AUSTRALIAN CAMPUSES SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT

Sustainable Campus Group National Reporting Project 2010

Full Report April 2011

 Sustainable Campus Group 2011 Acknowledgements: The SCG reporting process 2010 was facilitated by Belinda Towns, Almut Beringer and Cameron Cope at the Monash Sustainability Institute. The report was drafted by Cameron Cope, with additional editing by Tahl Kestin, Stephen Derrick and Janet Stanley.

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

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

Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 4 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 7 2. The Sustainable Campus Group ......................................................................................................... 7 3. SCG National Reporting Project 2010 ................................................................................................. 8 3.1 Participating Institutions .................................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Reporting Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 8 4. Sustainability in the Australian Tertiary Education Sector ................................................................. 10 4.1 Data Quality ..................................................................................................................................... 10 4.2 Institutional Commitment................................................................................................................ 11 4.3 Energy Use and GHG Emissions ....................................................................................................... 12 4.4 Transport .......................................................................................................................................... 15 4.5 Water ............................................................................................................................................... 16 4.6 Waste and Recycling ........................................................................................................................ 17 4.7 Buildings ........................................................................................................................................... 18 4.8 Green Purchasing ............................................................................................................................. 20 4.9 Information Technology (IT) ............................................................................................................ 21 4.10 Education for Sustainability (EfS) ..................................................................................................... 21 4.11 Discussion......................................................................................................................................... 22 5. Changes in the Sustainability of the Victorian Tertiary Education Sector ........................................... 24 References ........................................................................................................................................... 26 Appendix 1: Invitation letter................................................................................................................. 27 Appendix 2: Institution-Level Results .................................................................................................... 29 A2.1 Institution Statistics.......................................................................................................................... 29 A2.2 Institutional Commitment................................................................................................................ 30 A2.3 Energy Use ....................................................................................................................................... 31 A2.4 GHG Emissions ................................................................................................................................. 32 A2.5 Water ............................................................................................................................................... 33 A2.6 Waste and Recycling ........................................................................................................................ 34 A2.7 Education for Sustainability ............................................................................................................. 35

Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

Executive Summary
In March 2010, the Sustainable Campus Group (SCG) and the Monash Sustainability Institute (MSI), in cooperation with Australian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS Inc.), launched the first nation-wide assessment of sustainability in the higher/tertiary education sector in Australia. This report details the methodology and findings of the assessment. The higher/tertiary education sector in Australia includes universities, which provide academic and professional degrees, TAFEs (Technical and Further Education institutions), which provide vocational education and training), and institutions that do both (dual sector). Twenty seven institutions took part in the SCG reporting project in 2010, comprising 7 universities, 15 TAFEs and 5 dual-sector institutions, representing all states and territories except Tasmania and the ACT. These institutions represent approximately 30% of total tertiary institutions in Australia. The reporting project collected both quantitative and qualitative data from the participating institutions to assess their level of engagement in sustainability in the following areas: institutional commitment, energy use, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, transport use, water use, waste disposal and recycling, green purchasing, building sustainability, information technology (IT) services, and education for sustainability. Results were generally standardised by either floor area (using gross floor area, or GFA) or the total number of staff and students, to account for participants wide range of size.

Key findings
Overall the picture gleaned from all the data submitted for 2009 is of a sector in early stages of engagement with sustainability on campus. The following overall findings indicate good sector performance: 89% of institutions have an environmental policy, strategy or plan 70% of institutions have at least one full-time staff member employed in an environmental/sustainability improvement capacity More than half of institutions have at least one environmental committee 60% of institutions have a target to reduce GHG emissions or to become carbon-neutral Two institutions reported to have successfully made agreements with local council to improve transport services to and from the institution 47% of all A4 copy paper purchased comprised at least 50% recycled content 55% of all institutions had a green IT committee and 74% reported to have successful policies for default computer monitor energy saving and double sided printing Improvement is particularly needed in: Sustainability measurement (data collection) Implementation of policy, strategy and plans Holistic systems perspective of environmental management and reporting Waste measurement Water metering and water recycling systems Green purchasing committees (only 2 of 27 member institutions reported to have a committee) Formal and informal education for sustainability Key Sectoral Comparisons: Universities reported the highest average facilities energy use and emissions per capita and per gross floor area TAFEs reported the highest average consumption of green energy consumption as a percentage of total energy use On average universities reported consuming more than 2.4 times more water per capita than TAFEs and 3 times more than dual-sector institutions

Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

Per gross floor area universities reported on average using a 24% more water than TAFEs and 35% more than dual-sector institutions The TAFE sector reported the highest waste to landfill figures, being higher for both per capita and per gross floor area measures.

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

Institutional commitment
Some very positive signs of institutional commitment were shown by the sector, including: 89% of institutions have an environmental policy, strategy or plan 70% of institutions have at least one full-time staff member employed in an environmental/sustainability improvement capacity more than half of institutions have at least one environmental committee 60% of institutions have a target to reduce GHG emissions or to become carbon-neutral The sector reported having many policies, strategies and plans in various environmental areas, although evidence of their implementation appears to be lacking at this stage. This was evidenced by poor data collection for monitoring, lack of contractual obligations to achieve environmental targets, low levels of staffing and low performance in areas such as green energy, recycling and purchasing.

Energy and GHG Emissions

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

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

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

Waste and Recycling

Overall the sector reported sending 28,670 tonnes of waste to landfill. Of all waste and recycling produced 16.3% was reported to be recycled. The TAFE sector reported the highest waste to landfill figures per capita and per gross floor area. These figures appear to align with their lower reported figures on waste audits and contractual agreements with waste service providers.
Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment 5

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

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

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

Education for Sustainability

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

Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

1. Introduction
In March 2010, the Sustainable Campus Group (SCG) and Monash Sustainability Institute (MSI), in cooperation with Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS Inc.), launched the first nation-wide assessment of sustainability in the higher/tertiary education1 sector in Australia. This inaugural national sustainability assessment and reporting project has grown from a state-level program that SCG has conducted in Victoria since 2006. This report details the methodology and findings of the assessment, and places the results in a national context. Section 2 gives a brief introduction to the SCG and its campuses sustainability reporting project, including the methodology for data collection. Section 3 reports on the findings of the project, and is divided into the categories of institutional commitment, energy, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, water, waste and recycling, green purchasing, information technology (IT) and Education for Sustainability (EfS). Finally, Section 4 examines progress in environmental sustainability in tertiary education in the state of Victoria from 2008 to 2009.

