Accepted Manuscript

Campus sustainability in the US: Environmental management and social change

since 1970

Camille Washington-Ottombre, Garrett L. Washington, Julie Newman

PII: S0959-6526(18)31661-5
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.012
Reference: JCLP 13158

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 24 February 2018

Revised Date: 31 May 2018
Accepted Date: 2 June 2018

Please cite this article as: Washington-Ottombre C, Washington GL, Newman J, Campus sustainability
in the US: Environmental management and social change since 1970, Journal of Cleaner Production
(2018), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.012.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Campus Sustainability in the US: Environmental Management and Social Change

since 1970

Camille Washington-Ottombre1, Garrett L. Washington2, Julie Newman3

PT
1
: Environmental Science and Policy Program, Smith College, MA, USA
2
: Department of History, University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA, USA
3
: Office of Sustainability, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MA, USA

RI
Corresponding author:
Camille Washington-Ottombre

SC
Environmental Science and Policy Program, Smith College
SR 334, 44 College Lane
Northamtpon, MA 01060, United States of America
e-mail: cwashingtonottombre@smith.edu

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Conceptions of Type of policies Scale of policies

sustainability
Beyond
Holistic Institutionalized the gates
of campus

PT
RI
U SC
AN
Within the
Environmental Informal gates of
campus

M
Local National International Educating Modeling Being agents Bottom-up Top-down
agents of change change of change

D
Scale of momentum for change Role of HEIs Models for policy development

TE
a) b) c)

C EP
AC
The broader context (a), problem identification and policy objectives (b), and implementation philosophy and tools (c) of
the three epochs of campus sustainability in the US since 1970. The three epochs are: greening the campus (1970s-
1990s), the growth of campus sustainability (1990s-2010s), and transforming HEIs to implement sustainability on
campus and beyond (2010s-).
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Word count: 11956

Campus Sustainability in the US:

Environmental Management and Social Change since 1970

Abstract:

PT
In the US, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) have occupied a distinct role in the social
contract: they have been predisposed to be at the forefront of social change and to addressing
“wicked” problems. Over the last four decades sustainability has emerged as one such problem,

RI
and HEIs have practiced campus sustainability to improve environmental management and foster
social change on campuses and beyond. Understanding the development of campus sustainability
in the US during these years is essential for scholars and practitioners looking to make sense of

SC
its present state and to map out future pathways. There is, however, no comprehensive analysis
of campus sustainability’s development in the U.S. Here we ask how campus sustainability has
developed in the US since the early 1970s. To answer our research question, we analyze

U
scholarly works and reports and use the epochs approach to build a chronological narrative. Our
analysis results in the identification of three distinct and overlapping epochs of campus
AN
sustainability: greening the campus (1970s-1990s), the growth of campus sustainability (1990s-
2010s), and transforming HEIs to implement sustainability on campus and beyond (since 2010s).
We conclude by analyzing the nature of changes that campus sustainability has undergone over
time, in terms of both managing the environment and fostering social change. We argue that
M

campus sustainability initially emerged as informal, ecologically-focused, campus-confined

initiatives at HEIs that prioritized educating agents of change and modeling change. Over time
campus sustainability has evolved towards more formal, holistic, extramural policies at HEIs that
D

assume the role of agents of change. Here, we provide the first historical narrative of the campus
sustainability in the US. As such, this work is likely to be of value to scholars and practitioners
TE

alike as they grapple with the past, present, and future of campus sustainability.

Keywords:
EP

Sustainability, social change, higher education institutions, campus sustainability.

Introduction
C

In the US, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) have occupied a distinct role in the social
AC

contract: they have been predisposed to be at the forefront of social change and to address
“wicked” problems. (Rittel and Webber 1973). They operate with distinct freedom of action and
influence. In exchange, they are entrusted with the charge of educating students and producing
knowledge that will foster a thriving civil society (Cortese, 2012). Historically, US HEIs have
often aimed to serve the greater good by supporting and embodying radical social changes that
have significantly altered behavior patterns and cultural values and norms over time (Haferkamp
and Smelser, 1992). For instance, in reaction to the horrors of slavery, many college students and
professors became major actors in the Underground Railroad in the 1830s (Slater, 1995). More
recently, in the 1980s, HEIs utilized divestment from South African companies as a weapon to

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

fight Apartheid (Teoh et al., 1999). In the 1990s, HEI’s carried out anti-tobacco campaigns
concomitantly with drives to divest from the tobacco industry and to ban smoking across US
campuses (Wander and Malone, 2004). Their responses to challenges of significant scale like
sustainable development are cases in point (Corcoran and Wals, 2004).

In the last 40 years, both in the US and globally, HEIs have worked to better manage

PT
environmental issues on campuses and beyond and change behaviors and values pertaining to the
natural environment. HEIs’ endeavors to manage environmental issues and promote social
change have been referred to as “campus sustainability.” This term encompasses their research
and curricula, but also programing, operations, and institutional dimensions (Disterheft et al.

RI
2013). HEIs’ campus sustainability efforts aim to foster the rethinking of our society and the
realization of social change. More specifically, they seek to cultivate more sustainable and just
interactions between people and nature, amongst diverse groups of people, and between

SC
generations.

Over the years, campus sustainability has become a vibrant field of academic inquiry. Scholars

U
have both argued for and documented the social and ecological impacts of campus sustainability.
All over the world, academic conferences, journals, and publications with an explicit focus on
AN
campus sustainability have flourished, and the US is no exception. Academic research on this
topic has mostly been at the scale of individual case studies (Vaughter et al., 2013). Individual
case studies (see for instance Aber et al., 2009) or collections of innovative case studies (see for
instance Barlett and Chase, 2013 or Koehn and Uitto, 2017) provide in-depth analyses of discrete
M

experiences of HEIs. A few scholars, however, have also been engaged in thinking more broadly
about the idea and application of campus sustainability. Leading thinkers in the field have at
times written eloquently about their respective visions for campus sustainability (see for instance
D

Orr, 1994 and Cortese, 1992). More recently, scholars have also formulated useful critiques (see
for instance Breen, 2010) and recommendations (see for instance Martin and Samels, 2012) to
TE

guide the development of campus sustainability. Still others have analyzed the impact of
specific key texts and declarations on campus sustainability (see for instance Wright, 2004 or
Dyer and Dyer, 2017). At least one critical element in the process of reflecting on campus
sustainability in the US, however, remains relatively unaddressed. Scholars have not offered a
EP

comprehensive analysis of the development of campus sustainability. As a result, case study

analyses don’t situate themselves within the broader development of campus sustainability. In
order to make sense of both individual case studies and the present state of campus sustainability
in the US and to anticipate future developments, such an understanding is critical.
C

Building on that broad body of scholarship, the article here seeks to address this lacuna by asking
AC

how campus sustainability has developed in the US since the early 1970s. In responding to this
question, we examine the evolution of HEIs’ management of environmental issues and the
promotion of social change. Certainly, campus sustainability has evolved incrementally and daily
through processes of trial and error that are unique to specific HEIs and their specific geographic,
intellectual, political, and economic contexts. Yet it is clear, in retrospect, that there has been a
discernible evolution in how the higher education community has perceived environmental
problems and formulated responses to address them. In an effort to describe these changes, we
analyze the development of HEIs’ conceptualizations and applications of campus sustainability.

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

To analyze the emergence and growth of campus sustainability in the US, we establish a
chronological narrative inspired by, and in conversation with, the “distinct though overlapping
epochs” of US environmental policy described by Mazmanian and Kraft (2009). Like their study,
each epoch in the development of campus sustainability is characterized by the rise and fall of a
dominant theoretical and operational model for US HEIs’ engagement with social change and
environmental management. In order to determine the overall progression of campus
sustainability and the boundaries and characteristics of each epoch in its development, we

PT
analyzed case studies, reflection pieces, and reports on campus sustainability and environmental
education in the US. Based on this research, we provide the first historical narrative of campus
sustainability in the US and identify three distinct epochs of campus sustainability: greening the

RI
campus (1970s-1990s), the growth of campus sustainability (1990s-2010s), and transforming
HEIs to implement sustainability on campus and beyond (since 2010s). We argue that campus
sustainability initially emerged as informal, ecologically-focused, campus-confined initiatives at

SC
HEIs that prioritized educating agents of change and modeling change. Over time campus
sustainability has evolved towards more formal, holistic, extramural policies at HEIs that, as
institutions, assume the role of agents of change.

U
1. Methods
AN
1.1. Analysis of scholarly works and reports

In reading about the epochs of US environmental policy in Mazmanian and Kraft (2009), we
M

developed an interest in the evolution of campus sustainability over time. This led to the research
question behind the current article. How has campus sustainability developed in the US since the
1970s? In order to respond to this question, we turned to relevant printed sources. Two types of
D

scholarly works were analyzed: (1) material published during a given epoch that provides a
broad overview of campus sustainability at the time rather than a discrete experience and (2)
TE

material reflecting on the practices of campus sustainability during a certain epoch. We

identified relevant material using “campus sustainability”, “sustainability”, “HEIs”,
“universities”, and “environmental education” as keyword searches on several search engines
EP

such as Google Scholar or Worldcat. In addition, we conducted a detailed examination of

relevant publications in several journals such as the Journal of Cleaner Production,
Environmental Education Research, the Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences,
Sustainability, and the International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. We
C

examined reports published by leading organizations in the field of campus sustainability and
AC

environmental education such as the American Association for Sustainability in Higher

Education, Second Nature, the Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future, the
National Council for Science and the Environment, and the U.S. Green Building Council. We
also analyzed international declarations and other texts that have supported the development of
campus sustainability. This work does not provide an exhaustive or systemic review of the
literature, but instead draws on these various sources to describe the emergence and development
of campus sustainability and the changing roles that HEIs have played in this process.

