Assessing a Culture of Sustainability at the University of Michigan (U-M)

John CallewaertU-M Graham Sustainability Institute

Robert W. MaransU-M Institute for Social Research

AASHE – 2014Portland OR

• Campus Sustainability Integrated Assessment

• Sustainability Cultural Indicators Program (SCIP)– Questionnaire Design– Questionnaire Results and Analysis– Sustainability Interventions Based on Results

• Discussion

Agenda

Translational Knowledge: Vibrant collaborations among academic, practitioner, and other stakeholder communities to advance sustainability scholarship and influence real-world decisions.

Transformative Learning: Helping students engage across disciplines, experience diverse perspectives, think systemically, and pursue action-based learning throughout the world.

Institutional Leadership: Sustainability excellence across the University of Michigan by leading discussions, planning, and coordination for university-wide sustainability strategies and activities.

The Graham Sustainability Institute is a University of Michigan (U-M) Provost’s unit which fosters sustainability at all scales by leading stakeholder-centric activities that systematically bring together and harness talents across all U-M schools, colleges, and units. The work focuses on three key areas:

Campus Sustainability Integrated Assessment

The purpose of the Campus Sustainability Integrated Assessment was to collaboratively

develop practicable ideas and goals to guide

sustainable campus operations at U-M.

THEMEGUIDING

PRINCIPLE2025 GOALS

Climate Action

We will pursue energy efficiency and fiscally-responsible energy sourcing strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions toward long-term carbon neutrality.

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions (scopes 1&2) by 25% below 2006 levels.

Decrease carbon intensity of passenger trips on U-M transportation options by 30% below 2006 levels.

Waste Prevention

We will pursue purchasing, reuse, recycling, and composting strategies toward long-term waste eradication.

Reduce waste tonnage diverted to disposal facilities by 40% below 2006 levels

Healthy Environments

We will pursue land and water management, built environment, and product sourcing strategies toward improving the health of ecosystems and communities.

Purchase 20% of U-M food from sustainable sources.

Protect Huron River water quality by:minimizing runoff from impervious surfaces (outperform uncontrolled surfaces by 30%), &reducing the volume of land management chemicals used on campus by 40%

Community Awareness

We will pursue stakeholder engagement, education, and evaluation strategies toward a campus-wide ethic/culture of sustainability.

The report recommends investments in multiple actions to educate our community, track behavior, and report progress over time.

Integrated Assessment Themes

Culture of SustainabilityWhat is it? How do we measure it? How do we know if its changing?

Knowledge, Awareness Behaviors, Actions

CommitmentsValues, Dispositions

Travel & Transportation

Waste Reduction & Conservation

Natural Environment

Sustainable Food

Climate Changee

CLIMATE ACTION reduce GHG emissions by 25%; decrease GHG/passenger trip for UM trans. options by 30%

WASTE PREVENTION reduce waste tonnage to disposal facilities by 40%

HEALTHY ENVIRONMENTS protect Huron River water quality by reducing volume of chemicals used in land management by 40%; purchase 20% of U-M food from sustainable sources.

COMMUNITY AWARENESS educational programs; monitoring/evaluating progress; reporting

General

U-MGoals

2025

U-M Specific

SURVEY MODULE Knowledge Disposition Behavior Other Demographics TotalTravel &Transp. 9 10 21 1 0 41Cons. & Waste Prev. 5 5 33 1 0 44Natural Environm't 4 2 9 1 0 16Food 7 6 19 2 0 34Climate 1 2 0 2 0 5Sustainability (general) 0 20 13 3 0 36Univ. of Michigan 8 0 8 8 0 24Demographics 0 0 0 0 42 42Total 34 45 103 18 42 242

QUESTION TYPE

Questionnaire Content

Questionnaire

Population Targets and Response Rates

students

20121000 from each undergraduate class 400 graduate students1000 faculty1000 staff

Overall response rate: 44%

20131000 freshmen 330 from each other undergrad class 400 graduate students 750 faculty 750 staff1500 panel of undergraduates (soph, jr, sr)

Overall response rate: 22%

faculty/staff

http://www.ocs.umich.edu/goals.html

Reporting

Populations and Response Rates

WASTE PREVENTION & CONSERVATION BEHAVIOR OVER TIME(percentage distribution)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

How often do you do the following:

Set thermostat to 65 degrees or lower during cool or cold weather Never 19 20Rarely 18 19Sometimes 23 24Always/Most of the time 23 20Not applicable 17 17Total 100 100