2. The Sustainable Campus Group

The Sustainable Campus Group (SCG) was established in the state of Victoria in 2006 as a universitygovernment-private partnership between MSI, Monash University, the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE), Sustainability Victoria (SV) and Maunsell Consulting (now AECOM). SCG was established as a membership organisation with the purpose of capacity-building through professional networking, knowledge transfer and exchange opportunities and sector benchmarking. SCG takes a collaborative, multi-stakeholder approach to capacity-building, seeking to empower its members for institutional and wider cultural change toward sustainability (see Box 1).

Box 1: SCG Objectives and Approach

Objectives benchmarking environmental sustainability performance public reporting professional networking encouraging green campus best practice Approach collaborative catalysing institutional and cultural change toward sustainability empowerment providing environment-related staff with the tools and professional network to effectively analyse and improve sustainability performance multi-stakeholder tertiary/higher education institutions, government, private sector holistic operations, academe, quantitative and qualitative

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

Henceforth tertiary education sector; this includes universities, TAFEs (Technical and Further Education institutions, which provide vocational education and training) and institutions that are both university and TAFE.

Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

institutions. It is recognized that institutional peer pressure can be a catalyst for senior management to commit to sustainability. SCG has published two Sustainability Assessment Reports for the Victorian tertiary education sector since 2006 (Sustainable Campus Group 2008 and 2006). Based on the success of the activities of the Victorian group, SCG membership was extended nationally in early 2010. All university ViceChancellors and TAFE Directors were invited to join SCG and to participate in the first nationwide assessment of environmental sustainability performance of the sector (see letter of invitation in Appendix 1), and 28 become members, with 27 participating in the reporting process.

3. SCG National Reporting Project 2010

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

3.1 Participating Institutions

The 27 SCG members that reported in 2010 are listed in Table 1. They included 7 universities, 15 TAFEs and 5 institutions that are both (referred to as dual sector from here on), based in all states and territories except the ACT and Tasmania. They represented a total of 198 campuses and 551,088 people (staff and students). This is approximately 30% of total tertiary education institutions in Australia. Representation is strongest in Victoria, because SCG started off as a Victorian initiative.
Table 1: SCG reporting members in 2010 by state. Name Australia-wide Australian Catholic University NSW Hunter Institute Illawarra Institute New England Institute North Coast Institute Northern Sydney Institute South Western Sydney Institute Sydney Institute Western Sydney Institute NT Charles Darwin University SA University of Adelaide QLD Brisbane North Institute Sunshine Coast Institute Type University TAFE TAFE TAFE TAFE TAFE TAFE TAFE TAFE Dual sector University TAFE TAFE Name VIC Deakin University La Trobe University Monash University University of Melbourne Chisholm Institute Gordon Institute Goulburn Ovens Institute Kangan Institute Sunraysia Institute RMIT University Swinburne University of Technology University of Ballarat Victoria University WA Edith Cowan University Type University University University University TAFE TAFE TAFE TAFE TAFE Dual sector Dual sector Dual sector Dual sector University

3.2 Reporting Methodology

SCG provides its member institutions with the SCG Workbook, a data management and reporting instrument. The Workbook is a multi-purpose tool: in addition to facilitating sector reporting it also empowers members by providing them with a system for data management and a resource for institutionlevel reporting.
8 Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

The Workbook was first developed in 2006 in consultation with DSE, SV and Maunsell Consulting. It has since been revised and greatly expanded through further consultation with experts and member institutions. To avoid duplication of data collection for members, the SCG Workbook reporting tool is aligned where possible with existing Australian regulations and standards , such as National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) framework and other reporting instruments, for example Tertiary Education Facilities Management Associations (TEFMA) Benchmarking survey. The Workbook is a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that provides opportunity to capture and analyse data on governance, operations and EfS. Different modules within the Workbook cover sustainability performance in the areas of energy, GHG emissions, water, waste and recycling, buildings, purchasing, IT, institutional commitment and EfS. The modules collected both quantitative and qualitative data on different aspects of sustainability. All qualitative sections contained questions on systems to support sustainability (such as policies, strategies, plans, committees and staff) and on sustainability targets. The Workbook contains summary worksheets that automatically populate tables and charts. These are designed to assist member institutions in tracking their own performance and for use in institution-level reporting. These charts allow members to analyse their own performance across campuses as well as across time (if data for multiple years are entered). Member institutions were given 68 weeks (during JuneJuly 2010) to complete as much of the Workbook as they could with their 2009 data before returning a copy to SCG for use in the Sector Report. As the Sector Report is a self-reporting initiative, SCG did not verify or audit the data submitted in the SCG Workbooks. Data was accepted as provided, except in cases where it appeared obviously incorrect. In such cases SCG liaised with the members to correct the data. The data provided by the participants was analysed on a total institution basis (that is, the total of all campuses). To allow comparisons between institutions of very different sizes, most of the results reported here were first standardised either by each institutions total staff and students (per capita of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff and equivalent full-time student loads (EFTSL)) or by its building gross floor area (GFA) (in square metres). The FTE, EFTSL and GFA reported by each institution are listed in Appendix 2. The data was also analysed by sub-sector (TAFE, university or dual sector) so each institution can compare itself against others of the same kind. Comparisons by state were avoided due to the uneven representation of different institution types by state (for example, no universities from New South Wales or Queensland participated in the assessment). Analysis of the statistical significance of our sample group of institutions lay outside the scope of the assessment. All members were given the opportunity to review the draft findings of this report before publication.

Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

4. Sustainability in the Australian Tertiary Education Sector

This section reports on and discusses the sector averages of the 2009 data provided by the 27 SCG member institutions that participated in the 2010 national assessment. Some institutional-level data is provided in Appendix 2. The findings are organized by module, with an initial discussion of data quality and conclusions at the end of this section. Results are a snapshot of measuring and reporting at each institution and do not necessarily reveal the full picture of sustainability work and management at any given institution. The approach of this report is not to name and shame but rather to create a collaborative environment for engaging the tertiary education sector in measuring, monitoring and reducing its collective environmental footprint and improving its sustainability performance.