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

We analyzed a total of 103 scholarly works, reports, and texts. Out of the 103 references, 47
were journal articles, 32 were books, 13 were reports, 6 were international texts, and the
remaining 6 were categorized as “other” (e.g. working papers) (figure 1).
--Figure 1, about here--

The 47 journal articles analyzed in this paper were published in the following journals: 11 in

PT
Journal of Cleaner Production (JCP), 5 in the International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education (IJSHE), 5 in Sustainability: the Journal of Record (Sustainability), 3 in Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability (COES), and 23 other articles that were published in

RI
various other journals and are categorized here as “other” (figure 2).

--Figure 2, about here--

SC
1.2 Using the epochs approach to build a chronological narrative

This article offers a chronological narrative of the development of campus sustainability. A

U
chronological approach has been convincingly employed by Mazmanian and Kraft (2009) who
have identified “distinct though overlapping epochs” of US environmental policy, another
AN
development that emerged alongside the postwar environmental movement in the late 1960s.
Their research aims at taking a step back from the day-to-day development of US environmental
policy to outline the key, distinct features of each period, while highlighting the links between
M

past and present. In their seminal work, they identified three distinct epochs: regulating for
environmental protection (1970-1990), efficiency-based regulatory reform and flexibility (1980-
2000s), and toward sustainable communities (1990-present). For each epoch, they identified
D

specific problems and policy objectives, implementation philosophies, points of intervention,

policy approaches and “tools,” information and data management needs, predominant political
TE

and/ institutional context, as well as key events and public actions.

In this work, we adapt Mazmanian and Kraft’s epochs approach to understanding the
EP

development of US environmental policy to the analysis of campus sustainability. To apply this

method to campus sustainability’s development in the US, we defined the chronological
boundaries of each epoch. Each epoch is characterized by the rise and fall of a dominant
C

theoretical and operational model for HEIs’ engagement with social change and environmental
management. (At the same time we too acknowledge that broader contexts, problems defined,
AC

policy approaches and tools often overlap with one another or continue to influence the action of
HEIs beyond the end of a given era.) We then simplified number of variable so it could be
analyzed through three variables. We first analyzed the broader context at the international,
national, or local levels that influences the action of HEIs in each epoch. Then, we examined the
environmental problems identified by HEIs in each epoch as well as the policy objectives set by
the higher education community. Finally, we assessed the implementation philosophy and policy
tools chosen by HEIs in each epoch.

2. Results

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2.1. Greening the campus (1970-1990s): pioneers and game changers

2.1.1. Broader context

Early efforts to green the campus echoed the environmental movement that developed in the US

PT
in the 1960s and the 1970s. In a context of anxiety driven by the Vietnam War and constantly
heightening racial tensions, public interest in environmental issues emerged. Overpopulation,
water and air pollution, and nuclear fallout became major concerns in public opinion. This new

RI
popular mass movement coalesced in the first Earth Day on Wednesday, April 22, 1970. This
event was conceived as “teach-ins” modeled on anti-Vietnam war protests (Allit, 2014). Earth
Day was largely observed on US campuses and became the first mass manifestation as well as a

SC
catalyzer of students’ environmental activism (Smith, 1993). Concerns for the state of the
environment were not limited to the US and were in fact echoed by similar movements and
actions on the international stage.

U
Key international conferences and declarations shaped the role of HEIs in this early period. In
1972, participating nations to the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment issued
AN
the Stockholm Declaration. It emphasized 26 principles for international and national
development and environmental protection, three of which highlighted the role of environmental
research and education (United Nations, 1972). In 1975, the International Workshop on
M

Environmental Education met in Belgrade to express the needs for education systems all over the
world to support the development of a new global ethic to improve the relationships between
people and nature (UNESCO-UNEP, 1975). In 1977, the first intergovernmental conference on
D

environmental education took place in Tbilisi and reaffirmed in its declarations the overarching
guiding principles for environmental education defined two years before (UNESCO-UNEP,
TE

1977). HEIs were exhorted to lead the way towards more harmonious development by expanding
their research agenda to address environmental issues across multiple disciplines, developing
curricula on the environment, and promoting environmental outreach and cooperation (Wright,
EP

2004).

Another vector for the unprecedented interest in greening campuses derived from energy
C

shortages. Throughout the 1970s, the drastic rise of oil prices provided strong economic
incentives for HEIs to green their campuses. Some even argue that the surge of oil prices was
AC

actually the true motivation behind such initiatives (Perrin, 1992). In March 1973, when the
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Counties lifted the punitive embargo it had placed on
oil exports to the US, oil prices had increased by 70% (Ross, 2013). Then a second dramatic
wave of oil price increases occurred amidst the global anxiety and fear that attended the Iranian
revolution in 1978-1979. This unprecedented rise induced panic in the oil-dependent US
economy and prompted radical changes in energy use and policy. During the 1973-1974 and the
1978-1979 oil crises, HEIs experienced heavy increases in operational costs because most used
oil as their main heating source. This broader context shaped how HEIs identified environmental
problems and developed policies to green the campus.

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2.1.2. Problem identification and policy objectives

Widespread environmental degradation and the international call for more even and sustainable
economic development amplified questions regarding the role of HEIs within the American
social contract. Positivist, Newtonian, and Cartesian approaches to science had failed to train

PT
scientists and decision makers capable of grasping the complex interactions between human
actions and nature (Lozano et al., 2013). The structure and content of academic teachings and
research perpetuated cultural assumptions and narratives that placed man separate from and

RI
above a nature waiting to be shaped and utilized by humans (Cortese, 2012). Academics believed
that HEIs needed to move beyond assumptions of the Earth’s limitless bounties—assumptions
that they had maintained over centuries. They had the responsibility to protect and heal nature in

SC
order to fulfill their role in the social contract (Corcoran and Wals, 2004).

Leading thinkers such as David Orr argued that HEIs should promote a new kind of knowledge
that did not emanate from the enlightenment philosophy and did not justify environmental

U
degradation (Orr, 1993). Indeed, not only did the education system support environmental
degradations, it reinforced it and made environmental vandalism even more efficient (Orr, 1994).
AN
To honor their role in the social contract, HEIs needed to educate environmentally literate
citizens and problem solvers able to counteract environmental degradations (Smith, 1993). As an
alternative to devising new ways to exploit natural resources, faculty were called upon to
M

develop research agendas that would solve real world environmental problems. Since HEIs
curricula were contributing to environmental degradation, HEIs were responsible for
aggressively promoting environmental education and environmentally restorative research
D

(Cortese, 1992).
TE

Innovative academics argued that along with the moral imperative to reform HEI’s curriculum
and research agenda, solutions to environmental issues should be applied within the gates of the
campus. Indeed, the disconnect between the curriculum and faculty research agendas on the one
EP

hand and campus operations on the other hand started to feel like a “strange detachment” (Smith,
1993). It was essential to organically develop parallels between environmental problems and
solutions at the global and national scales with those on campus. By doing so, HEIs would at the
C

same time take responsibility for environmental degradations caused by their own physical
infrastructure and give students an opportunity to practice environmental problem solving.
AC

Although the prescriptions for reshaping HEIs must have seemed utopian to some, early
promoters of a green campuses strategically stressed the economic co-benefits and ease of
implementation of greener environmental actions. In the context of economic crises during the
1970s, they argued that ecological management could reduce HEIs’ operating costs while
improving the quality of its services and rejuvenating local economies. In order to convince
HEIs’ executives, the moral imperative of ecological management sometimes became the “added
bonus” to greening the campus (Orr, 1993). Many argued that a lot could be done with little and
that environmental rightfulness could easily be reached (Maniates, 2002).

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2.1.3. Implementation philosophy and policy tools

During this epoch of pioneering efforts, change agents, who were often relatively isolated,
initiated grassroots actions to green the campus. Change agents were often staff members whose
in-depth institutional knowledge of their HEI allowed them to overcome institutional barriers and
transform their campuses (Lozano, 2006; Verhulst and Lambrechts, 2015). Often working with

PT
little support, they confronted and overcame daunting challenges, through their dedication to the
environment and to their institutions (Barlett and Chase, 2013). Change agents were generally
people in the middle of the hierarchy who could oversee and see through the successful

RI
implementation and durability of green initiatives over time, in contrast to senior administrators
who typically did not remain at a given HEI for a long period of time. (Arroyo, 2017). Green
leaders were “leaders of the most unlikely sort” such as facility managers, ground managers, and

SC
dining directors (Orr, 1993). The environmental management aspect of these positions was more
rare (Keniry, 1995).

