverse. There is no standard plan type or type of adopting institution.
The motivations for developing these plans appear to be similarly diverse. While
participation in other efforts such as the ACUPCC or AASHE STARS may be pushing
broader planning efforts, they also may be inspired by concerns raised by campus
administrators, faculty, staff, and students. Additional research, especially interviews,
could be helpful in determining more of the motivations for these sorts of
 planning efforts. Meanwhile, the processes for developing these plans seem to reflect Campus
a “big tent” approach whereby all constituent groups on campus are involved. sustainability
With respect to their contents, campus sustainability plans focus considerable
attention on campus operations. Academics are also commonly addressed, but much plans
more so through efforts to adapt course work and majors to meet interests and needs of
students. Research opportunities, when described, show further potential to use the
Downloaded by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ISLAMABAD At 06:15 19 March 2019 (PT)

campus a focal point of investigation. Still, these plans are focused primarily on 239
ecological concerns; social equity issues remain less common within them. As evaluation
of campus sustainability efforts continues, this lack of balance should be addressed.
Additional investigation would be helpful in determining the perceived and actual
barriers associated with clearer inclusion of social equity components in these plans.
Noteworthy to academics interested in engaged learning opportunities, is the
opportunity to involve students in the development of campus sustainability plans. Plans
should ultimately be evaluated in part by their “rational model” elements, such as goals
and objectives (Baer, 1997). Thus, it would behoove campuses to include the efforts of
students who could apply procedural and substantive knowledge of planning to those
plans’ development. In any event, campuses should seek to create and facilitate
participatory planning processes, include students in those processes, and to pay attention
to other evaluation criteria likely to render their implementation more successful.
Sustainability is a concept that is once tangible and elusive. Yet it remains the
foremost global challenge of our time. In the pursuit of a sustainable future,
simultaneous effort on the part of groups and individuals in many settings and at many
scales is imperative. Higher education, because it has the freedom to test and explore
new ideas while educating tomorrow’s leaders, has an especially valuable role to play in
these efforts. Campus sustainability plans provide one integrative way to further higher
education’s contributions in this regard.

References
Abbott, J.A. and Kasprzyk, K. (2012), “Hot air: university climate action plans and disarticulated
federalism”, The Professional Geographer, Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 572-585.
Alshuwaikhat, H.M. and Abubakar, I. (2008), “An integrated approach to achieving campus
sustainability: assessment of the current campus environmental management practices”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 16, pp. 1777-1785.
Baer, W. (1997), “General plan evaluation criteria: an approach to making better plans”, Journal
of the American Planning Association, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 329-344.
Barlett, P.F. and Chase, G.W. (2004), Sustainability on Campus: Stories and Strategies for Change,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Berke, P. and Conroy, M.M. (2000), “Are we planning for sustainable development? An evaluation
of 30 comprehensive plans”, Journal of American Planning Association, Vol. 66 No. 1,
pp. 21-33.
Berke, P., Backhurst, M., Day, M., Ericksen, N., Laurian, L., Crawford, J. and Dixon, J. (2006),
“What makes plan implementation successful? An evaluation of local plans and
implementation practices in New Zealand”, Environment and Planning B: Planning and
Design, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 581-600.
Brody, S. and Highfield, W. (2005), “Does planning work? Testing the implementation of local
environmental planning in Florida”, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 71
No. 20, pp. 159-175.
 IJSHE Burby, R. (2003), “Making plans that matter: citizen involvement and government action”,
Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 33-49.
15,2
Calhoun, T.P. (2011), “Campus sustainability is creating new planners and a better campus-wide
understanding of the need for integrated planning”, Planning for Higher Education, Vol. 39
No. 2, pp. 48-50.
Downloaded by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ISLAMABAD At 06:15 19 March 2019 (PT)

Conroy, M.M. (2006), “Moving the middle ahead: challenges and opportunities of sustainability in
240 Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 18-27.
Conroy, M.M. and Berke, P.R. (2004), “What makes a good sustainable development plan?
An analysis of factors that influence principals of sustainable development”, Environment
and Planning A, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 1381-1396.
Cortese, A.D. (2003), “The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future”,
Planning for Higher Education, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 15-22.
Jepson, E.J. (2004), “The adoption of sustainable development policies and techniques in US
cities: how wide, how deep, and what role for planners?”, Journal of Planning Education
and Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 229-241.
Johnston, L.F. (Ed.) (2013), Higher Education for Sustainability: Cases, Challenges, and
Opportunities from Across the Curriculum, Routledge, New York, NY.
Keniry, J. (1995), Ecodemia: Campus Environmental Stewardship at the Turn of the 21st Century,
National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC.
Krizek, K.J., Newport, D., White, J. and Townsend, A.R. (2012), “Higher education’s sustainability
imperative: how to practically respond?”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 19-33.
Laurian, L., Day, M., Berke, P., Ericksen, N., Backhurst, M., Crawford, J. and Dixon, J. (2004a),
“Evaluating plan implementation: a conformance-based methodology”, Journal of the
American Planning Association, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 471-480.
Laurian, L., Day, M., Backhurst, M., Berke, P., Ericksen, N., Crawford, J., Dixon, J. and
Chapman, S. (2004b), “What drives plan implementation? Plans, planning agencies, and
developers”, Journal of Environmental Planning & Management, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 555-577.
McMillin, J. and Dyball, R. (2009), “Developing a whole-of-university approach to educating for
sustainability linking curriculum, research and sustainable campus operations”, Journal of
Education for Sustainable Development, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 55-64.
Orr, D.W. (1994), Earth in Mind: On Education, the Environment and the Human Prospect, Island
Press, Washington, DC.
Robson, C. (1993), Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and
Practitioner-Researchers, Blackwell, Oxford.
Saha, D. and Paterson, R.G. (2008), “Local government efforts to promote the ‘three Es’ of
sustainable development: survey in medium to large cities in the United States”, Journal of
Planning Education and Research, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 21-37.
Silverman, D. (1993), Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text, and
Interaction, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Turner, P.V. (1987), Campus: An American Planning Tradition, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
White, S.S. (2009), “Early participation in the American College and University Presidents’
Climate Commitment”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 10
No. 3, pp. 215-227.
 Further reading Campus
Dalton, L. (1989), “The limits of regulation: evidence from local plan implementation in sustainability
California”, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 151-168.
Portney, K.E. (2003), Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously: Economic Development, the
plans
Environment, and Quality of Life in American Cities, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Downloaded by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ISLAMABAD At 06:15 19 March 2019 (PT)