4.1 Data Quality

The completeness of the data reported by the participating institution varied greatly, from just a few modules being reported (typically energy and water data) to an almost complete workbook. Table 2, which shows the number of institutions who could provide data for selected questions, gives a general indication of the sector-wide robustness of the data provided for each module.
Table 2: Ranked data completeness for selected sections of the workbook. Module Energy use & GHG emissions Energy use & GHG emissions Water Waste & Recycling Waste & Recycling Waste & Recycling Green purchasing Energy use & GHG emissions Green purchasing Green purchasing Water Green purchasing Green purchasing Energy use & GHG emissions Water Waste & Recycling Waste & Recycling Waste & Recycling Waste & Recycling Waste & Recycling Waste & Recycling Waste & Recycling Waste & Recycling Waste & Recycling Waste & Recycling Waste & Recycling Water Section Facilities energy use and GHG emissions Automotive transport energy use and GHG emissions Amount of potable (mains) water used Total waste to landfill Total waste recycled Uncategorised general waste to landfill A4 copy paper purchasing Air travel GHG emissions Toilet paper purchasing Paper towel purchasing Water recycled/saved Tea & coffee purchasing Toner cartridge purchasing GHG emissions from waste & recyclables to landfill Licensed ground (bore) water extracted Co-mingled to landfill Medical waste to landfill Concrete to landfill Paper & paper board to landfill Food/garden (compost) to landfill Garden (mulch) to landfill eWaste to landfill Hazardous waste to landfill Re-usables to landfill Metal to landfill Wood/straw to landfill Licensed surface (river/stream) water collected Total number of institutions who provided data (of 27) 27 26 25 24 24 22 22 18 15 15 12 10 9 6 4 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

10

Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

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

4.2 Institutional Commitment

Many indicators can be used to track institutional commitment to sustainability. This report used the following indicators: the total number of staff (in FTE) employed in environment or sustainability roles; whether the institution uses an environmental management system (EMS); and the number of environmental committees, their make-up, the highest level of management representation and their placement within the governance structure of the institution. While institutional commitment to sustainability does not guarantee good environmental performance, it is an important step institutions need to take on the road to improving sustainability. Overall, 89% of institutions reported having an environmental policy, strategy or plan; 70% reported at least one full-time staff member employed in an environmental/sustainability improvement capacity; more than half reported having at least one environmental committee; and 60% reported having a target to reduce GHG emissions or to become carbon-neutral. Looking more specifically at the number of staff employed environment/sustainability improvement roles, Figure 1a shows that on average the sector reported 5.3 FTE. Dual-sector institutions reported the largest number of staff, followed by universities, with TAFEs reporting a much smaller number of staff.

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

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

Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

11

4.3 Energy Use and GHG Emissions

Facility energy use in higher education institutions is perhaps the area that receives the most environmental management focus. This focus is due to the large associated GHG emissions and economic costs, as well as to that some institutions already have, or may have in the future, a legal obligation to report energy or emissions (for example, some of the larger institutions already have to report under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act). The focus is reflected by both the comprehensiveness of the data reported by the participants and by the large number of policies and targets they held in relation to this area, such as 60% of the institutions reporting having a target to reduce GHG emissions or to become carbon-neutral. Participants reported a total facilities energy use of 3,744,796 GJ for 2009. This total included all sources of stationary energy generation, including grid electricity, purchased green electricity, on-site renewable generation, natural gas and diesel oil. Electricity accounted for 60% of all energy use. Figure2 and 3 show the sector averages of energy and electricity use, respectively, per person and per floor area. In per capita terms, universities reported much higher energy and electricity use relative to TAFEs and dual-sector institutions. However dual-sector institutions catch up to universities when energy and electricity use are looked at per floor area. For both indicators, TAFEs have the lowest energy and electricity use, which is likely to reflect the more energy-intensive research facilities and laboratories in universities and dual-sector institutions.

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

12

Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

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

Based on the facilities energy use data reported by the participants, as well as their transport fuel use, air travel, and waste data, we calculated that the sector released a total of 891,188 tonnes of GHG emissions (in CO2-e) in 2009. The calculation used the emission and conversion factors published by the Australian Government Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency in the National Greenhouse Account (NGA) Factors2. The calculation included all scopes. Only 3.4% of all emissions in 2009 were offset. Figure 4 shows facilities contributed the largest percentage of the overall GHG emissions for the sector. Air travel was the second largest source and automotive transport third. The contribution from organic waste sent to landfill appears negligible in the analysis (0.6%).

Figure 4: Breakdown of GHG emissions by source.

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

Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

13

However, data quality must be taken into account when interpreting this breakdown. In particular, the (minimum) data needed for calculating waste emissions the amount of different types of organic material sent to landfill was so poorly reported (see Table 2) that waste emissions are considerably underestimated. The data completeness for air travel and automotive transport was reasonable but incomplete nevertheless, so these emissions are also under-reported. Facilities energy data were the most fully reported. Figure 5 shows sub-sector averages for GHG emissions from facilities per capita and per floor area. As energy use from facilities was responsible for 88% of the GHG emissions reported in this assessment, it is not surprising that the relative magnitudes of the average emissions of each sub-sector is similar to those of energy use (Figure 2) in particular the high emissions of universities relative to TAFEs.

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

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

14

Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

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

4.4 Transport
The transport sustainability covered staff and student commute to campus and staff travel on institution business or with fleet vehicles. On average the members employed 0.35 FTE staff to look after sustainable transport, although this figure varied considerably, with universities employing 0.81 FTE on average, TAFEs 0.17 FTE and dual-sector institutions 0.32 FTE. As can be seen in Figure 7, the members show a low to medium level of engagement in monitoring and improving the sustainability of staff and student commute to campus. This level of engagement might reflect the variety of campus locations and the existing public transport services and alternative transport infrastructure (such as cycling lanes) around the campuses as well as the lack of direct control over these services (which are generally the responsibility of local or state governments). Interestingly, seven institutions explored options with local government to expand public transport services. Of those, two reported that changes had been made successfully while another is still in discussions.

Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

15

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

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

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

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

16

Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

Alternative sources, such as recycled grey, black and rain water, bore water and surface water (stream/river) water constituted small shares of water supply in the overall mix of possible sources of water. These figures stand in contrast with the 17 institutions who reported to have set themselves water reduction targets, but are consistent with the low number of institutions that reported implementing grey and black water recycling systems on campus (6 and 1 institutions respectively). However, 21 did report collecting rain water, so it appears that lack of metering of non-mains water use may be have contributed to the relatively low reported use of alternative water sources. As shown in Figure 9, the university sub-sector reported the highest level of mains water usage both per capita and per GFA. It is possible that universities have higher water use requirements because of agricultural, manufacturing or research requirements that are not specified in this report.