Throughout this first epoch, although recycling efforts were common, a wide variety of

U
environmental actions were implemented under the pressure of local agents of change. Given the
AN
focus on pollution and waste by the environmental movement, initiatives to reduce and recycle
waste became very common (Smith, 1993). By 1990, more than 78% of HEIs had a recycling
program (Keniry, 1995). HEIs were also involved in greening wastewater and storm water
management, landscape management, provision of food, procurement policies, buildings, and
M

transportation. In the aftermath of the oil crises, winter breaks were extended to save energy
during the coldest parts of the year (Perrin, 1992). Many HEIs shifted to coal as their main
energy source and implemented energy saving measures to lower their operational costs (Smith,
D

1993).
TE

At the same time, HEIs’ faculty conducted unprecedented efforts to develop a strong
environmental science curriculum and research agenda. In spite of the UN calls for
interdisciplinary and problem-solving based curriculum, new offerings consisted mostly of
EP

courses in environmental science. Apart from a few notable exceptions, research and teaching
were often disconnected from campus operations and other actions to green the campus. One of
these exceptions was David Orr’s course in the early 1990s titled “Oberlin and the Biosphere”
where students conducted an inventory of resource flows around the campus in an applied
C

bioregional and agrarian perspective to understanding environmental degradations (Keniry,

1995). In the same time period, more and more students all across the country took the initiative
AC

to assess the campus environment as part of a course project or an independent research project
but such initiatives remained punctual (Smith, 1993).

Hence, during the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s, unprecedented steps were taken to green the
campus. From recycling, to energy efficiency, to pesticide free landscape treatments, campuses
all over the US were becoming greener. However, efforts were often ad hoc and lacked
systematic vision and implementation. Initiatives conducted in the following epoch aimed at
institutionalizing campus sustainability and ensuring the perenniality of such efforts.

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2.2. The growth of campus sustainability (1990s-2010s): modeling sustainability and

educating for environmental leadership

2.2.1. Broader context

As in the previous era, international declarations and conferences coincided with the expansion

PT
of campus sustainability. In 1987, the United Nations World Commission on Environment and
Development promoted a broad and holistic definition of sustainable development that
emphasized its environmental, economic, ethical, and cultural aspects (United Nations, 1987). A

RI
few years later, because of the large media and political resonance created by the UN Conference
on Environment and Development in Rio (1992), US educators and academics realized that they
were doing very little to respond to the global crisis at hand (Perrin, 1992). The terms “education

SC
for sustainable development” and “education for sustainability” entered the vocabulary of
educators (Calder and Clugston, 2003). Agenda 21, the non-binding action plan that came out of
the Rio conference as well as the UNESCO-led Decade of Education for Sustainable
Development (2005-2014), recommended promoting sustainable development in research,

U
education, and community outreach (United Nations, 1992). In many countries across the globe,
the leadership, academics, and students of HEIs closely followed UN exhortations for
AN
implementing sustainable development in research and education (Kelly, 2010).

Following these global trends, American students embraced calls for sustainable development.
M

Campuses experienced a revival of students’ environmental activism that had become muted
since the 1970s environmental movement. (Calder and Clugston, 2003). In 1989, the
“Threshold” conference gathered 2000 student-activists. Famous speakers like Dennis Hayes, the
D

initiator of the first Earth Day, energized the crowd. In 1990, the 20th anniversary of the first
Earth Day fostered new student engagement with campus sustainability. This collegiate
TE

environmental network, centered on the Threshold Conference and structured around Earth day,
stimulated synergies on campuses across the country. Numbers had tripled by 1990 when 7000
student and faculty activists gathered at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Keniry,
EP

1995).

Most actors in the campus sustainability movement embraced a relatively narrow understanding
C

of the concept sustainability by focusing on environmental management. The seeds of campus

sustainability in the US did not directly emanate out of the UN exhortations but grew out of a
AC

conception of environmental sustainability laid out in the 1990 Talloires Declarations. These
declarations emphasized the fundamental role of HEIs in education, research, policy
development, information exchange, and community outreach for the creation of an
environmentally sustainable future (Cortese, 1992). Although it does not include any binding
commitments, the Talloires Declarations have been key in developing executive support for
sustainability (Keniry, 1995). Over the next 28 years, the number of signatories of the Talloires
Declarations would grow to 502, over a third of which are US-based institutions (Association of
University Leaders for a Sustainable Future, 2017). In many ways, they mark the birth of campus

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

sustainability in the US and continue to influence the framing of sustainability towards

environmental management.

As endeavors for campus sustainability multiplied, support and structures for the guidance of this
movement also multiplied. In 1990, the National Wildlife Federation, a wildlife conservation
organization, created the Cool it! program (re-named Campus Ecology in 1993) to guide campus

PT
leaders and promote sustainability on campuses. 578 HEIs were registered in this program in the
early 1990s. Another organization, Green Vote, trained students in legislation and electoral skills
related to the environment. The Student Environmental Action Coalition (SEAC) promoted and

RI
coordinated students’ campus sustainability networks and organized regional conferences. In the
mid-1990s, SEAC was represented on 700 campuses (Lerner, 1997). In 1992, the US Public
Interest Group funded the Green Corps program to train new college graduates to become green

SC
community organizers (Keniry, 1995).

Students, faculty, and staff met during conferences that rationalized campus sustainability
throughout the 1990s and the 2000s. The first major conference was the Campus Earth Summit

U
that brought together 450 delegates in 1994 (Campus Earth Summit, 1995). From 1996 to 2012,
Ball State University hosted nine “Greening the Campus” conferences where some 200
AN
participants met regularly to share their campus sustainability experiences on topics ranging from
pedagogy to campus operations (Koester, 1996). The “Greening the Campus” conferences
significantly contributed to the diffusion of innovations and creation of a tight-knit community of
M

practitioners (Koester et al., 2006).

2.2.2. Problem identification and policy objectives

D

In spite of the significant steps taken in the 1990s and early 2000s, practitioners condemned the
TE

fragility of campus sustainability practices. Sustainability initiatives were often one-offs that
rarely impacted the strategic orientation of HEIs (Cortese, 1992). Environmental measures did
not involve HEIs as a whole and remained restricted to the specific domains of expertise of their
EP

respective agents of change. Due to the official function of most agents of change, sustainability
endeavors also tended to be dominated by operations-based projects and science-based
innovations, to the detriment of other areas of campus (Beringer and Adomßent, 2008).
C

Campus sustainability practitioners argued that it was only by fully institutionalizing campus
AC

sustainability that HEIs could fulfill their part of the social contract (Cortese and Seif Hattan,
2010). They asserted that HEIs should embrace their mission of social change and implement
incremental steps towards a sustainable society by educating the next generation of leaders
(Lerner, 1997). HEIs were to model change by modifying their modes of action. At a time when
the US federal government had ceased to promote ambitious environmental policies,
sustainability proponents maintained that HEIs needed to supersede failing and limited
environmental action (Orr, 1993). To accomplish these objectives, HEIs had to reconcile the
divide between operations, research and teaching (Beringer and Adomßent, 2008).

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2.2.3. Implementation philosophy and policy tools

2.2.3.1. Climate Action Plans and the institutionalization of campus sustainability

HEIs leadership took significant steps to institutionalize campus sustainability in adherence to

the American College and University President’s Climate Commitment (ACUPCC). Under the

PT
guidance of the non-profit organization Second Nature, twelve US college and university
presidents agreed in 2006 to achieve carbon neutrality by crafting climate action plans (CAPs),
conducting greenhouse gas inventories, infusing sustainability into their curricula, and expanding

RI
research and outreach efforts (Dyer and Dyer, 2017). In 2016, the ACUPCC was renamed the
Climate Leadership Commitments with two separate commitments, one on carbon and one
relative to climate resilience and adaptation. In 2017, the Carbon Commitment Charter had 467

SC
signatories, all US HEIs (Second Nature, 2017).

Even though colleges and universities had in common the fact that they institutionalized campus
sustainability and drafted CAPs after signing the ACUPCC, HEIs followed distinct paths to

U
achieve their environmental goals (Keniry, 1995). Many created ad hoc sustainability task forces
to define the modalities of institutionalization. Others institutionalized and broadened
AN
environmental liaison positions beyond specific administrative departments such as operations or
dining services. The mission of the newly appointed sustainability officer, also called
environmental management coordinator, or sustainability coordinator, was to integrate
M

operations, education, and research and serve as a broker to foster new synergies on campus
(Lerner, 1997). Although these new positions significantly contributed to the institutionalization
of campus sustainability, they sometimes excessively centralized responsibilities and reproduced,
to a certain extent, some of the pitfalls of the previous epoch (Keniry, 1995).
D

2.2.3.2. Green Buildings as a driver of campus sustainability

TE

In institutionalizing campus sustainability and striving to achieve carbon neutrality through their
CAPs, HEIs have fully embraced the promises of green building. Since the early 2000, a plethora
EP

of green constructions have been built on US campuses. Most follow the construction agenda of
the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Program (LEED) started in 1998 by the
U.S. Green Building Council, a nonprofit devoted to promoting environmentally sustainable
C

building (Carlson, 2012). From the standpoint of administrators, green buildings make financial
sense because they pay for themselves over time. They have green marketing appeal and help
AC

HEI’s differentiate themselves from other campuses. With over 240,000 buildings constructed
across 4,100 HEIs, LEED structures are often the visible symbol of a school’s commitment
towards sustainability (Mandel and Samels, 2012; U.S. Green Building Council, 2017).