About the author 241

Stacey Swearingen White is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of
Urban Planning at the University of Kansas, where she also serves as Director of Academic
Programs for the KU Center for Sustainability. Her broad research interests are in the area of
environmental planning and policy, with specific interests in adoption of sustainability
innovation within local government and higher education. Stacey Swearingen White can be
contacted at: sswhite@ku.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. OrensteinDaniel Eli, Daniel Eli Orenstein, TroupinDavid, David Troupin, SegalElla, Ella Segal,
HolzerJennifer M., Jennifer M. Holzer, Hakima-KoniakGili, Gili Hakima-Koniak. Integrating ecological
objectives in university campus strategic and spatial planning: a case study. International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Yusuf A. Aina, Ismaila Rimi Abubakar, Habib M. Alshuwaikhat. Global Campus Sustainability Ranking
Downloaded by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ISLAMABAD At 06:15 19 March 2019 (PT)

1-10. [Crossref]
3. Javier Esquer, David Slim Zepeda, Nora E. Munguia Vega. Sustainable University Profiles 1-7. [Crossref]
4. Naomi M. Maina-Okori. Sustainability Domains in Higher Education 1-9. [Crossref]
5. David Alba-Hidalgo, Javier Benayas del Álamo, José Gutiérrez-Pérez. 2018. Towards a Definition of
Environmental Sustainability Evaluation in Higher Education. Higher Education Policy 31:4, 447-470.
[Crossref]
6. Milad Mohammadalizadehkorde, Russell Weaver. 2018. Universities as Models of Sustainable Energy-
Consuming Communities? Review of Selected Literature. Sustainability 10:9, 3250. [Crossref]
7. Ben Nunes, Simon Pollard, Paul Burgess, Gareth Ellis, Irel de los Rios, Fiona Charnley. 2018. University
Contributions to the Circular Economy: Professing the Hidden Curriculum. Sustainability 10:8, 2719.
[Crossref]
8. Fernanda Frankenberger, Mari Anastacio, Ubiratã Tortato. Education for Solidarity: A Case Study at
PUCPR 183-195. [Crossref]
9. Fernanda Frankenberger, Janaína Macke, Laurelena C. Palhano. “Do What I Say, Don’t Do What I Do”:
Challenges on Education for Sustainability 903-914. [Crossref]
10. Asadul Hoque, Amelia Clarke, Tunazzina Sultana. 2017. Environmental sustainability practices in South
Asian university campuses: an exploratory study on Bangladeshi universities. Environment, Development
and Sustainability 19:6, 2163-2180. [Crossref]
11. SemeraroElizabeth, Elizabeth Semeraro, BoydNeil M., Neil M. Boyd. 2017. An empirical assessment
of administration and planning activity and their impact on the realization of sustainability-related
initiatives and programs in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education
18:7, 1311-1330. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. WeberShana, Shana Weber, NewmanJulie, Julie Newman, HillAdam, Adam Hill. 2017. Ecological
regional analysis applied to campus sustainability performance. International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education 18:7, 974-994. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. AlghamdiNaif, Naif Alghamdi, den HeijerAlexandra, Alexandra den Heijer, de JongeHans, Hans de
Jonge. 2017. Assessment tools’ indicators for sustainability in universities: an analytical overview.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 18:1, 84-115. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. Simon Leung, Artie W. Ng. Strategic Performance of Sustainable Campus Development: Case Study of
a Multi-campus Tertiary Institution in a Highly Dense City of Asia 77-92. [Crossref]
15. Katerina Kosta. Sustainability Research as Presented in UK University Sustainability Policies 263-277.
[Crossref]
16. Zena Harris, Holly Moynahan, Heather Vickery, Heather Henriksen, Eugenio Morello, Bernd Kasemir.
Higher Education Strategic Planning for Sustainable Development: A Global Perspective 153-164.
[Crossref]
 17. WaringTimothy M., Timothy M. Waring, SullivanAbigail V., Abigail V. Sullivan, StappJared R., Jared
R. Stapp. 2016. Campus prosociality as a sustainability indicator. International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education 17:6, 895-916. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Cecilia Ribalaygua Batalla, Francisco García Sánchez. Creating a Sustainable Learning District by
Integrating Different Stakeholders’ Needs. Methodology and Results from the University of Cantabria
Campus Master Plan 3-20. [Crossref]
19. Miguel Rodriguez Lopez, Benjamin R. K. Runkle, Stefan Roski, Jana Stöver, Kerstin Jantke, Manuel
Downloaded by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ISLAMABAD At 06:15 19 March 2019 (PT)

Gottschick, Delf Rothe. Sustainable Internationalization? Measuring the Diversity of Internationalization

at Higher Education Institutions 21-37. [Crossref]
20. Lauri Lidstone, Tarah Wright, Kate Sherren. 2015. Canadian STARS-Rated Campus Sustainability
Plans: Priorities, Plan Creation and Design. Sustainability 7:12, 725-746. [Crossref]