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

4.6 Waste and Recycling

Waste represents a large part of the sectors environmental impacts. The waste and recycling module asked the institutions for data on the amount and composition of waste they sent to landfill and the amount of waste recycled or composted. It also asked them about the institutional support systems for waste reduction and recycling, such as waste audits, waste reduction campaigns, and prevalence of recycling stations. Due to poor data quality, analysis of waste and recycling is limited. The different components of recycling & waste to landfill were mostly not reported. The data for waste to landfill totals was the strongest reported for all of the waste & recycling module of the Workbook. Overall the members reported sending over 28,000 tonnes of waste to landfill. This figure represents 84% of total waste, with the remaining 16% of waste being recycled. However, given the poor data quality in this area the percent of waste recycled is likely to be significantly different in reality, although it is impossible to say whether the true figure is larger or smaller. Figure 10 shows the sub-sector averages of total waste to landfill both per capita and per floor area. With both indicators the TAFE sub-sector reported much higher amounts of waste sent to landfill than the other two sub-sectors. The TAFE sub-sectors relatively high waste disposal figures appear to correlate with the sub-sectors slightly weaker scores on institutional support systems. Only three TAFEs held contracts requiring their waste service providers to provide data on waste, compared with six universities and two
Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment 17

dual-sector institutions. Only one TAFE reported conducting a waste audit in 2009 compared with seven universities and one dual-sector institution. However institutional support for waste and recycling as reported by the members was low. On average only 0.4 FTE was employed in waste reduction efforts. Only 12 of the 27 participants reported they have a committee responsible for monitoring and improving waste and recycling, only 9 had a target for reducing waste to landfill, and only 6 reported that they are be planning to become plastic bag-free (although only one of those reported a target year).

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

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

4.7 Buildings
The qualitative buildings module was developed as a rating tool and holistic measure of how sustainability has been incorporated into building planning, design and management. Overall, however, building sustainability presented the participants with a particular challenge for reporting and assessment. The quantitative component asked for information on the gross floor area that is accredited or selfassessed as sustainable. However the responses to this section were so incomplete that the results have been excluded from the report. The institutions did somewhat better in responding to the qualitative component of building sustainability. This section asked the institutions to rank how often they take sustainability into account in four key areas of building planning, design and management: strategic planning, project procurement, facilities management and leadership (Table 3). Fourteen institutions completed to this section, and their responses are summarised in Figure 11.

18

Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

Figure 11: Average responses to whether institutions consider sustainability in elements of building planning, design and management. A fuller description of each element is provided in Table 3. Table 3: Building sustainability elements. Strategic Planning Biodiversity: Identification and preservation of existing areas and or requirements for establishment of new areas for the preservation of the natural environment Sustainable Transport: Identification of linkages to and the enhancement of public transport along with provision for walking and cycling including associated amenities Community engagement: Identification and active engagement with key stakeholders and internal and external community representatives throughout the planning of developments Brownfield sites & redevelopments: Formal consideration of alternative site development options at a projects feasibility stage Project Procurement Environmental targets: Identification of environmental targets, measures and tools at the outset Team structure and composition: Was the consultant team employed with ESD as key selection criteria and is an independent ESD consultant engaged throughout the procurement process? Contractor selection: Were contractors engaged because of their environmental performance and ability to establish site environmental management plans? Commissioning and post-occupancy review: Was environmental performance included in the commissioning process and included in post occupancy reviews? Facilities Management Life-cycle assessments: Were products, goods, materials, equipment and systems chosen because of their life cycle and ESD performance? Metering and standards: Were there meters and systems in place for recording and monitoring, and are these used for reporting on utilities (water, waste and energy) consumption? Staff resources: Were there personnel appointed with specific accountabilities for environmental management and performance? Leadership Reporting and accountabilities: Were reporting structures and institutional committees conducive to embedding environmental sustainability at all levels of facilities planning and management, including within the institutional boards, at peak building committees, environmental committees, stakeholder groups and includes peer review? Skills, training and culture: Was training in ESD provided and encouraged and are work practices conducive to achieving best practice in environmentally sustainable design and facilities management? Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment 19

Figure 11 suggests that sustainability of buildings and building processes on campuses is a particularly complex and difficult area. On average institutions considered sustainability only sometimes for most areas of building planning, design and management. In no area was the average response mostly or always. The highest average response was for staff resources, indicating that institutions often appointed personnel with environmental management responsibilities as part of their facilities management teams. The members as a whole reported an average of 0.87 FTE employed in environmental aspects of buildings management, operation and design. The dual sector had the highest average with 2.13 FTE employed in this area, whereas universities (0.6 FTE) and TAFEs (0.51 FTE) reported similar levels. In addition, 15 institutions reported that ecologically sustainable development (ESD) is included in the terms of reference of at least one building/grounds planning committee, task force or working group, or a strategy or policy. The lowest average response was for the use of performance-based rating standards that assess the sustainability of buildings such as the National Australian Built Environment Rating System (NABERS). The low score may reflect the lack of universal rating standards for building sustainability, and the expense involved in carrying out assessments for the several schemes that exist.

4.8 Green Purchasing

Purchasing is an area of potential for the tertiary education sector not only to reduce its environmental impact, but also to support environmentally sound suppliers and supply management. In addition to qualitative questions on green purchasing policies and committees, the green purchasing module sought to gather quantitative data on purchasing of a selection of indicative products, including recycled paper, recycled toner cartridges and fair trade tea and coffee. Of these, most participants (22) reported data on A4 copy paper purchasing, and over half (15) reported data on toilet paper and paper towel purchasing. Only about a third reported data on toner cartridge and tea and coffee purchasing, so these sections have been omitted from this report. As Figure 12 shows, almost half of all A4 copy paper purchased contained at least 50% recycled content, a much higher proportion than for toilet paper and paper towel purchasing. A4 copy paper purchasing has been the focus of some attention, with 11 institutions reporting to have targets to increase purchases of 100% recycled content variety.

Figure 12: Sector-wide average for content of paper purchasing. 20 Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

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

4.9 Information Technology (IT)

The IT module sought to gather data on two areas of intersection between IT and sustainability: (1) reduction in the considerable energy use of IT equipment in offices, computer labs and data centres; and (2) reduction in the need for travel and commuting through remote access and video conferencing. The module collected only qualitative data, with a reasonable response rate. Sustainability in IT services was one of the better performance areas for the members. Of the 27 participants, 15 reported having committees, task forces or working groups for monitoring and improving the sustainability of IT practices, with an average of 0.59 staff FTE employed for this purpose. In addition, 20 participants reported that their IT services set computers to a default energy saving mode, and 18 reported that computers were set by default to print double-sided. IT was also being used to reduce the need for staff business travel, with 24 of the participants reporting use video conferencing use in 2009.