The success of LEED buildings led to conversations about more tangible and reachable ways of
implementing campus sustainability. HEIs learned to use online reporting tools, precursors to the
forthcoming sustainability reporting tools. The popularity of LEED buildings acted as a catalyst
for larger ambitions, even if it continued to expand the role of operations in sustainability. From

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

this perspective, LEED buildings played a major role in promoting campus sustainability and
paved the road for rationalized sustainability networks and reporting tools.

2.2.3.3. The growth of sustainability networks and sustainability reporting tools

At the same time, the growth and strengthening of sustainability networks and sustainability

PT
reporting tools substantiated the institutionalization of campus sustainability (Walton and
Matson, 2012). Organizations such as Second Nature, University Leaders for a Sustainable
Future, and the National Wildlife Federation were fundamental in initially structuring campus

RI
sustainability. However, the American Association for Sustainability in Higher Education
(AASHE), created in 2005 as an emanation of Second Nature, truly crystalized campus
sustainability (Barlett and Chase, 2013). AASHE has played a major role in connecting HEIs and

SC
producing benchmarks for campus sustainability. Today, 832 HEIs are AASHE members, most
of which are US HEIs (AASHE, 2017). One of the major accomplishments of AASHE has been
the creation and promotion of the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment, and Rating System
(STARS), a sustainability reporting tool tailored to HEIs.

U
Over the years, STARS has become the leading sustainability reporting tools for US HEIs. In
AN
2006, due to the development of third-party ranking systems and the growth of sustainability
reporting tools poorly suited to HEIs, the Higher Education Association’s Sustainability
Consortium called for the development of a standardized campus sustainability assessment tool
M

(Walton and Matson, 2012). AASHE responded by conducting a 3-year participatory process to
set up STARS. STARS is a voluntary self-reporting system in which HEIs disclose data relative
to 19 categories from curriculum, to operations, to investment and finance. HEIs are awarded a
D

rating that ranges from reporter (6.4% of current STARS users), to bronze (16.1%), to silver
(48.7%), to gold (28%), to platinum (0.7%). Colorado State University was the first HEI to earn
TE

Platinum rating in 2015 for its efforts in curriculum, campus engagement, operations initiatives,
and outreach (Ciaravola, 2015). To date, 873 HEIs have registered to use the STARS reporting
tool, 82.5% of which are in the US (AASHE, 2017).
EP

The success of STARS is due to the multiple advantages that HEIs gain from using this tool.
STARS simplifies the sustainability reporting process for HEIs and represents a solution to the
C

third-party green survey overload. It helps foster campus sustainability by providing guidance for
planning and visioning, targeting efficient measures, benchmarking a HEI’s progress, and
AC

enhancing organizational learning (Walton and Matson, 2012). Compared to other green ranking
tools used in higher education such as the Holcim Awards or GREENSHIP, STARS is designed
specifically for HEIs and includes indicators relative to education and research (Lauder et al.,
2015). To date, it seems that STARS has been quite effective in supporting environmental
objectives but less so at promoting the social and economic aspects of sustainability (Lidstone et
al., 2015). STARS is also a way to demonstrate an organization’s commitment to sustainability
in a transparent manner (Ceulemans et al., 2015). However, for some, it has largely become a
tool to improve the HEIs image and enhance recruitment (Walton and Matson, 2012).

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

In parallel, sustainability curricula experienced considerable growth. From 1990 to 2008, the
number of interdisciplinary environmental programs more than doubled, passing from 500 to
1200. (Vincent et al., 2010). From 2008 to 2012, schools hosting programs increased by 29%,
degree-granting units increased by 37%, and degree programs increased by 57% (Vincent et al.,
2012). At the same time, institutes and research centers were created to accompany the
curriculum growth (Vincent et al., 2014). From 2012 to 2016, the number of interdisciplinary

PT
environmental programs increased by 15% while the number of degree-granting units grew by
40% (Vincent et al., 2017).

RI
The growth in sustainability curricula has been accompanied by an evolution of the curriculum
content from an earlier focus on environmental science to more recent trends towards
sustainability and design. In 2008, when the first survey was administered, most programs had an

SC
explicit focus on environmental science (Vincent et al., 2010). In the following years,
sustainability degree programs expanded considerably while the proportion of programs named
environmental science(s) declined (Vincent et al., 2012). New programs more explicitly
integrated interdisciplinary approaches to sustainability and concentrated more on systems-

U
thinking, content relative to climate and energy, a combination of engineering and environmental
science, and a more global focus (Vincent et al., 2012; Vincent et al.a, 2013, Vincent et al.b,
AN
2013). In community colleges as well the sustainability curriculum evolved towards
sustainability along with sustainable technologies and sustainable farming techniques (Vincent et
al. 2016). Environmental justice also became an important component of sustainability curricula
M

(Garibay et al., 2016). Between 2012 and 2016, the number of degree programs in sustainability
and energy has grown. Over the same period, programs in environmental and sustainability
design have emerged (Vincent et al., 2017).
D

Hence, in the second epoch, HEIs in the US have seen significant institutionalization of campus
TE

sustainability and experienced unprecedented efforts to practice campus sustainability. In the

past, students struggled to convince administrators to invest small amounts of money into
greening the campus. This changed when in the 1990s students and administrators at HEIs
EP

enacted Climate Action Plans that aimed to mitigate environmental damage. HEIs constructed
green buildings, utilized sustainability reporting tools, and developed new curricula,
concentrations, and degree programs that promoted interdisplinary, cross-disciplinary approaches
C

and content as well as systems thinking. Sustainable initiatives were no longer confined to well-
endowed institutions or institutions with aggressive green visions but spread across the diverse
AC

landscape of HEIs in the US (Breen, 2010). As such, the second epoch has paved the way for
more holistic commitments to sustainability and deeper transformations of HEIs in the third
epoch.

2.3. Transforming higher education institutions to implement sustainability on campus and

beyond (2010- )

2.3.1. Broader context

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

A third epoch beginning in the 2010s has been characterized by the taking of more holistic
actions related to sustainability by HEIs. This trend has in part emanated from global dynamics
such as the elaboration of the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs). The SDGs are a
collection of 17 interrelated goals, broken down into 169 targets. They constitute the core of the
UN “Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” a plan adopted
by world leaders in 2015 (United Nations, 2015). Organizations, including US HEIs are paying

PT
more attention to SDGs than had been the case for the Millennium Development Goals, the
previous UN development initiative, because they are universal and do not apply solely to
developing countries (Sachs, 2012; Le Blanc, 2015). Although HEIs are not nominally

RI
mentioned as an instrument for achieving the SDGs, many recognize that they have the potential
to take part in this global movement (Koehn and Uitto, 2017). Development experts along with
actors of campus sustainability expect HEIs to facilitate the implementation of the SDGs by

SC
training students to be aware of the social, economic, and environmental implications of their
future careers, developing action-oriented research, mobilizing sustainability science tools and
approaches to measure progress towards the implementation of the SDGs, and becoming actors
in multi-stakeholder partnerships (Duran, 2015; Saito et al., 2017; SDSN Australia/Pacific, 2017)

U
In parallel with this global movement, non-national governmental actors such as states or cities
AN
are developing multi-stakeholder partnerships with HEIs and successfully engaging in climate
action all over the US. For instance, the Oberlin Project, developed under the leadership of David
Orr, is a well-known example of partnership between Oberlin College and the City of Oberlin for
M

climate action that others such as Dickinson College have emulated (Orr and Cohen, 2013;
Rosenberg Daneri et al., 2015). A less publicized illustration is the work conducted as part of the
Green Ribbon Commission (GRC), by HEIs and other key organizations in Boston (MA)
D

(Washington-Ottombre et al., 2018). The GRC is a group of businesses, institutions, and civic
leaders working to develop shared strategies for fighting climate change in coordination with the
city’s Climate Action Plan. The higher education sector is represented by Boston University,
TE

Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Northeastern University, and

University of Massachusetts Boston. Since its creation, the GRC has acted as a conveyor of
senior leadership at the city level and paved the path for climate resilience in Boston. As HEI
EP

leadership engages more broadly with sustainability, student engagement only continues to grow.

In recent years, HEIs across the US have experienced a new form of student environmental
activism focused on climate change and climate justice that has reshaped campus sustainability.
C

This new form of environmental activism embraces a strong critical perspective on

AC

environmental issues (Bratman et al., 2016). It stems from movements for climate action and
justice built around global climate negotiation meetings or via the actions conducted by the
environmental activist Bill McKibben and others as part of the 350.org movement in the US
(Gitlin, 2016). Students and faculty all across the US have enthusiastically echoed the call of the
350.org movement for divestment from fossil fuels as a way to address environmental injustice
as well as climate change (Stephens et al., 2018). Following a long tradition of student-based
activist movements promoting divestment, students are actively lobbying HEIs’ administrations
to divest their endowment from petroleum, coal, and natural gas (Grady-Benson and Sarathy,
2016). Fossil-fuel divestment campaigns are underway in most HEIs with notable successes in

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

several HEIs such as Stanford University (Gitlin, 2016). The strong focus of students and faculty
on climate justice within and beyond the fossil fuel divestment movement has proven to be an
impetus to reshape campus sustainability to incorporate climate action and justice (Washington-
Ottombre and Bigalke, 2018).