Number of respondents 3204 2395

Signif. between current yr. and prev. yr. p>.05Signif. between current yr. and 2012 p>.05

Set thermostat (a/c) to 78 degrees or higher during warm of hot weatherNever 24 28Rarely 17 17Sometimes 20 19Always/Most of the time 17 14Not applicable 22 22Total 100 100

Number of respondents 3032 2396

Signif. between current yr. and prev. yr. p<.01Signif. between current yr. and 2012 p<.01

Waste Prevention &

Conservation ItemsAll Students

Rep

ort

ing

Sustainability Cultural Indicators

Climate Action Travel Behavior (1) Conservation Behavior (4)

Waste Prevention Waste Prevention Behavior (4)

Healthy Environments Protecting the Natural Environment (3) Sustainable Food Purchases (3)

Community Awareness Travel and Transportation (4) Waste Prevention (5) Natural Environment Protection (4) Sustainable Foods (7) U-M Sustainability Initiatives (8)

Sustainability Engagement U-M (3)

Sustainability Engagement General (4)

Sustainability Commitment (1)

Sustainability Disposition (3)

Evaluating U-M Sustainability Initiatives (8)

Primary Secondary

Sustainability Cultural

Indicators PRIMARYClimate ActionConservation Behavior 6.2 6.7 6.9Travel Behavior 7.5 1.3 2.0

Waste PreventionWaste Prevention Behavior 6.6 7.0 7.3

Healthy EnvironmentsSustainable Food Purchases 5.3 5.8 6.2Protecting the Natural Environment 8.9 6.4 6.1Community AwarenessSustainable Travel & Transportation 4.3 3.0 3.3Waste Prevention 4.2 5.1 5.4Natural Environment Protection 3.3 4.3 4.6Sustainable Foods 4.5 5.1 5.7

U-M Sustainability Initiatives 5.1 5.6 5.1

SECONDARYSustainability Engagement at U-M 1.4 0.7 0.7

Sustainability Engagement Generally 1.8 1.9 2.9

Sustainability Commitment 6.3 6.4 7.2

Sustainability Disposition 3.3 2.6 4.8

Rating U-M Sustainability Initiatives 6.4 6.8 6.5Significant changes are based on analyses the of the 2012 and 2013 mean scores shown in Appendix F, Table F2.

significant change (p<.001) significant change (p<.01) significant change (p<.05)

Staff Faculty Students

SUMMARY SUSTAINABILITY CULTURAL INDICATORS

2013

for STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY(mean scores & change from 2012)

Analysis

Analysis

CHANGES IN INDICES, BY CAMPUS AND REGION

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

high

low

20122013

CONSERVATION BEHAVIOR

Central Central North Medical Health South East Campus-West Campus-East Campus Campus Sciences Campus Campus

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Central Central North Medical Health South East Campus-West Campus-East Campus Campus Sciences Campus Campus

high

low

20122013

AWARENESS OF U-M SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVES

CONSERVATION BEHAVIOR

CHANGES IN INDICES, BY CAMPUS AND REGION

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

high

low

20122013

AWARENESS OF U-M SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVES

CONSERVATION BEHAVIOR

TRAVEL BEHAVIOR

CHANGES IN INDICES, BY CAMPUS AND REGION Central Central North Medical Health South East

Campus-West Campus-East Campus Campus Sciences Campus Campus

1.FOCUS TRANSPORTATION EFFORTS ON STAFF AND FACULTY COMMUTING PARTICULARLY STAFF.

2.FOCUS WASTE PREVENTION AND CONSERVATION EFFORTS ON STUDENTS AND STAFF.

Selected Recommendations

3. FOCUS ON BEHAVIOR CHANGE, NOT AWARENESS CAMPAIGNS.

4. FOCUS ON STUDENT LEADERS.

• Student social media sustainable computing campaign emphasizing best practices and results of current levels of awareness and behaviors on these topics from SCIP.

• Targeted recycling campaign in 30 buildings starting with an intensive round of meetings with building managers to develop implementation strategies for increasing recycling rates.

• Energy conservation behavior change program in one test region of campus and compare results against other regions without program.

• Comprehensive sustainability campaign targeted at areas with relatively low SCIP scores – for example the hospital.

Selected Interventions

DiscussionDiscussion

Thank you 

John Callewaert, Ph.D.Integrated Assessment Center Director

Graham Sustainability InstituteUniversity of Michigan

625 E. Liberty, Suite 300Ann Arbor, MI  48104jcallew@umich.edu

http://graham.umich.edu/leadership/scip