4.10 Education for Sustainability (EfS)

In some ways the largest single impact the Australian tertiary education sector has with respect to sustainability is on the learning of the hundreds of thousands of students and staff who study, live and work on tertiary education campuses. These students will influence and shape the countrys future across all sectors. Tertiary education institutions that recognise a responsibility to provide EfS for students and staff, through formal and informal avenues, create great potential for positive future outcomes in students professional and personal lives. In 2010, the SCG reporting project expanded to include EfS with the goal of helping the sector move towards meeting that potential. The EfS module contained only qualitative questions. Figure 13 summarises the responses to some of the key questions. Overall, the members did not perform well against the set of EfS questions asked. While 30% of the members reported that they explicitly stated sustainability learning as part of graduate attributes, only 19% required their students to pass a sustainability-related subject as a requirement of graduation. Only 7% provided environmental/sustainability elements in student orientation. However, almost half the members offered sustainability-related immersive activities, such as internships, work placements and field trips, and just over half had a web page listing all sustainability-related courses, subjects and activities. The members performed better in relation to staff-related EfS activities. Fifty two percent reported provided opportunities for staff professional development in areas of environment, sustainability and EfS, and 30% included sustainability elements in staff orientation. These results suggest that in 2009 much of the sector was in its infancy with respect to engaging with EfS. Clearly, much work is needed before EfS is systematically realized in each institution, and in the sector overall.

Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

21

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

4.11 Discussion
The 2010 national reporting project has provided insights into the state of sustainability on Australian university and TAFE campuses. Operational sustainability, in particular with respect to facilities and energy management, continues to be more progressed than Education for Sustainability. While interpreting the national data is challenging as neither comparisons to previous years nor to other societal sectors are possible, some limited comparisons have been made at p24 in this report. Our data suggest that the Australian tertiary education sector has untapped opportunities. In particular, there are important opportunities in the areas of green energy, GHG emissions offsets and water management. Further progress in these areas can contribute to the Tertiary sector realising its potential in leading the societal transformation toward sustainable futures. Future assessments will provide comparisons to this 2010 benchmarking project and will thus improve tracking of progress in the sector. Analysis of the quality of data SCG members submitted for reporting is perhaps the most revealing gauge of where Australia is at with sustainability management on tertiary education campuses. Overall, the quality and scope of data reported was mixed. In most cases, this reflected each institutions history of environmental sustainability reporting and staff capacity for sustainability improvement. Some institutions are at very early stages in sustainability management, collecting only data required under federal or state legislation. Other institutions have established Offices of Environmental Sustainability with dedicated staff to monitor and improve sustainability performance. An aspect of SCGs empowerment mission is to illustrate to member institutions what types of data can and should be monitored under a campus sustainability reporting scheme, and what types of actions can be taken to improve institutional sustainability. This report highlights that collecting those data is crucial to setting goals and to monitoring and improving sustainability performance. Poor data collection also demonstrates the current lack of (and thus a need for) reliable systems that aid in data collection and management of campus sustainability. The results in this report also show that while most institutions scored well in terms of policy, strategies and plans, in many cases they still have some way to go towards translating these into improved performance of actual operations. For instance, although 60% of the participants reported having a target
22 Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

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

Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

23

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

SCG started as a Victorian organisation and undertook a sustainability reporting project with Victorian tertiary education institutions for 2008. Twelve of the 27 institutions that participated in the 2009 assessment also participated in the 2008 assessment, giving us the opportunity to examine changes in key areas of the Victorian sector over time. These institutions include all Victorian institutions listed in Table 1, except La Trobe University and Swinburne University who did not participate in the 2008 assessment, as well as the Victorian campuses of the Australian Catholic University. In total the comparison included three universities, five TAFEs and four dual-sector institutions. Table 4 summarises these institutions average changes from 2008 to 2009 for selected areas of sustainability. The table shows that although the members overall has improved in a number of areas, overall the progress has been mixed.

Table 4: Average changes in the values of selected areas of sustainability in Victorian institutions from 2008 to 2009. Indicator Institutional Commitment Staff in environmental improvement roles (FTE) Percentage of institutions that ran cultural change/green office programs Number of institutions with an EMS Energy and GHG Emissions Total energy use (GJ) Percentage green energy of total energy use Total GHG emissions (t CO2-e) Facilities GHG emissions per capita (t CO2-e/(staff + students)) Automotive emissions (institution owned) per capita (t CO2-e/staff) Water Mains water purchased per capita (kL/(staff + students)) Waste Waste to landfill per capita (kg/(staff + students)) Percentage of waste diverted from landfill 56 20% 53 24% 5% +16% 5.1 4.8 6% 2,169,676 5.6% 540,000 1.5 0.53 2,193,838 7.1% 525,650 1.4 0.50 +1% +27% 3% 7% 5% 2.0 50% 4 4.1 31% 1 +106% 38% 75% Value in 2008 Value in 2009 Change

Changes in institutional commitment to sustainability in Victorian institutions from 2008 to 2009 indicated both progress and regression in this area. While the average number of staff employed in environment improvement roles increased, there was a drop in the number of institutions running cultural change programs, such as green office programs. In addition there was a relatively big drop in the number of institutions reporting the use of an EMS. There was also mixed progress in reducing energy use and GHG emissions. Overall the Victorian institutions reported a slight increase in total energy use, however total emissions decreased slightly. Emissions per capita from facilities and automotive transport also decreased. There was an overall increase in the percentage of green energy being used by the institutions, although this increase was primary due to significant increases in just four of the institutions. Overall, the Victorian institutions appeared to be making progress in reducing both water use and waste to landfill. Our assessment of changes in sustainability in tertiary education institutions in Victoria from 2008 to 2009 suggests that there is continuing investment in campus sustainability. However progress across operations
24 Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

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

Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

25

References
Bekessy SA, Burgman MA, Wright T, Leal Filho W & Smith M (2003) Universities and sustainability, The Tela Papers Issue II, Australian Conservation Foundation, Melbourne, Australia. Bekessy SA, Burgman MA, Yencken D, Wright T, Leal Filho W, Garden D & Rostan-Herbert D (2002) A summary of environmental practice in Australian universities, National Conference of Sustainable Universities, Melbourne, Australia. Bekessy, SA & Burgman, MA (2001) Environmental best practice in Australian and international universities: Report to the Vice-Chancellor, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. McIntosh, M, Gaalswyk, K, Keniry, LJ & Eagan, DJ (2008) Campus environment 2008: A national report card on sustainability in higher education Trends and new developments in college and university leadership, academics and operations, National Wildlife Federation, USA. Sustainable Campus Group (2008) Victorian Sustainable Campus Group report for 2008, Sustainable Campus Group, Melbourne, Australia. Sustainable Campus Group (2007) Sector environment report 2006, Sustainable Campus Group, Melbourne, Australia.