2.3.2. Problem identification and policy objectives

PT
Many argue that in light of the urgency of climate change, campuses need to embrace a holistic
understanding of sustainability, moving beyond the search for technological solutions and direct

RI
economic benefit (Weisser, 2017). The growth of green buildings and sustainability reporting has
drawn special attention to campus operations, but at the same time this has resulted in
accentuating the role of facilities and landscape management in sustainability. As a result, other

SC
challenging areas such as curricula, research, and outreach are generally neglected (Koehn and
Uitto, 2017). The prevalence of initiatives that have concentrated on carbon mitigation is another
case in point. Given the quantifiable nature and the availability of monitoring tools for carbon
footprints, many HEIs have concentrated their sustainability efforts on carbon mitigation but

U
ignored more elusive, incalculable sustainability issues. HEIs have also realized that certain
sustainability initiatives such as carbon mitigation can translate into boons for administrators
AN
responsible for admission and finance. The most visible efforts by HEIs to reduce their carbon
footprints have been closely tied to their roles as tools for admission marketing and capital plan
fundraising (Breen, 2010). While clearly these technological and economic approaches to
M

sustainability are resulting in sizeable and unprecedented leaps in HEIs’ awareness and
engagement around sustainability, they are intrinsically limited in both breadth and depth.
D

Scholars argue that in order for HEIs to develop a holistic understanding of sustainability, they
need to move beyond the formal institutionalization of campus sustainability and to operate deep
TE

transformations that would impact every aspect of the organization (Aber et al., 2009; Glasser,
2016). Sustainability efforts conducted by HEIs are often compartmentalized and implemented
as “add-on” initiatives (Lozano et al., 2015; Sylvestre and Wright, 2016). Tinkering with current
EP

organizational structures is not enough when the real implementation of sustainability requires
major internal reforms (Sharp and Pollock Shea, 2012). Indeed, achieving organizational and
cultural change is now the big challenge facing HEIs (Martin and Samels, 2012). Beyond the
C

more visible and marketable metrics of sustainability, deep organizational change should affect
areas that are less visible such as policy and standards, institutional performance indicators,
AC

professional reviews, decision-making strategies, redefined positions and financial systems

(Martin and Samels, 2012; Maydew, 2012; Newman, 2012; Rammel et al., 2014). Scholars also
argue that, HEI should welcome organizational change to distinguish themselves from other
colleges and universities and to continue to thrive in the current context of shrinking operating
budgets as well as present and future declines in the number of HEIs (Bren, 2010; Lederman,
2017).

For these scholars and practitioners, HEIs need to move beyond educating about and modeling
change in order to become agents of change who expand the social contract between HEIs and

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

society. So far, HEIs have and continue to make significant progress towards educating future
sustainability leaders and modelling change within the gates of the campus. The next steps
should build upon these strong foundations to help HEIs to become agents of change. HEIs need
to act as part of a complex social-ecological system within and beyond the gates of campus
(Hansen and Lehmann, 2006; Newman, 2012; Dyer and Dyer, 2015). One way forward would be
for HEIs to take part in a polycentric governance of sustainability along with traditional

PT
governance actors at local and regional scales (Andersson and Ostrom, 2008; Sharp and Pollock
Shea, 2012).

RI
2.3.3. Implementation philosophy and policy tools

2.3.3.1. Embracing complexity

SC
In this third epoch, scholars and practitioners argue that HEIs should transform their
organizations to fully practice sustainability. In order to accomplish this, they need to shift the
current narrative on campus sustainability away from positivist and modernist traditions and

U
embrace complexity. Otherwise, campus sustainability remains fixed within the boundaries of
environmental science and perpetuates a narrative in which humans possess and exploit the
AN
environment. HEIs need to envision campus sustainability as part of a complex social-ecological
system with dynamic interactions at multiple spatial and temporal scales (Newman, 2012). These
complex interactions occur in a context of climate change. Climate change is a “wicked”
M

problem that involves high levels of complexity, uncertainty, interdependencies with other
sectors and systems, and value-driven analyses and prescriptions (Rittel and Webber 1973). As a
“wicked” problem, climate change cannot be “solved,” but rather must be continually dealt with
D

and addressed from multiple angles (Grundmann, 2016). HEIs, like other actors involved in the
governance of climate change, need to develop complex and holistic responses to address this
TE

“wicked” problem.

2.3.3.2. Becoming learning organizations

EP

To address the complexity of such wicked problems, HEIs need to transform into learning
organizations and re-envision their fundamental norms and structural relations (Sylvestre and
C

Wright, 2016). Like other organizations, HEIs need to learn to transform themselves to transition
away from fossil fuel and manage the impacts of climate change. Management science has
AC

identified three types of organizational learning: single-, double-, and triple-loop learning
(Pawlowsky 2001). Single-loop learning occurs when an organization adjusts its behavior in
order to achieve a desired outcome. Double-loop learning refers to a deeper transformation in
which an organization transforms mental maps or ways to understand and interact with a
particular issue, to generate new meanings and actions. Finally, triple-loop learning refers to
developing the capacity to learn how to learn, the capacity to invent new processes for generating
mental maps. Although HEIs often satisfactorily achieve single-loop and double-loop learning,
reaching triple-loop learning is more unattainable due to the diversity of values and cultures as
well as the organizational complexities of HEIs (Sylvestre and Wright, 2016).

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

HEIs can achieve triple-loop learning by planning for sustainability and utilizing an adaptive co-
management approach (Washington-Ottombre et al., 2018). Adaptive co-management is an
iterative and flexible management approach that focuses on learning by doing and building a
synthesis of various scientific and nonscientific knowledge and value systems (Armitage et al.
2009). Within the adaptive co-management framework, collaboration, trust and power-sharing

PT
across various levels of governance are needed to manage complex systems in an adaptive
manner. Deep learning about an organization, the development of collaborative and action-based
inquiry, and the assessment of and communication about the planning process and policy

RI
changes are key to implementing adaptive co-management (Sylvestre and Wright, 2016). In
order to go beyond compartmentalized or narrowly focused planning exercises, HEIs need to
consider organizational change as an ongoing activity (Sharp and Pollock Shea, 2012). They

SC
need to plan in an iterative manner for organizational change, revise existing policies
periodically, measure what counts and not what is easy to measure, and seek new management
goals and options over time (Newman, 2012; Koehn and Uitto, 2017).

U
Campus sustainability reporting tools in fact have the potential to help HEIs achieve triple loop
learning and organizational change in the current context of climate change. To date, there is
AN
limited evidence that STARS has acted as a catalyzer for deep transformations (Fadeeva et al.,
2014; Urbanski and Rowland, 2014; Urbanski, and Leal Filho, 2015). Indeed, sustainability
reporting tools, such as STARS, are not designed to consider complexity, multi-scale dynamics,
M

and the ways in which values can drive change for sustainability (Rammel et al., 2014). The
simplification necessary for this reporting cannot fully reflect how transformations for
sustainability occurs (Koehn and Uitto, 2017). By mostly focusing on eco-efficiency,
D

sustainability reporting tools can give the false impression that sustainability can be achieved
through technological control within the existing structures and patterns of HEIs (Sassen and
TE

Azizi, 2018). Many argue that sustainability reporting tools should broaden their scope beyond
mitigation and eco-efficiency to encompass a holistic and value-driven version of sustainability.
To acknowledge the position of the HEI within a broader, complex social-ecological system,
EP

sustainability reporting tools should incorporate regional biophysical specificities (Hansen and
Lehmann, 2006; Newman, 2012; Weber et al., 2017). They should also include metrics that
recognize actions beyond the gates of campus and strong partnerships. In terms of method,
C

sustainability reporting tools should become more integrative and participative to institutionalize
transformative learning processes (Rammel et al., 2014).
AC

2.3.3.3. Supporting new educational models and pedagogies

As part of these deep organizational transformations, HEI should foster new student
competencies supported by a new education model and pedagogy. All students, and not only
those trained to become sustainability professionals, should acquire competencies and skills to
support the implementation of sustainability (Sterling, 2004; Marcus et al., 2015; Wiek and Kay,
2015; Rowe and Hiser, 2016; Hill and Wang, 2018). In a world characterized by increasing
complexity and uncertainty, students need to learn how to solve unexpected problems using

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

systems thinking (Molderez and Ceulemans, 2018). They should acquire anticipatory knowledge
management skills, the capacity to understand a phenomenon from different perspectives, and
the ability to use varied problem-solving tools and techniques. To promote equity, students also
should achieve emotional and ethical competence as well as the capacity to assess and
incorporate diverse values into their approaches to addressing and resolving problems (Fadeeva
et al., 2014; Koehn and Uitto, 2017).

PT
New education models and pedagogies need to be implemented to support the acquisition of
these skills and competencies. Sustainability cannot remain an elective but should become a

RI
prerequisite and a core competency on all campuses (Sharp and Pollock Shea, 2012; Glasser and
Hirsh, 2016). Students should learn to mobilize interdisciplinary strategies while engaging in
real-world problem solving via participatory-action research and practice change-management

SC
skills (Hart et al., 2015). They would also benefit from the integration of interpersonal skills into
group assignments centering on sustainability issues (Rowe and Lag Winslade, 2012).
Curricular content and pedagogies that cultivate lifelong sustainability change agents could also
develop out of partnerships for campus sustainability with actors and institutions beyond the

U
gates of the campus.
AN
Discussion
M

Throughout the three epochs of campus sustainability, the broader context influencing the action
of HEIs has significantly changed along two main axes (figure 1). Over time, conceptions of
sustainability have shifted from a purely environmental focus to a more holistic one while the
D

scale of momentum for change has oscillated between the local, national, and international
scales. In the first epoch, the impetus for the environmental movement emerged concomitantly at
TE

the international, national, and local levels. Even though the term “sustainability” was not used at
the time, the environmental movement and its emanation on US campuses applied what we
would deem today to be an environmental conception of sustainability. In the second epoch, the
EP

US higher education community transformed an international call for a holistic conception and
application of sustainability into a narrower understanding focused on environmental
sustainability. In the third epoch, similarly to what happened in the first epoch, the dynamics for
C

campus sustainability were supported concomitantly by developments at the international,

national, and local levels. However, contrary to the first and second epochs, the conception of
AC

sustainability retained by all actors, including HEIs, is explicitly holistic to an increasing extent.