26

Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

Appendix 1: Invitation letter

Monash Sustainability Institute
31 March 2010 Sustainable Campus Group 2010 First Nation-Wide Assessment of Sustainability in the Australian Tertiary Education Sector Dear , The Sustainable Campus Group (SCG) would like to invite [name of institution] to join the Sustainable Campus Group in 2010 and participate in the first nation-wide assessment of sustainability performance in the Australian tertiary education sector. The SCG is coordinated by Monash Sustainability Institute (MSI) and is endorsed by Australian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS, Inc.). This national assessment of sustainability in Australian universities and TAFEs embraces international best practice in sustainability in higher education. Worldwide, an ever-increasing number of universities and vocational education institutions are showcasing their leadership in sustainable development. National and international assessment and reporting instruments are being developed to benchmark sustainability performance, as well as to celebrate achievements in operational resource efficiencies, greenhouse gas emission reductions, and education for sustainability. In Australia, the SCG and MSI are on the forefront of these international developments. The SCG has designed and piloted a Workbook for sustainability reporting and has published a Sector Report for Victoria. Based on its success, SCG and MSI are now conducting Australias first-ever national assessment. We are excited to invite [name of institution] to join us in this important project. The national sustainability assessment of Australias tertiary education sector 2010 will demonstrate the tertiary sectors leadership in sustainable development. It will also showcase your institutions achievements as well as its aspirations in sustainability leadership. The SCG Report presents a way to establish your performance in comparison to peer institutions. Further, the 2010 national assessment will provide an instrument to move forward collaboratively, toward engaging all stakeholders and securing support from critical actors for sustainability in higher education. The Sustainable Campus Group (SCG) was established in 2006 in Victoria with the aim of promoting environmental sustainability in the Victorian tertiary and vocational education sector. The SCG has provided critical leverage to engage universities and TAFEs in Victoria to monitor and report on their sustainability performance, drive cultural change across campuses, and to provide a forum for the sector to share information on practical, cost-effective measures to reduce environmental impacts. The SCG has recently published its second Sector Report, which is available at: http://www.monash.edu.au/research/sustainability institute/sustainable_campus_group.html The 2008 Report, published in 2009, highlights the environmental performance of participating tertiary and vocational education institutions and demonstrates the ambitious targets set by these institutions to reduce energy and water consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and the volume of waste produced. It also illustrates that almost half of participating institutions are looking beyond operational performance to address their greatest impact the influence they have on students through education for sustainability. And finally, the Report provides a platform to show participating institutions how well they are performing in comparison to the rest of the sector. The Report was successfully launched in September 2009 at the University of Melbourne by Professor John Thwaites and Deb Daly, in her role as the 2009 Chair of TAFE Directors Australia.
Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment 27

Participating in the national assessment and roll-out involves membership in the SCG. The attached SCG flyer provides an overview of benefits to members and more about the program. Further information on the SCG can be found at: www.monash.edu.au/research/sustainabilityinstitute/sustainable_campus_group.html MSI has generously agreed to run the 2010 SCG national roll-out on a cost recovery basis in order to encourage SCG membership and participation in the SCG 2010 national assessment. The cost of membership for 2010 is $3500 (+ GST) for universities (including dual sector universities) and $2995 (+ GST) for TAFEs. A discount has been offered to TAFEs to encourage further participation from this sector. SCG membership entitles your institution to: A copy of the SCG Workbook, to collate data and measure and report against your institutional environmental impacts Participation in at least one state forum per year (to be held in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide and Hobart) to provide an opportunity to network and learn from the achievements of other institutions. These forums will be held in states with at least five SCG members. (The SCG will facilitate a second state forum per year if SCGs cost-recovery budget allows.) Participation in the SCG Sector Report, to benchmark environmental sustainability performance across the tertiary and vocational education sector and publicise your efforts in this area. If you would like to become a member of the SCG in 2010 and join us in this first national assessment, please complete and return the attached form. Monash University will then raise an invoice for payment. Thank you for your support of this national initiative to enhance the reputation of the tertiary education sector as a leader in sustainability excellence. Sincerely,

Professor Dave Griggs Director, Monash Sustainability Institute Encl.: SCG flyer SCG membership application form

Belinda Towns SCG Manager

28

Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

Appendix 2: Institution-Level Results

A2.1 Institution Statistics

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

State Institution Students (EFTSL) Academic General/Non- Total Staff (FTE) /Teaching Staff Teaching Staff (FTE) (FTE) 735 1447 678 193 659 516 877 2723 456 1099 424 293 910 692 1058 577 264 0 1434 3766 1665 91 1075 550 3375 974 577 27,107 648 325 421 207 413 444 760 1269 279 645 482 255 1351 383 1425 0 186 977 1251 3786 2079 131 1524 622 3996 1237 957 26,055 1,383 1,772 1,099 400 1,072 960 1,637 3,992 735 1,744 906 548 2,261 1,075 2,483 577 450 977 2,685 7,552 3,744 222 2,599 1,172 7,371 2,211 1,534 53,162 Total Staff + Students Gross Floor Area ( m 2)

Nat. NSW

Aust. Catholic Uni Hunter Inst Illawarra Inst New England Inst North Coast Inst Northern Sydney Inst South West. Sydney Inst Sydney Inst Western Sydney Inst Charles Darwin Uni Brisbane North Inst Sunshine Coast Inst Uni of Adelaide Chisholm Inst Deakin Uni Gordon Inst Goulburn Ovens Inst Kangan Inst La Trobe Uni Monash Uni RMIT Uni Sunraysia Inst Swinburne Uni of Technology Uni of Ballarat Uni of Melbourne Victoria Uni Edith Cowan Uni TOTAL

11,961 15,885 10,791 7,373 11,156 27,048 25,935 30,196 17,291 4,837 11,146 4,016 16,859 15,713 18,734 5,857 3,421 7,959 21,874 36,801 52,999 2,476 28,351 15,310 36,001 47,489 13,648 501,126

13,344 17,657 11,890 7,773 12,228 28,008 27,572 34,188 18,026 6,581 12,052 4,564 19,120 16,788 21,217 6,434 3,871 8,936 24,559 44,353 56,743 2,698 30,950 16,482 43,372 49,700 15,182 554,288

107,136 .. 144,676 57,352 121,822 188,724 231,679 234,817 151,626 120,300 90,127 29,873 304,695 98,820 230,009 48,328 43,358 83,878 286,739 668,123 430,815 24,432 195,507 .. 746,809 311,279 193,599 5,144,523

NT QLD SA VIC

WA TOTAL

Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

29

A2.2 Institutional Commitment

Table A2.2: Summary of institutional commitment indicators by institution, including the total number of staff employed in environmental/sustainability improvement roles, the total number of environmental committees reported by the institution, and the highest position held by an environmental committee member. State Nat. NSW Institute Aust. Catholic Uni Hunter Inst Illawarra Inst New England Inst North Coast Inst Northern Sydney Inst South West. Sydney Inst Sydney Inst Western Sydney Inst Charles Darwin Uni Brisbane North Inst Sunshine Coast Inst Uni of Adelaide Chisholm Inst Deakin Uni Gordon Inst Goulburn Ovens Inst Kangan Inst La Trobe Uni Monash Uni RMIT Uni Sunraysia Inst Swinburne Uni of Technology Uni of Ballarat Uni of Melbourne Victoria Uni Edith Cowan Uni University TAFE Dual Sector Entire Sector Staff (FTE) 0.5 2.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 --0.0 1.2 1.0 0.0 --1.0 1.8 0.5 2.5 2.5 0.3 1.0 3.0 15.0 3.0 0.0 18.0 2.3 2.1 3.0 2.0 3.8 1.0 5.3 2.6 Committees 0 1 1 0 1 8 2 7 2 0 --0 4 0 6 1 1 0 1 11 1 0 1 0 17 1 1 5.7 1.6 0.6 2.6 Highest position ----------Associate Director College Manager Associate Director Director ------Deputy Vice-Chancellor & Vice-President --Chief Operating Officer --General Manager, Finance & Infrastructure --Vice-Chancellor Vice-Chancellor --------Deputy Vice-Chancellor Director Pro Vice-Chancellor ---------

Qld SA Vic

WA Avg.

30

Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

A2.3 Energy Use

Table A2.3: Facilities energy use (includes all electricity, gas and diesel oil consumed for facilities and excludes transport-related energy use).
State Institution Energy Green energy(c) Electricity(d)

Nat. NSW

Aust. Catholic Uni Hunter Inst Illawarra Inst New England Inst North Coast Inst Northern Sydney Inst South West. Sydney Inst Sydney Inst Western Sydney Inst Charles Darwin Uni Brisbane North Inst Sunshine Coast Inst Uni of Adelaide Chisholm Inst Deakin Uni Gordon Inst Goulburn Ovens Inst Kangan Inst La Trobe Uni Monash Uni RMIT Uni Sunraysia Inst Swinburne Uni of Technology Uni of Ballarat Uni of Melbourne Victoria Uni Edith Cowan Uni Universities TAFEs Dual Sector All

GJ/capita(a) 4.53 2.61 3.57 1.79 2.43 2.57 3.51 3.14 2.78 12.61 2.33 3.64 11.46 3.84 10.07 4.04 6.89 4.35 19.09 13.41 6.54 4.20 4.63 5.35 12.14 4.15 6.53 12.05 3.15 5.56 6.76

GJ/m 2 (b) 0.56 .. 0.29 0.24 0.24 0.38 0.42 0.46 0.33 0.69 0.31 0.56 0.72 0.65 0.93 0.54 0.62 0.46 1.64 0.89 0.86 0.46 0.73 .. 0.70 0.66 0.51 0.86 0.43 0.84 0.73

% of total kWh/capita(a) 3.2% 890 0.0% 724 4.4% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 6.2% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7% 0.0% 11.7% 5.2% 5.2% 0.0% 5.1% 10.9% 7.4% 3.4% 11.4% 10.1% 3.1% 4.2% 7.0% 5.6% 7.7% 6.9% 746 441 262 569 783 671 716 3029 648 949 2713 556 1523 830 1063 626 1500 1917 1198 872 836 551 2026 655 1506 1,814 661 969 1,127

kWh/m 2 (b) 111 .. 61 60 26 84 93 98 85 166 87 145 170 95 140 111 95 67 129 127 158 96 132 .. 118 105 118 130 91 147 121

NT QLD SA VIC

WA Average

Notes : (a ) Per ca pi ta i ncl udes both s ta ff a nd s tudents . (b) Ins ti tuti ons tha t di d not provi de a fi gure for GFA ha ve been excl uded from a vera ge ca l cul a ti ons . (c) Where no fi gures were gi ven by i ns ti tuti ons for green energy i t i s a s s umed tha t no green energy wa s purcha s ed. However, thes e i ns ti tuti ons ha ve been excl uded from the a vera ge ca l cul a ti ons . (d) Ca l cul a ti on combi nes kWh purcha s ed from the gri d, green power a nd genera ted through ons i te renewa bl es .

Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

31

A2.4 GHG Emissions

Table A2.4: GHG emissions from facilities, air travel and automotive travel by institution.
State Institution Facilities t CO2 -e/(staff + students) t CO2 -e/m2 GFA
(a)

Air Travel t CO2 -e/staff

Auto Transport (b) t CO2 -e/staff

Nat. NSW

Aust. Catholic Uni Hunter Inst Illawarra Inst New England Inst North Coast Inst Northern Sydney Inst South West. Sydney Inst Sydney Inst Western Sydney Inst Charles Darwin Uni Brisbane North Inst Sunshine Coast Inst Uni of Adelaide Chisholm Inst Deakin Uni Gordon Inst Goulburn Ovens Inst Kangan Inst La Trobe Uni Monash Uni RMIT Uni Sunraysia Inst Swinburne Uni of Technology Uni of Ballarat Uni of Melbourne Victoria Uni Edith Cowan Uni Universities TAFEs Dual Sector All

1.06 0.77 0.81 0.46 0.66 0.64 0.83 0.71 0.65 2.51 0.65 0.97 2.58 0.74 2.30 0.99 1.46 0.87 2.77 2.67 1.46 1.11 1.15 0.70 2.53 0.93 1.41 2.37 0.75 1.20 1.41