--Figure 3, about here--

In each epoch, HEIs have identified specific problems and policy objectives that can be analyzed
according to two axes: the perceived role of HEIs and the level of formal institutionalization of
the policies (figure 2). Throughout the three epochs, HEIs’ perception of their roles has shifted
from that of educating future agents of change, to that of modeling change on their campuses, to
that of being themselves agents of change on campus and beyond. At the same time, the types of

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

policies implemented to fulfill these roles have oscillated throughout the three epochs between
informal practices to institutionalized and formal policies. In the first epoch, HEIs’ policies
mostly aimed at educating agents of change and modeling change on their campus. Most of the
policies implemented to green the campus were informal, although a few formalized curricular or
operational innovations. In the second epoch, as a response to the precariousness of the informal
policies carried out by HEIs in the first epoch, campus sustainability practitioners worked with

PT
HEIs’ leadership to formalize and institutionalize campus sustainability. Policies were still
directed towards educating future agents of change and modeling change on campus. In the third
epoch, HEIs started to embody the role of agent of change within and beyond the gates of

RI
campus in addition to educating agents of change and modeling change on campus. Although
policies set in place to accomplish these three objectives were built on the institutionalized
efforts conducted in the second epoch, other new, more informal initiatives and policies have

SC
also emerged.

--Figure 4, about here--

U
Similarly, the implementation philosophy and the tools chosen to implement policies objectives
have evolved through the three epochs of campus sustainability on two axes relative to the scale
AN
of policies as well as models of policy developments (figure 3). Indeed, campus sustainability
initiatives can occur at scales ranging from the campus to local, regional, or global scales beyond
the gates of the campus. In addition, campus sustainability can emerge or be implemented in a
M

grassroots, bottom-up fashion or in a top-down manner. In the first epoch, change agents gave
the impulse for the development of bottom-up policies that mostly pertained to activities within
the gates of the campus. During the second epoch, although policies also mostly pertained to
D

initiatives conducted within the gates of the campus, initiatives shifted from bottom-up to top-
down dynamics. Finally, in the third epoch, HEIs have engaged in innovative partnerships that
TE

are extending the impact of campus sustainability beyond the gates of campus in a polycentric
manner that encompasses bottom-up and top-down initiatives.
EP

--Figure 5, about here--

We find that campus sustainability in the US has promoted social change. Through the three
C

epochs, HEIs have done so by defining clear social change objectives, implementing policies to
achieve these objectives, and at least partially achieving these objectives. Since the beginning of
AC

the first epoch, HEIs have aimed at deeply reforming society in order to modify the relationships
between people and nature. Since then, the scope of campus sustainability has been extended to a
more holistic conception of sustainability in order to promote deeper social change. Influential
thinkers have not only articulated and explicated the role of HEIs in promoting social change but
have argued that HEIs should supplement failing governmental action. They have clearly stated
their objectives and their role in fostering social change to promote a more sustainable future.
HEIs have developed policies to achieve campus sustainability and climate change with some
distinctive success. Such policies have deeply reformed the HEIs’ research, curriculum,
programing, operations, and institutional dimensions. As a result, behavior patterns, cultural

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

values and norms have deeply changed on US campuses. Now that HEIs are embracing their role
as agents of change and are developing innovative partnerships with local actors beyond the gate
of campus, the movement of social change promoted by HEIs is likely to be amplified.

By focusing explicitly on the social change aspects of sustainability, HEIs have occupied a
unique role within the broader governance of the environment. In many ways, the evolution of

PT
campus sustainability echoes the three epochs of environmental policies highlighted by
Mazmanian and Kraft: regulating for environmental protection (1970-1990), efficiency-based
regulatory reform and flexibility (1980-2000s), toward sustainable communities (1990-present)

RI
(2009). Similar to the first epoch of environmental policy, the first epoch of campus
sustainability focused on pollution and waste. Like the second epoch of environmental policies,
the institutionalization of campus sustainability was characterized by a search for efficiency and

SC
a concomitant focus on readily measurable changes in campus operation. Finally, as in the third
epoch, the last epoch of campus sustainability relies on local communities to deeply transform
societies for sustainability. However, the goals and efforts of HEIs have consistently been
distinct from environmental policy. Whereas US environmental policies have been largely

U
focused on human health, the movement of campus sustainability has explicitly promoted and
acted towards social change.
AN
Conclusion
M

In this paper, we asked how campus sustainability has developed in the US since the early 1970s.
We framed our inquiry using the epochs approach of Mazmanian and Kraft to construct a
chronological narrative of the campus sustainability’s development over these decades.
D

(Mazmanian and Kraft, 2009). We identify 3 distinct yet sometimes overlapping epochs:
greening the campus (1970s-1990s), the growth of campus sustainability (1990s-2010s), and
TE

transforming HEIs to implement sustainability on campus and beyond (2010s-). In response to

that research question, our findings underline the dramatic extent to which the broader contexts,
policy objectives, implementation philosophy, and implementation policy tools of campus
EP

sustainability have changed through these three epochs. This research demonstrates that campus
sustainability has evolved significantly since its inception. Campus sustainability initially
emerged as informal, ecologically-focused, campus-confined initiatives at HEIs that prioritized
educating agents of change and modeling change. Over time campus sustainability has evolved
C

towards more formal, holistic, extramural policies at HEIs that assume the role of agents of
AC

change.

This work paints a distinctive and complex picture of the development of campus sustainability
in the US since the early 1970s. To draw it, this general description and analysis of campus
sustainability’s development necessarily simplifies the reality. It also glosses over the important
actions of HEIs that were ahead of their time. Nevertheless, this research provides the first
developmental narrative of the campus sustainability movement in the US. As such, we hope that
this work will be of value to campus sustainability scholars and practitioners alike. For scholars,
this work provides a broad narrative of campus sustainability efforts and highlights major tipping

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

points and achievements. It can be particularly useful for future case study analyses seeking to
situate their studies within the development of campus sustainability. .For practitioners, this
work helps situate individual HEI’s efforts within a broader dynamic and movement,
complementing annual or periodic reports, published by AASHE or the National Council for
Science and the Environment, and case studies. In addition, scholars and practitioners would
benefit from a better understanding of the overall landscape of campus sustainability that also

PT
includes HEIs not involved in sustainability. While this aspect is beyond the scope of this article,
we hope that our work will prompt more empirical data collection that reflects the diversity of
campus sustainability experiences in the US.

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to deeply thank Harold Glasser, Tom Kelly, Carol S. Long, John
Robinson, and Meghan Fay Zahniser for their help and guidance in the development of this
paper. The authors are also very grateful to four anonymous reviewers for their insightful
comments that significantly helped improve the quality of this paper.

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

References

Aber, J., Kelly, T., Mallory, B. (Eds), 2009. The Sustainable Learning Community: One
University’s Journey to the Future. University of New Hampshire Press, Durham.
Allit, P., 2014. A Climate of Crisis: America in the Age of Environmentalism. The Penguin
Press, New York.
Andersson, K.P., Ostrom E., 2008. Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a

PT
polycentric perspective. Policy Sciences. 41(1): 71–93.
Armitage, D.R., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., Arthur, R.I., Charles, A.T., Davidson-Hunt, I.J.,
Diduck, A.P., Doubleday, N.C., Johnson, D.S., Marschke, M., McConney, P., Pinkerton,

RI
E.W., Wollenberg, E.K., 2009. Adaptive co-management for social-ecological
complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 7(2):95–102.
Arroyo, P., 2017. A new taxonomy for examining the multi-role of campus sustainability

SC
assessments in organizational change. Journal of Cleaner Production. 140(3): 1763-1774.
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, AASHE, 2017.
Member Portal. http://www.aashe.org/ (accessed 4 December 2017).
Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future, ULSF, 2017. Talloires

U
Declaration Signatories List http://ulsf.org/96-2/ (accessed 4 December 2017).
Barlett, P.F., Chase, G.W., 2013. Sustainability in Higher Education: Stories and Strategies
AN
for Transformation. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Beringer, A., Adomßent, M., 2008. Sustainable university research and development:
inspecting sustainability in higher education research. Environmental Education
M

Research. 14(6): 607-623.

Bratman, E., Brunette, K., Shelly, D.C., Nicholson, S., 2016. Justice is the goal:
divestment as climate change resistance. Journal of Environmental Studies and
D

Sciences. 6(4):677-690.
Breen, S.D., 2010. The mixed political blessing of campus sustainability. PS: Political
TE

Science and Politics. 43(4):685-690.