0.13 .. 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.14 0.09 0.15 0.16 0.13 0.21 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.24 0.18 0.19 0.12 0.18 .. 0.15 0.15 0.11 0.17 0.10 0.18 0.15

1.93 .. 0.05 .. .. 0.26 0.09 0.02 .. .. .. 0.33 6.79 0.52 3.79 .. 0.16 .. 2.25 3.55 2.34 0.41 3.12 1.62 .. 1.91 4.25 3.73 0.14 2.37 2.43

0.26 .. 0.30 0.54 0.37 0.15 0.11 .. 0.40 0.15 0.15 0.26 0.19 0.41 0.67 0.65 1.74 0.45 0.58 0.21 0.13 1.07 0.14 0.52 0.11 0.24 0.12 0.26 0.28 0.20 0.25

NT QLD SA VIC

WA Average

Notes : (a ) Ins ti tuti ons tha t di d not provi de a fi gure for GFA ha ve been excl uded from a vera ge ca l cul a ti ons . (b) Emi s s i ons a re ca l cul a ted from fuel us a ge a nd do not i ncl ude ta xi s or hi re vehi cl es .

32

Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

A2.5 Water
Table A2.5: Mains water purchased per capita and per gross floor area by institution.
State Institution Water per capita (kL/(staff + students) 2.4 4.5 3.3 2.2 .. 4.1 3.8 2.9 4.6 .. 1.8 3.1 17.2 2.3 4.3 2.1 9.5 2.9 9.3 8.3 3.4 9.3 2.5 3.4 8.8 2.1 8.9 8.6 3.6 2.8 5.1 Water per floor area (kL/m 2 ) 0.30 .. 0.27 0.30 .. 0.61 0.45 0.42 0.55 .. 0.23 0.48 1.08 0.39 0.39 0.27 0.85 0.31 0.80 0.55 0.45 1.03 0.39 .. 0.51 0.34 0.70 0.62 0.50 0.46 0.55

Nat. NSW

Aust. Catholic Uni Hunter Inst Illawarra Inst New England Inst North Coast Inst Northern Sydney Inst South West. Sydney Inst Sydney Inst Western Sydney Inst Charles Darwin Uni Brisbane North Inst Sunshine Coast Inst Uni of Adelaide Chisholm Inst Deakin Uni Gordon Inst Goulburn Ovens Inst Kangan Inst La Trobe Uni Monash Uni RMIT Uni Sunraysia Inst Swinburne Uni of Technology Uni of Ballarat Uni of Melbourne Victoria Uni Edith Cowan Uni Universities TAFEs Dual Sector All

NT QLD SA VIC

WA Average

Note: Ins ti tuti ons tha t di d not provi de wa ter da ta or GFA fi gures ha ve been excl uded from the a vera ge ca l cul a ti ons .

Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

33

A2.6 Waste and Recycling

Table A2.6: Waste to landfill per capita (staff + students) and per gross floor area by institution.
State Institution Waste per capita (kg/capita) 41 29 86 .. 132 65 69 112 .. 143 .. 118 32 79 41 96 38 59 70 77 65 42 43 21 24 .. 13 64 75 39 60 Waste per floor area (kg/m 2 ) 5 .. 7 .. 13 10 8 16 .. 8 .. 18 2 13 4 13 3 6 6 5 9 5 7 .. 1 .. 1 4 10 6 6

Nat. NSW

Aust. Catholic Uni Hunter Inst Illawarra Inst New England Inst North Coast Inst Northern Sydney Inst South West. Sydney Inst Sydney Inst Western Sydney Inst Charles Darwin Uni Brisbane North Inst Sunshine Coast Inst Uni of Adelaide Chisholm Inst Deakin Uni Gordon Inst Goulburn Ovens Inst Kangan Inst La Trobe Uni Monash Uni RMIT Uni Sunraysia Inst Swinburne Uni of Technology Uni of Ballarat Uni of Melbourne Victoria Uni Edith Cowan Uni Universities TAFEs Dual Sector All

NT QLD SA VIC

WA Average

Note: Ins ti tuti ons tha t di d not provi de wa ter da ta or GFA fi gures ha ve been excl uded from the a vera ge ca l cul a ti ons .

34

Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

A2.7 Education for Sustainability

Table A2.7: Incorporation of EfS into different types of institutional activities. Y indicates yes and N indicates no. Courses and (b) subjects offered Course (d) requirements Professional (g) development N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y ----N N N N Y Y N N Y N N Y Y Y Y N 29 20 60 30 Y N Y Y Y Y N Y 43 60 40 52 35 Staff (f) Engagement N N Y N N Y N Y N ----N N N N N N N

State Nat. NSW

Institute Aust. Catholic Uni Hunter Inst Illawarra Inst New England Inst North Coast Inst Northern Sydney Inst South West. Sydney Inst Sydney Inst Western Sydney Inst Charles Darwin Uni

N N N --Y N N N ------N N N Y N N N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N 43 13 60 30

N N Y Y Y --Y Y Y ----Y Y N N N N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N 43 53 40 52

N N Y Y Y N Y N Y ----Y Y N Y N N N N Y --Y --N Y Y Y 71 47 20 48

N N Y N N N Y N ------N N N N N N N N N --N --Y Y N Y 29 13 20 19

Qld SA Vic

Brisbane North Inst Sunshine Coast Inst Uni of Adelaide Chisholm Inst Deakin Uni Gordon Inst Goulburn Ovens Inst Kangan Inst La Trobe Uni Monash Uni RMIT Uni Sunraysia Inst Swinburne Uni of Technology Uni of Ballarat Uni of Melbourne Victoria Uni

WA % Yes

Edith Cowan Uni University TAFE Dual Sector Entire Sector

Notes: (a) Key learning outcomes: Graduate attributes / essential learning outcomes / competency or performance criteria in sustainability (b) Courses and subjects offered: Sustainability subjects / units/ courses webpage or information portal (c) Immersion: Immersion (work placements, internships, field trips, other) in environment, sustainability and/or EfS (d) Course requirements: Undergraduate / TAFE environment or sustainability graduation requirement (e) Student orientation: Environment / sustainability in student orientation (f) Staff Engagement: Sustainability in new staff orientation (g) Professional development: Opportunities for staff development / training in environment, sustainability or EfS (mandatory or optional

Australian Campuses Sustainability Assessment

Student (e) orientation N N N N N N N N N ----N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N Y N 14 0 20 7

Key learning (a) outcomes

Immersion

(c)