Calder, W., Clugston, R.M., 2003. Progress towards sustainability in higher education.
Environmental Law Reporter News and Analysis. 33(1): 10003-10023
Campus Earth Summit, 1995. Blueprint for a Green Campus: the Campus Earth Summit
EP

initiatives for Higher Education. The Heinz Family Foundation, Pittsburgh.

Carlson, S., 2012. Sustainability in higher education architecture: best practice for
institutional leaders, in Martin, J., Samels, J.E. (Eds.) Green Goals and New Challenges
for Higher Education Leaders. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
C

Ceulemans, K., Molderez, I., Van Liederkerke, L., 2015. Sustainability reporting in higher
education: a comprehensive review of the recent literature and paths for Further
AC

Research. Journal of Cleaner Production. 106: 127-143.

Ciaravola, D.R., 2015. CSU ears first-even STARS Platinum rating for sustainability.
https://source.colostate.edu/csu-earns-first-ever-stars-platinum-rating-for-sustainability/
(accessed 21 December 2017).
Corcoran, P.B., Wals, A.E.J., 2004. Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability:
Problematics, Promise, and Practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell.
Cortese, A.D., 1992. Education for an environmentally sustainable future. Environmental
Science and Technology. 26(6):1108-1114.

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Cortese, A.D., 2012. Promises made and promises lost: a candid assessment of higher
education leadership and the sustainability agenda, in Martin, J., Samels, J.E. (Eds.)
Green Goals and New Challenges for Higher Education Leaders. The John Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore.
Cortese, A.D., Seif Hattan, A., 2010. Education for sustainability as the mission of higher
education. Sustainability. 3(1):38-52.
Disterheft, A., Caeiro, S., Miranda Azeiteiro, U., Leal Filho, W., 2013 Sustainability science

PT
and education for sustainable development in universities: a way for transition, in Caeiro,
S., Leal Filho, W., Jabbour, C., Azeiteiro, U.M., (Eds), Sustainability Assessment Tools
in Higher Education Institutions Mapping Trends and Good Practices around the Word.

RI
Springer, New York.
Duran, P., 2015. Universities: Getting ready for the SDGs.
https://academicimpact.un.org/content/universities-getting-ready-sdgs. (accessed 25

SC
January 2018).
Dyer, G., Dyer, M., 2017. Strategic leadership for sustainability by higher education: the
American college & university presidents' climate commitment. Journal of Cleaner
Production. 140(1):111-116.

U
Fadeeva, Z., Galkute, L., Mader, C., Scott, G., 2014. Assessment for transformation- higher
education thrives in redefining quality systems, in Fadeeva, Z., Galkute, L., Mader, C.,
AN
Scott, G. (Eds.), Sustainable Development and Quality Assurance in Higher Education.
Transformation of Learning and Society. Palgrave Macmillan, UK.
Garibay, J.C., Ong, P.M., Vincent, S., 2016. The Inclusion of Environmental Justice
M

Curricular Content in Interdisciplinary Environmental and Sustainability Degree

Program. National Council for Science and the Environment, Washington DC.
Gitlin, T., 2016. Fossil Fuels off Campus. Dissent. 63(2):2-37.
D

Glasser, H., 2016. Visions of sustainability. Sustainability. 9(2): 56-64.

Glasser, H., Hirch, J., 2016. Toward the development of robust learning for sustainability
TE

core competencies. Sustainability: The Journal of Record. 9(3):121-134.

Grady-Benson, J., Sarathy, B., 2016. Fossil fuel divestment in US higher education: student-
led organizing for climate justice. Local Environment. 21(6): 661-681.
Grundmann, R., 2016. Climate change as a wicked social problem. Nature Geoscience.
EP

16:562–563.
Haferkamp, H., Smelser, N.J. (eds), 1992. Social Change and Modernity. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
Hansen, J.A., Lehmann, M., 2006. Agents of change: universities as development hubs.
C

Journal of Cleaner Production. 14:820-829.

Hart, D.D., Bell, K.P., Lindenfeld, L.A., Jain, S., Johnson, T.R., Ranco, D., McGill, B., 2015.
AC

Strengthening the role of universities in addressing sustainability challenges: the Mitchell

center for sustainability solutions as an institutional experiment. Ecology and Society.
20(2):4.
Hill, L.M., Wang, D., 2018. Integrating sustainability learning outcomes into a
university curriculum: A case study of institutional dynamics. International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education. 19(4): 699-720.
Kelly, T., 2010. Education for sustainability: scholarship at the intersection of the arts,
humanities, and sciences. Ometeca. XIV-XV: 16-42.

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Keniry, J., 1995. Ecodemia: Campus Environmental Stewardship at the Turn of the 21st
Century: Lessons in Smart Management from Administrators, Staff, and Students.
National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C.
Koehn, P.H., Uitto, J.I., 2017. Universities and the Sustainable Development Future.
Evaluating Higher-Education Contributions to the 2030 Agenda. Routledge, New York.
Koester, R.J., 1996. Proceedings: Greening the Campus Conference. Ball State University,
Muncie.

PT
Koester, R.J., Eflin, J., Vann, J., 2006. Greening of the campus: a whole-systems approach.
Journal of Cleaner Production. 14(9–11): 769-779.
Lauder, A., Sari, R.F., Suwartha, N., Tjahjono, G., 2015. Critical review of a global campus

RI
sustainability ranking: GreenMetric. Journal of Cleaner Production. 108(Part A): 852-63.
Le Blanc, D., 2015. Towards integration at last? The sustainable development goals as a
network of targets. DESA Working paper No. 141.

SC
http://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2015/wp141_2015.pdf. (accessed 24 January 2018).
Lederman, D., 2017. The culling of Higher Ed begins.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/07/19/number-colleges-and-universities-
drops-sharply-amid-economic-turmoil (accessed 4 April 2018).

U
Lerner, S., 1997. Eco-Pioneers, Practical Visionaries Solving Today’s Environmental
Problems. The MIT Press, Cambridge.
AN
Lidstone, L., Wright, T., Sherren, K., 2015. Canadian STARS-rated campus sustainability
plans: priorities, plan creation and design. Sustainability. 7(1):725-746.
Lozano, R., 2006. Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities: breaking
M

through barriers to change. Journal of Cleaner Production. 15(9-11):787-796.

Lozano, R., Lukman, R., Lozano, F.J., Huisingh, D., Lambrechts, W., 2013. Declarations for
sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through addressing the
D

university system. Journal of Cleaner Production. 48:10-19.

Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K., Alonso-Almeida, M., Huisingh, D., Lozanoa, F.J., Waas, T.,
Lambrechts, W., Lukman, R., Huge, J., 2015. A review of commitment and
TE

implementation of sustainable development in higher education: results from a worldwide

survey. Journal of Cleaner Production. 108:1-18.
Maniates, M., 2002. Individualization: plant a tree, buy a bike, save the world?, in Princen,
EP

T., Maniates, M., Conca, K. (Eds), Confronting Consumption. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Marcus, J., Coops, N.C., Ellis, S., Robinson, J., 2015. Embedding sustainability learning
pathways across the university. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 16:7-
13.
C

Martin. J, Samels, J.E., 2012. The sustainable university: a need to move forward, in Martin,
J., Samels, J.E., (Eds.) Green Goals and New Challenges for Higher Education Leaders.
AC

The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Mazmanian, D.A., Kraft, M.E., 2009. The three epochs of the environmental movement, in
Mazmanian, D.A., Kraft, M.E. (Eds.), Towards Sustainable Communities, Transitions
and Transformations in Environmental Policy. The MIT Press, Cambridge.
Maydew, M.J., 2012. Greening the endowment, in Martin, J., Samels, J.E., (Eds.) Green
Goals and New Challenges for Higher Education Leaders. The John Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore.

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Molderez, I., Ceulemans, K., 2018. The power of art to foster systems thinking, one of the
key competencies of education for sustainable development. Journal of cleaner
production. 186: 758-770.
Newman, J., 2012. An organizational change management framework for sustainability.
Greener Management International. 11:65-75.
Orr, D., 1993. Foreword, in Smith, A.A., Campus Ecology: A guide to assessing
environmental quality and creating strategies for change. Living Planet Press, Los

PT
Angeles.
Orr, D., 1994. Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect. Island
Press, Washington, DC.

RI
Orr, D., Cohen, A., 2013. Promoting partnerships for integrated, post-carbon development.
Strategies at work in the Oberlin project at Oberlin College. Planning for Higher
Education Journal 41(3):22-26.

SC
Pawlowsky, P., 2001. The treatment of organizational learning in management science, in
Meinolf, D. (Ed), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.

U
Perrin, N., 1992. Colleges are doing little to protect the environment. The Chronicle of
Higher Education.
AN
Rittel, H.W.J., Webber, M.M., 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy
Sciences. 4(2):155–169.
Rosenberg Daneri, D., Trencher, G., Petersen, J., 2015. Students as change agents in a town-
wide sustainability transformation: the Oberlin Project at Oberlin College. Current
M

Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 16:14-21.

Ross, M.L., 2013. How the 1973 oil embargo saved the planet. Foreign Affairs.
Rammel, C., Velázquez, L., Mader, C., 2014. Sustainability assessment in higher education
D

institutions, in Barth, M., Michelsen, G., Rieckmann, M., Thomas, I. (Eds.), Routledge
Handbook of Higher Education for Sustainable Development. Routledge: NEW YORK.
TE

Rowe, D., Lang Winslade, A., 2012. Trends, skills, and strategies to catalyze sustainability
across institutions, in Martin, J., Samels, J.E., (Eds.) Green Goals and New Challenges
for Higher Education Leaders. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
EP

Rowe, D., Hiser, K., 2016. Higher education for sustainable development in the community
and through partnerships, in Barth, M., Michelsen, G., Rieckmann, M., Thomas, I.
(Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Higher Education for Sustainable Development.
C

Routledge: NEW YORK.

Sachs, J.D., 2012. From Millennium Development Goals to Sustainable Development Goals.
AC

Lancet. 379: 2206-2211.

Saito, O., Managi, S., Kanie, N., Kauffman, J., Takeuchi, K., 2017. Sustainability science
and implementing the sustainable development goals. Sustainability Science. 12(6):907-
910.
Sassen, R., Azizi, L., 2018. Assessing sustainability reports of US
universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. Earlycite.
SDSN Australia/Pacific, 2017. Getting started with the SDGs in universities: A guide for
universities, higher education institutions, and the academic sector. Australia, New
Zealand and Pacific Edition. Sustainable Development Solutions Network –

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Australia/Pacific, Melbourne. http://ap-unsdsn.org/wp-

content/uploads/2017/08/University-SDG-Guide_web.pdf. (accessed 25 January 2018).
Second Nature, 2017. Reporting Platform. http://reporting.secondnature.org/. (accessed 4
December 2017).
Sharp, L., Pollock Shea, C., 2012. Institutionalizing sustainability: achieving transformations
from the inside, in Martin, J., Samels, J.E., (Eds.) Green Goals and New Challenges for
Higher Education Leaders. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

PT
Slater, R.B., 1995. The American colleges that led the abolition movement. The Journal of
Blacks in Higher Education. 9:95-97.
Smith, A.A., 1993. Campus Ecology: A Guide to Assessing Environmental Quality and

RI
Creating Strategies for Change. Living Press: Los Angeles.
Stephens, J.C., Frumhoff, P.C., Yona, L., 2018. The role of college and university faculty in

SC
the fossil fuel divestment movement. Elem Sci Anth. 6: 41.
Sterling, S., 2004. Higher education, sustainability, and the role of systemic learning, in
Corcoran, P.B., Wals, A.E.J., Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability:

U
Problematics, Promise, and Practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Sylvestre, P., Wright, T., 2016. Organizational change and organizational learning for
AN
promoting higher education for sustainable development, in Barth, M., Michelsen, G.,
Rieckmann, M., Thomas, I. (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Higher Education for
Sustainable Development. Routledge: NEW YORK.
Teoh, S.H., Welch, I., Wazzan, P., 1999. The effect of socially activism investment policies
M

on the financial markets evidence form the South African boycott. The Journal of
Business. 72(1): 35-89.
United Nations, 1972. United Nations Conference on the Human Environment,
D

A/RES/2994, http://www.refworld.org/docid/3b00f1c840.html (accessed 28 November

2017).
TE

United Nations, 1987.Our Common Future - Brundtland Report. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
United Nations, 1992. Agenda 21,
EP

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/outcomedocuments/agenda21 (accessed 28
November 2017).
United Nations, 2015. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015.
C

http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E. (accessed 25
January 2018).
AC

UNESCO-UNEP, 1975, The Belgrade Charter: A Framework for Environmental Education.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0001/000177/017772eb.pdf (accessed 28 November
2017).
UNESCO-UNEP, 1977. The Tbilisi Declaration. https://www.gdrc.org/uem/ee/tbilisi.html
(accessed 28 November 2017)
Urbanski, M., Rowland, P., 2014. STARS as a multi-purpose tool for advancing campus
sustainability in the US, n Fadeeva, Z., Galkute, L., Mader, C., Scott, G. (Eds.),
Sustainable Development and Quality Assurance in Higher Education. Transformation of
Learning and Society. Palgrave Macmillan, UK.

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Urbanski, M., Leal Filho, W., 2015. Measuring sustainability at universities by means of the
Sustainability Tracking, Assessment, and Rating System (STARS): early findings from
STARS data. Environmental Development and Sustainability. 17(2):209-220.
U.S. Green Building Council, 2017. LEED and Higher Education.
https://www.usgbc.org/sites/default/files/Docs4997.pdf. (accessed 12 December 2017).
Vaughter, P., Wright, T., McKenzie, M., Lidstone, L., 2013. Greening the ivory tower: a
review of educational research on sustainability in post-secondary education.

PT
Sustainability. 5(5):2252-2271.
Verhulst, E., Lambrechts, W., 2015. Fostering the incorporation of sustainable development
in higher education. Lessons learned from a change management perspective. Journal of

RI
Cleaner Production. 106:189–204.
Vincent, S., 2010. Interdisciplinary Environmental Education on the Nation’s Campuses:

SC
Elements of Field Identity and Curriculum Design. National Council for Science and the
Environment, Washington DC.
Vincent, S., Bunn, S., Stevens, S., 2012. Interdisciplinary Environmental and Sustainability
Education: Results from the 2012 Census of U.S. Four Year Colleges and Universities.

U
National Council for Science and the Environment, Washington DC.
Vincenta, S., Bunn, S., Stevens, S., 2013. Interdisciplinary Environmental and Sustainability
AN
Education on the Nation’s Campuses 2012: Curriculum Design. National Council for
Science and the Environment, Washington DC.
Vincentb, S., Blockstein, D., Bunn, S., Stevens, S., 2013. Non-Traditional and Broad Energy
M

Education: Results from the 2012 Census of U.S. Four Year Colleges and Universities.
National Council for Science and the Environment, Washington DC.
Vincentc, S., Bunn, S., Stevens, S., 2013. Sustainability Education: Results from the 2012
D

Census of U.S. Four Year Colleges and Universities. National Council for Science and
the Environment, Washington DC.
TE

Vincent, S., Santos, R., Cabral, L., 2014. Interdisciplinary Environmental and Sustainability
Education and Research: Institutes and Centers at Research Universities. National
Council for Science and the Environment, Washington DC.
EP

Vincent, S., Santos, R., Cabral, L., Stevenson, B., 2014. Interdisciplinary Environmental and
Sustainability Education and Research: Results from the Census of Community Colleges.
National Council for Science and the Environment, Washington DC.
Vincent, S., Rao, S., Fu, Q., Gu, K., Huang, X., Lindaman, K., Mittleman, E., Nguyen, K.,
C

Rosenstein, R., Suh, Y., 2017. Scope of Interdisciplinary Environmental, Sustainability,

AC

and Energy Baccalaureate and Graduate Education in the United States. National Council
for Science and the Environment, Washington DC.
Walton, J., Matson, L., 2012. Measuring campus sustainability performance: implementing
the first Sustainability Tracking, Assessment, and Rating System (STARS), in Martin, J.,
Samels, J.E., (Eds.), Green Goals and New Challenges for Higher Education Leaders.
The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Wander, N., Malone, R.E., 2004. Selling off or selling out? Medical schools and ethical
leadership in Tabaco stock divestment. Academic Medicine. 79(11): 1017-1026.

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Washington-Ottombre, C., Bigalke, S., 2018. An exploration and analysis of innovations in

campus sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education.
19(2):353-375.
Washington-Ottombre, C., Brylinsky, S.E., Carlberg, D.E., Weisbord, D., 2018. Climate
resilience planning and organizational learning on campuses and beyond: a comparative
study of three higher education institutions, in Leal Filho, W., Lean-Arcas, R. (Eds), The
Role of Climate Change Research and Projects in Fostering Climate Action. Springer,

PT
Berlin, In Press.
Weber, S., Newman, J., Jill, A., 2017. Ecological regional analysis applied to campus
sustainability performance. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education.

RI
18(7):974-994.
Weisser, C.R., 2017. Defining sustainability in higher education: a rhetorical analysis.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 18(7):1076-1089.

SC
Wiek, A., Kay, B., 2015. Learning while transforming: solution-oriented learning for urban
sustainability in Phoenix, Arizona. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability.
16:29-36.

U
Wright, T., 2004. The evolution of sustainability declarations in higher education, in
Corcoran, P.B., Wals, A.E.J., Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability:
AN
Problematics, Promise, and Practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell.
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

50 47
45
40
35 32
30

PT
25
20
15 13

RI
10 6 5
5
0

SC
Journal articles Books Reports International Other
texts

U
Figure 1: Overview of the references analyzed in this paper
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

25
23

20

15

PT
11
10

RI
5 5
5
3

SC
0
JCP IJSHE Sustainability COES Other

U
Figure 2: Journal articles reviewed
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
Figure 3: The broader context of campus sustainability through the three epochs
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
Figure 4: Policy objectives through the three epochs of campus sustainability
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
Figure 5: Implementation philosophy and policy tools through the three epochs of campus
sustainability
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights:

 Campus sustainability has developed in the US over three epochs since the 1970s
 Problem identification, implementation philosophy and tools are analyzed
 1st epoch: greening the campus (1970s-1990s)
 2nd epoch: the growth of campus sustainability (1990s-2010s)
 3rd epoch: transforming HEIs on campus and beyond (since 2010s)

PT
 HEIs have always explicitly focus on the social change aspects of sustainability
 HEIs are unique actors within the broader governance of the environment in the US

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC