Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

Student engagement and community building for sustainability Runkle, Quinn; Sadowski, Rosalind; Willock, Angela; Rasmussen, Spencer 2012-04-30

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


18861-Willock_A_et_al_SEEDS_2012.pdf [ 1.66MB ]
JSON: 18861-1.0108604.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0108604-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0108604-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0108604-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0108604-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0108604-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0108604-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report       Student Engagement and Community Building for Sustainability Quinn Runkle, Rosalind Sadowski, Angela Willock, Spencer Rasmussen  University of British Columbia LFS302A GEOG448 April 30, 2012           Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report”.    Student Engagement and Community Building for Sustainability by Quinn Runkle Rosalind Sadowski Angela Willock With contributions from:  Spencer Rasmussen     1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................... 1 THANK-YOU .................................................................................................................................................. 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 11 SECTION 1.1: ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... 11 SECTION 1.2: ABOUT US ...................................................................................................................... 11 SECTION 1.3: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 12 MODEL FOR CHANGE ........................................................................................................................ 14 SECTION 1.4: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 15 PROJECT TIMELINE ........................................................................................................................... 15 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 16 MANIFESTO ....................................................................................................................................... 16 STUDENT ENGAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................... 18 SECTION 2.1: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 18 SECTION 2.2: FRAMEWORKS ............................................................................................................... 19 C-SAF ................................................................................................................................................ 19 STARS ............................................................................................................................................... 22 OUR ENGAGEMENT FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................... 28 SECTION 2.3: CASE STUDIES ................................................................................................................ 36 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 36 CASE STUDY #1 (EXPLORATION) – UBCC350’S STORM THE RIDING ...................................... 36 CASE STUDY #2 (EXPLORATION) – CHEW ON THIS .................................................................... 41 CASE STUDY #3 (EXPLORATION) – EARTH FESTIVAL ................................................................ 44 CASE STUDY #4 (GOVERNANCE) – WASTE AND WATER ACTION PLAN ................................... 46 CASE STUDY #5 (GOVERNANCE) – CLIMATE ACTION PLAN ....................................................... 48   2 CASE STUDY #6 (IMPLEMENTATION) - SEEDS ............................................................................ 50 CASE STUDY #7 (IMPLEMENTATION) - AMS SUSTAINABILITY PROJECTS FUND ..................... 53 CASE STUDY #8 (BEHAVIOUR) – UBC’S GOT SKILLZ .................................................................. 55 CASE STUDY #9 (BEHAVIOUR) – DO IT IN THE DARK ................................................................ 58 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................... 61 SECTION 2.4: SUSTAINABLE CAMPUSES CONFERENCE ..................................................................... 61 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................. 62 WORKSHOP FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................... 63 EVALUATION ..................................................................................................................................... 66 COMMUNITY BUILDING ............................................................................................................................. 70 SECTION 3.1: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 70 SECTION 3.2: NOW FORUM ................................................................................................................ 70 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................. 71 FINDINGS/EVALUATION .................................................................................................................. 72 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 77 STUDENT ENGAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 77 LESSONS FROM OUR CASE STUDIES & OTHER UBC ORGANIZATIONS ........................................ 77 COMMUNITY BUILDING ......................................................................................................................... 80 LESSONS FROM NOW! CONFERENCE........................................................................................ 80 LESSONS FROM OTHER UBC ORGANIZATIONS .................................................................................. 81 WORKS CITED ............................................................................................................................................ 82 APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................... 86 A: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 86 B: STUDENT MANIFESTO FOR SUSTAINABILITY (DRAFT) ............................................................... 93 D: MANIFESTO FEEDBACK ................................................................................................................... 97 D: COMPARISON OF OUTREACH METHODS ....................................................................................... 100   3 E: LESSONS FROM OTHER UBC ORGANIZATIONS ............................................................................ 107 F: UBC SUSTAINABILITY ORGANIZATIONS (STILL TO COME) ...................................................... 112       4 THANK-YOU We would like to acknowledge our mentors, our professors, the SEEDS supervisors at the UBC Campus Sustainability Office and the support of both Common Energy UBC and goBEYOND in making this project happen. This project represents the collective effort of many different individuals over many years and we are incredibly grateful for everyone’s support. Thank-you! EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction This report explores and supports student engagement with sustainability on post-secondary campuses. We, the student authors, have a combined 15+ years of relevant experience in this field and are excited to share our insights and resources with a growing movement. While most of our work is based at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, the insights of this report are easily transferable to other campuses, and indeed, we hope it will bolster the work of other student sustainability leaders across the continent.  Two Main Themes This project is centred on two main themes: student engagement and community building. As discussed in our Model for Change, an engaged student body contributes significantly to the sense of community on campus and a strong campus community contributes to more engagement. To this end, this project aims primarily to foster holistic student engagement; yet, we also recognize that community building is essential to support diverse and dedicated engagement.  Increased student engagement is demonstrated by “a clear goal toward enhanced sustainability of the social environment at UBC by creating student volunteer opportunities, skill enhancement outlets for UBC students, developing leadership opportunities and providing the potential for sustained funding of student jobs [as well   5 as those which] create social cohesion, ideally across an interdisciplinary environment” (AMS Sustainability). A “campus culture of involvement” is one of the goals in Place and Promise, UBC’s strategic plan, and this cultural shift is seen as a significant need at UBC (UBC Strategic Plan). We propose that the active creation of opportunities for students to engage with sustainability can foster this “culture of involvement” and build a strong community of student leaders.  Model for Change Our Model for Change is the belief that a university can actually help to foster community norms for sustainability within both the student body as well as the broader campus population, including faculty, staff, and residents. It is primarily through significant, ongoing and institutionalized support for student engagement from the university (such as funding, physical space, encouragement, and in-kind support) that opportunities for student engagement are created and nurtured. This engagement can take the form of peer-to-peer, faculty-student, and student-staff.  The second step addresses the importance of fostering a strong sense of community around sustainability engagement. Behavior change efforts are often more successful when individuals feel a sense of identification and belonging with a community (Mckenzie-Mohr). Likewise, student leaders are more likely to feel validated and supported in their efforts if they feel they are part of a community of student advocates. This community is founded in part through the availability of wide-ranging engagement opportunities on campus, which allow students to see their university experience as more multi-faceted. As such, more students become involved and the community grows and develops.  The third and final step is the fostering of community norms as a result of such engagement practices. As a wide range of opportunities are made available, and greater and greater numbers of students are involved, engagement becomes a community norm at the university. The university stands to benefit from these engagement initiatives   6 because “engaged students are more likely to be successful academically and socially on campus” (Astin 1984).  Frameworks for Engagement   Once we established the reciprocal relationship between student engagement and community building, we sought to qualify the nature of successful, well-rounded sustainability engagement. There are many well-supported campus sustainability frameworks in existence, including the Sierra Youth Coalition's (SYC) "Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework" (C-SAF) and the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education's (AASHE) "Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System" (STARS). However, neither sufficiently addresses the complete picture of student engagement. After more than a year of deliberation, we developed a framework that we feel most thoroughly and meaningfully encapsulates student engagement in sustainability: "The Four Dimensions of Campus Student Engagement in Sustainability". The four dimensions include: (1) Exploration, (2) Governance, (3) Implementation, and (4) Behavior.     "Exploration" represents the reflective, dialogic, relationship-building, values-driven and visionary processes of student engagement, which includes awareness-raising campaigns, classroom discussion with campus staff members, social events, and conferences. "Governance" represents the inclusion of students into all levels of decision-making, whether in student executive elections or at the higher levels of administration. "Implementation" represents the involvement of students in designing, planning and executing campus initiatives, whether socially-focused educational programs or infrastructural projects. The last dimension, "Behavior", represents involvement of students in day-to-day choices and actions that promote a culture of sustainability, whether environmentally or socially. In summary, you could see the dimensions as part of a cyclical and interwoven process designed to engage students from deliberation (Exploration), decision-making (Governance), implementation, and enacting (Behavior).   7   The choice to use the term 'dimensions' was deliberate, in that we want to emphasize the interconnectedness and interdependency of each of the 'dimensions'. For example, rarely does a specific initiative or type of engagement fit solely into one dimension. Overall, our main thesis here is that holistic student engagement that includes richness in all four dimensions - both in quality and quantity - leads to successful campus sustainability.     There are of course many challenges to this idealistic proposition. However, there are also some exciting ideas we suspect will bubble to the surface. What if active participation in democratic processes and decision-making were an inherent aspect of a student's academic life? What if classrooms were re-designed to empower students to make a difference in the community? Holistic student engagement in sustainability offers an interesting opportunity to reconsider what it means to be a student.    And how does student engagement play out on the ground, in the typical life of your average student? In addition to our theoretical Dimensions framework, we also devised a practical application: the "Pie Chart for a Sustainable Life", based off of the UBC Health and Wellness'. The concept is introduced here, but the chart itself is still in development and will be completed beyond the timeline of this report.    To put our Four Dimensions to the test, we examined nine case studies from our personal experiences at UBC in over the past four years. The case study initiatives include everything from a DIY skills building workshop series and residence energy competition, to campus planning consultations and political advocacy for local environmental issues. We hope these case studies can stimulate innovation and success elsewhere; however, we recognize there are numerous other initiatives which can and will exemplify these dimensions. We also tested the Four Dimensions as part of a workshop on student engagement at the Sierra Youth Coalition’s Sustainable Campuses Conference. The   8 conference programming focused on how campuses can “move from places of learning about sustainability, towards learning by doing” (Sustainable SFU), which fit nicely with how our project was using directed studies credit to enhance student sustainability initiatives at UBC. The workshop facilitated a dialogue among these student leaders regarding the types of engagement with sustainability on their campuses and what role they saw for a framework to evaluate those opportunities.   Community Building/NOW Forum As student leaders in the UBC sustainability community, we perceived a lack of cohesion and formalized collaboration amongst this community. Efforts to build community can create more effective engagement initiatives. However, it has a number of co-benefits for UBC’s social sustainability. If students find a strong, supportive community of like-minded individuals, they are more likely to feel a sense of belonging at university, and to assume leadership roles. Through these experiences, students become invested in the betterment of the university, because they feel a sense of ownership in the campus.  It is for these reasons that we organized the NOW Forum.  We used NOW as a chance to facilitate dialogue amongst representatives from all of the sustainability student groups on campus, as well as other relevant stakeholders and student leaders. While the student sustainability “movement” at UBC may implicitly share a common vision, there is no official understanding about the details of that vision, and how the different groups contribute to realizing these aims. To build the unity and capacity of these diverse sustainability advocates, we focused the discussion around common needs and goals, with the hope of agreeing on a shared purpose and collaboration strategies.     9 Recommendations We have many recommendations. First, (1) we have determined that collaboration is absolutely key, and must be fostered at many, if not all, stages of student engagement projects. Second, (2) we want to emphasize the need for student-driven, peer-to-peer initiatives to create sustainability norms and an emerging culture of sustainability. Third, (3) to ensure students are equipped to lead each other to success, there should be numerous opportunities for professional development.     Furthermore, (4) we have observed that campuses need to strike a balance between old and new initiatives. There should be sufficient continuity and community, as well as ongoing innovation and excitement that draws in new people, as the student turnover can kill momentum within one academic year.    Also, (5) the traditional notions of education need to be challenged. Students are over-stimulated and overwhelmed by the demands of a post-secondary education.  The more we can integrate engagement into existing, core activities, the higher likelihood of quality and success. Along these lines, (6) it needs to be made explicitly clear that students are highly valued participating members of the community, including in governance issues.    In regards to community building, (7) communications are critical. If students are not properly informed of sustainability opportunities, they will not be able to engage.    In terms of creating a culture of sustainability by building community, we have the following recommendations: (1) Creating a student manifesto for sustainability can help mobilize a strong core collective of student sustainability leaders and exciting others. We have created a draft manifesto, located in our report appendices; (2) Establishing a physical, central space for the student sustainability community to interact, share ideas and socialize strengthens bonds and collaboration between student   10 advocates (3) Organizing consistent and interesting community gatherings that include both informal socials and professional development helps maintain interest within the community and improve the quality of student engagement.        11 INTRODUCTION SECTION 1.1: ABSTRACT  Student engagement in sustainability is an emerging field of importance. This project addresses the need for more research on the topic by examining both student engagement and, as a support, community building for sustainability. The University of British Columbia is at the forefront of sustainability innovation and has already made great accomplishments in its support for student initiatives. This project works to better inform future endeavors as well as make specific recommendations in regards to our findings. Student engagement in sustainability is a critical step in building a more sustainable campus at UBC and beyond.  SECTION 1.2: ABOUT US With more than 15 years of experience as UBC student sustainability leaders between us, the four co-authors of this report (Angela Willock – 4th year, Quinn Runkle – 3rd year, Rosalind Sadowski 4th year, and Spencer Rasmussen – 5th year) came together to synthesize what we have learned in order to advance student engagement with sustainability. Over the years, we have sensed a lack of student engagement in sustainability at UBC. With this report, we intend to help remedy this situation.  For many students, university is a highly transformative period in their lives.  This has certainly been the case for us. Throughout our student careers, we have been involved in Common Energy UBC (15 years), Student Development (3 years), Residence Life (5+ years), the Campus Sustainability Office (10+ years), Oxfam UBC (3 years), UBC Rec (1 year), the AMS & AMS Sustainability (4+ years), the Centre for Teaching, Learning and Technology (2+ years) and more. We have all held several leadership positions in student sustainability organizations, and have all been employed by UBC in multiple positions, often times by the Campus Sustainability Office itself. Our experience at UBC has been immensely rich, and it could definitely be said that all four of us are among some of the most engaged students, particularly in sustainability work.   12 We would like to particularly highlight our involvement with Common Energy UBC, which has played an important role in each of our UBC experiences. Common Energy is the largest and most active organization of its kind on campus. It has an ambitious mission is to “integrate sustainability into all aspects of the UBC community” through its five teams: Dialogue, Education, Tangible Solutions, Challenges, and Food. We will draw extensively on our experiences with Common Energy within this report. A closely related organization that is also important to highlight is the goBEYOND Climate Network, with which we have also worked extensively. goBEYOND coordinates a broader community of student sustainability activists across British Columbia by facilitating collaborative programming and information sharing between post-secondary campuses. goBEYOND is the parent organization to Common Energy UBC. Most of the ideas we have developed in this project stem from years of dialogue and work in the wider goBEYOND network, consisting of hundreds of volunteers and leading student sustainability organizers across the province, including ourselves. SECTION 1.3: INTRODUCTION  The pursuit of more sustainable societies is a critical component of the solution to the climate crisis. Universities have the opportunity to be at the forefront of research on such topics and act as testing grounds for new methods of establishing sustainability as a community norm. Indeed, UBC has emerged as a North American leader in this realm (Anam et al). Of course, students are a central component of a sustainable university. By engaging students with sustainability during their post-secondary years, an entire generation of young sustainability leaders can be established.  The topic of student engagement in sustainability requires a great deal more exploration. This project will introduce the unique knowledge and experience we have as UBC student sustainability activists to the conversation. We hope to catalyze a more open and fruitful dialogue about student engagement practices at UBC and at other campuses. The scope of this project is confined to the UBC Vancouver campus sustainability movement while drawing examples from non-sustainability UBC   13 organizations and written in the hope that it can inform other universities’ sustainability work. This project is centred on two main themes: student engagement and community building. Of course, an engaged student body contributes significantly to the sense of community on campus and a strong campus community contributes to more engagement. That being said, we focused on each subject specifically in this project so as to better organize the process. As discussed in our Model for Change, students want a sense of belonging when they come to university and so the greater sense of community enhances the likelihood for students to pursue sustainability opportunities and stay engaged. In that sense, holistic student engagement is the primary aim of this project; yet, we also recognize that community building is essential to support diverse and dedicated engagement.  Increased student engagement is demonstrated by “a clear goal toward enhanced sustainability of the social environment at UBC by creating student volunteer opportunities, skill enhancement outlets for UBC students, developing leadership opportunities and providing the potential for sustained funding of student jobs [as well as those which] create social cohesion, ideally across an interdisciplinary environment” (AMS Sustainability). A “campus culture of involvement” is one of the goals in Place and Promise, UBC’s strategic plan, and this cultural shift is seen as a significant need at UBC (UBC Strategic Plan). We propose that the active creation of opportunities for students to engage with sustainability can foster this “culture of involvement” and build a strong community of student leaders.  Many higher education institutions, as well as other public and private institutions, are currently investigating how to assess sustainability management. While other frameworks exist to evaluate sustainability within various campus operations, few explicitly focus on the role of student engagement. Even those frameworks which acknowledge the importance of an engaged and inspired student body, such as the STARS program, do not fully address the characteristics of different types of student   14 engagement. We seek to expand on the existing campus sustainability literature, and develop a more in-depth process whereby post-secondary institutions can evaluate engagement efforts.  MODEL FOR CHANGE Our Model for Change is the belief that a university can actually help to foster community norms for sustainability within both the student body as well as the broader campus population, including faculty, staff, and residents.  In this project we are working to better inform the first two steps of the three step model with the understanding that the third will follow naturally. For the full cycle to take place and continually strengthen, the first step must be pursued with deliberate and ongoing support.  It is primarily through significant, ongoing and institutionalized support for student engagement from the university (such as funding, physical space, encouragement, and in-kind support) that opportunities for student engagement are created and nurtured. This engagement can take the form of peer-to-peer, faculty-student, and student-staff. Support for opportunities is the first step in fostering an engaged student body in sustainability because it creates the “space” for students to become involved in their community. The second step that we explored in our research is building the community of student sustainability at UBC. Behavior change efforts are often more successful when individuals feel a sense of identification and belonging with a community (Mckenzie-Mohr). It is therefore critical to foster a strong sense of community around sustainability engagement for student. Furthermore, student leaders are more likely to feel validated and supported in their efforts if they feel they are part of a community of student advocates. This community is fostered in part by making a wide range of engagement opportunities available on campus, which allows students to see their university experience as more multi-faceted. As such, more students become involved and the community grows and develops.    15 The third and final step is the fostering of community norms as a result of such engagement practices. As a wide range of opportunities are made available, and greater and greater numbers of students are involved, engagement becomes a community norm at the university. UBC’s Strategic Plan Place and Promise has a goal to “support student led initiatives to create a campus culture of involvement” which is very much in line with our Model for Change (UBC Strategic Plan).  As well, the university stands to benefit from engagement initiatives because “engaged students are more likely to be successful academically and socially on campus” (Astin 1984). The diagram below summarizes how this model:  Figure 1: Our Model for Change SECTION 1.4: METHODOLOGY PROJECT TIMELINE  Throughout 2011 – began discussion on the topic  January 2012 – began research on the subject through this SEEDS project FOSTERING the NORMS Students seek further opportunities in order to pursue other "facets" of the university  The high level of student engagement fosters a  community norm BUILDING the COMMUNITY More opportunities become available, and students find ways to become involved Students increasingly see the university as a multifaceted experience SUPPORT for OPPORTUNITIES Institutionalized support for student engagement Opportunities for engagement are created   16  February 16-19, 2012 – SFU Sustainable Campuses Conference took place, testing of our student engagement framework  March 10, 2012 – NOW Forum, writing of the Student Sustainability Manifesto  January-April, 2012 – informed by both formal and informal discussions with USI and Campus Sustainability Office Staff  April-September, 2012 – reports finalized and research completed LITERATURE REVIEW   The full literature review is found in Appendix A) and was conducted at the beginning of the project to better inform our research moving forward. The following excerpt summarizes the findings that were most useful throughout the remainder of the project: “In order to establish an engaged student body, however, the University itself must include sustainability in its internal value set. Shriberg presents three reasons why institutions should move toward sustainability: “(1) Morality and intergenerational equity, (2) Survival, (3) Organizational benefits and risks” (Shriberg 138-139). He goes on to expand on each of these ideas, all of which I find to be quite novel, yet may influence some decision makers depending on the context. McNamara makes a more powerful statement in the sense that universities have a responsibility to make a difference and “to educate students about environmental concerns and support the development of sustainable innovations (McNamara 48).”   These five articles provide grounding and context for the investigation of student engagement in sustainability strategies at UBC. The importance of an engaged student body is clearly reinforced by the articles reviewed as well as the unique position that universities are in to influence the future. The breadth of options without extensive evaluative mechanisms means that there is a true need for further exploration of student engagement strategies.” MANIFESTO   17 The Student Sustainability Manifesto (as found in Appendix B) was drafted by the authors of this project and then collectively edited by the attendees of the NOW forum. It is meant to be a guiding document for the UBC student sustainability movement and also an expression of students’ hopes and aspirations for their university. We wish for the administrative body to see the manifesto as supported by 14 student groups.      18 STUDENT ENGAGEMENT SECTION 2.1: INTRODUCTION  Student engagement is the basis of this entire project. This section strives to explain student engagement and its importance in establishing more sustainable campus communities. Firstly, we discuss two popular frameworks to assess campus sustainability, the C-SAF and the STARS program. Secondly, we present our framework for assessing student engagement. Thirdly, we discuss nine case studies which exemplify each component of our framework in practice and highlight successful student sustainability initiatives at UBC. Finally, we examine the workshop presented to the SFU Sustainable Campuses Conference, which served as an opportunity to test our framework with other “engaged” students and better inform our process. By discussing student engagement in both theoretical and concrete lenses, we hope to convey its importance and help create better support structures for student involvement.   Student engagement contributes to a cultural shift to sustainability on a university campus. An underlying practice of encouraging engagement at a university, as discussed in our Model for Change, creates community norms that continually reinforce sustainability. This shift in the university’s values is critical to create long-term change, rather than “one-off” initiatives which can flourish and die off easily. In its planning, the University should strive to maintain and continually strengthen the underlying basis for engagement while augmenting that programming with new and “fresh” opportunities. The key is to have new initiatives augment, not replace, the old.  To create a sense of connectivity between the breadths of programming that may exist, new initiatives should link to well-established ones. For example, when pursuing a new behaviour change (such as a transition away from bottled water), students or staff should use the same marketing and branding style as those prior so that while the desired action is new, the impetus for the campaign is clear. In this sense, quality engagement does not necessarily need to be long term but all programming needs to encompass and compliment the long term goals.  We have identified three main types of sustainability engagement which seem to occur at a post-secondary institution, each of which has varying connection to the institution itself. The first is those actions sanctioned by and fully supported by the university, which   19 primarily involve staff support and/or funding and/or in-kind support. The second is those which directly oppose a university initiative and are typically run by students alone. The last is initiatives that bridge the gap between faculty and students to take broader action. While the first two types may seem directly opposing they actually complement one another in the sense that the university sometimes needs a “push” from an opposing group to allow a more cooperative group to more successfully influence action.   We feel that UBC has made significant gains in its integration of sustainability into the campus fabric. It is seen as a leader in the field and for this reason it is critical to continually push onward (Anam et al). Student behaviour and engagement is a significant way in which UBC can influence the global community. This section will explain student engagement from our perspective as “engaged students” in great detail. Overall, though, we have found that quality engagement programs tend to be creative, unique, and exciting; are strengthened year by year but are not repetitious; and provoke thought and encourage next steps for students. Using this report, we hope to establish a strong basis upon which to begin a deeper discussion regarding student engagement.  SECTION 2.2: FRAMEWORKS There are several well-researched and widely adopted campus sustainability assessment frameworks, each of which brings different perspectives on student engagement.  However, while they all provide important visions and targets, none of them delve into the theory and practice of student engagement extensively. Below we have summarized our analyses of two particularly prominent campus sustainability assessment frameworks, highlighting where there are connections to our project. Afterwards, we propose our own framework. C-SAF In 2000, the Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework, or the C-SAF, was developed to advance sustainability efforts on Canadian campuses by providing a well-  20 researched, holistic framework that was well supported by stakeholders and applicable to all campuses.  According to the website of the Sierra Youth Coalition, who partnered in its creation and is currently spearheading its coordination, “the C-SAF is the largest scale tool of its kind containing over 170 sustainability indicators. [Additionally,] the CSAF was developed as a Master’s thesis and contains the work of 15 co-researchers who are experts in campus sustainability, and more than 130 others who helped out with advice, input, and ideas along the way” (Sierra Youth Coalition, “C-SAF”).  Considering the immense effort, rigorousness and incredible expertise woven into creating the C-SAF, it is important to take this valuable perspective into consideration for our project. The C-SAF is organized under a series of categories, with half organized under social systems / people related issues, including Health & Wellbeing, Knowledge, Community, Governance, Economy & Wealth, and the other half categorized under ecologically related issues, including Air, Water, Land, Materials and Energy. Each category has its own subset of categories with corresponding indicators and benchmarks.  Recently, there was an effort to create a briefer version of the C-SAF, to allow more opportunities for campuses under capacity and funding restraints to complete a sustainability assessment. By looking over the indicators represented in this “core” document, we can glean what the coordinators of the C-SAF consider to be priorities (Sierra Youth Coalition, “C-SAF”).  After analyzing this core document, it seems that most of the indicators listed that relate to students only relate indirectly, or have potential relation. For example, one indicator listed under “Health and Wellbeing” is “Recreation Space”. Certainly, a healthy, sustainable lifestyle requires a certain degree of recreation. However, this does not engage the student in sustainability, because there is likely nothing to ensure the   21 student is connecting the experience of recreation to the larger context of sustainability, whether in their personal life, on campus or in general. Even if there are links made, this is not a direct requirement in the way the C-SAF is formulated. Then, there are some indicators that could certainly entail student engagement in sustainability, whether by consumer choices, and/or infrastructural design, but again, this is not explicitly mentioned by the C-SAF. For example, under “Water” is the indicator “Potable Water Consumed”. Student engagement in sustainability would count here if students are practicing water conservation because they want to be sustainable, whether it is because they already have a related value system, or some campus sustainability campaign helped change their behaviour. However, a campus could also just upgrade to water-conserving infrastructure that does not interface with the public, which evidently would not propel student engagement (unless students helped implement it, or are helping to maintain it). Another example of an indicator the C-SAF lists that is important, but does not necessarily directly engage students in sustainability, is “Voter Turnout” in student elections. First of all, the act of voting does not necessarily mean the voter adequately considered their choices, nor guarantees real connection to community. Second of all, participation in student elections does not guarantee that sustainability issues were considered.  The indicator that most directly entails the engagement of students in sustainability is “Courses with Sustainability Content”, listed under “Knowledge”. However, even this is not a strong guarantee that that sustainability content is well delivered, or well received. As always, the mere existence of something does not mean it is a quality agent.  Understandably, the C-SAF is offering a way for campuses to assess their overall sustainability level as a means to acquire a more holistic understanding of where progress can and should be made. We do not perceive the creators of the C-SAF to be negligent or uncaring of students - in fact, we know that the opposite to be true.   22 However, relative to the impetus of our project thesis, it could be said that the C-SAF does not place enough priority on direct student engagement.  What we would like to say is that most of the C-SAF indicators are necessary precursors to quality student engagement. For example, volunteerism, equity issues, availability of mental health practitioners, student debt load and GHG emissions reduction are all important ingredients in the sustainability formula, and are all highlighted by the C-SAF. Other interesting indicators include:  “University Government Policies”, which provides a list of various policies, including “Community Engagement in Campus Decision-Making (both on- and off- campus) and “Long-term Campus Land-use Planning (principles of smart growth, protection of green space, design for efficiency, community engagement”.  “Wage Gap”, which suggests that the gap between the highest and lowest paid employee is no more than 10 times. It might have been strategic to also include something about providing student jobs and fair wages.  STARS The STARS program is an initiative by the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, and is described on their website as: “The Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS) is a transparent, self-reporting framework for colleges and universities to measure their sustainability performance. STARS is a program of AASHE, the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. AASHE is a member-driven organization with a mission to empower higher education to lead the sustainability transformation. AASHE defines sustainability in an inclusive way, encompassing human and ecological health,   23 social justice, secure livelihoods, and a better world for all generations. Our activities are designed to:  Make sustainable practices the norm within higher education  Facilitate institutional efforts to integrate sustainability into teaching, research, operations, and public engagement  Disseminate knowledge and best practices and promote resource sharing  Support all sectors of campus in achieving sustainability goals  Increase collaboration among individuals, institutions, and external partners to speed the adoption of sustainability practices  Influence education policy so that sustainability is a focus at local, state and national levels STARS is designed to:  Provide a framework for understanding sustainability in all sectors of higher education  Enable meaningful comparisons over time and across institutions using a common set of measurements developed with broad participation from the campus sustainability community  Create incentives for continual improvement toward sustainability  Facilitate information sharing about higher education sustainability practices and performance  Build a stronger, more diverse campus sustainability community” (AASHE, “Overview”)  The STARS framework was developed from the belief that “you can only manage what you can measure” (AASHE, “The STARS Program”). In particular, AASHE acknowledges that “sustainability is a new frontier with few established metrics” and as such, a “standard framework for measuring success is needed” (“The STARS Program”).   24 To fill this perceived gap, AASHE developed the STARS framework from 2006-2008. 70 institutions participated in the 2008 pilot, and since then, the credits and criteria have been refined, in the hopes of creating a truly representative assessment for campus sustainability. Throughout this process, AASHE prioritized the role of multi-stakeholder input and collaboration, to ensure the resulting framework was broad-based and indicative of higher education institutions across North America (AASHE, “Version 1.2 Tech Manual”).  The STARS framework analyzes campus sustainability through three main categories: education and research (ER), operations (OP), and planning, administration and engagement (PAE). Each of the categories contains sub-categories, which are assessed through a number of credits. In total, 19 credits are awarded for ER, 23 credits for OP and 25 credits for PAE. Each of the credits is weighted differently, according to the perceived importance of the indicator. Many of the sub-categories are divided into Tier 1 and Tier 2 credits. Tier 1 credits represent the most relevant indicators for a particular category, and earn a much higher number of points (ranging between 1 and 14). Tier 2 credits represent less essential, but nonetheless valuable, indicators, which each accrue 0.25 points. Each credit explains what types of activities are awarded points. Institutions are assessed for each of these credits, and receive a ranking out of 100 (AASHE, “Version 1.2 Tech Manual”). In the most recent submission, UBC received a STARS Gold rating, which requires a score above 65 (UBC, “External Benchmarks”).  The STARS program exemplifies how an abstract topic, such as engagement, may be deconstructed into specific types of initiatives, which collectively contribute to successful sustainability practices. Unlike the C-SAF, two of the STARS sub-categories are particularly relevant to the topic of student engagement with sustainability; co-curricular education and public engagement. The sub-category on curriculum is also relevant to the exploration dimension, as it directly pertains to sustainability education. However, while we address the role of sustainability education, this report is not intended to investigate best educational practices. Combined, the sub-categories for co-curricular education and public engagement contain 11 Tier 1 indicators, from which   25 student engagement with sustainability might be assessed. In addition, the co-curricular education category has 8 Tier 2 credits, while the public engagement category has 3 additional credits.  The sub-category for co-curricular education “seeks to recognize institutions that provide their students with sustainability learning experiences outside the formal curriculum”. AASHE values this type of learning because it “allows students to deepen and apply their understandings of sustainability principles” (“Version 1.2 Tech Manual”). STARS envisions institutionally-sponsored programs as the primary form of co-curricular engagement. This differs slightly from our view that exploration, which encompasses co-curricular learning, can be also led by students, as well as organized by staff and faculty.  Similarly to our principles of student engagement, AASHE emphasizes how “co-curricular sustainability offerings…help integrate sustainability into the campus culture and set a positive tone for the institution” (“Version 1.2 Tech Manual”). This emphasis on creating a culture of sustainability, and normalizing sustainable behaviours, is a primary underpinning of our model for change.  The four Tier 1 credits for co-curricular education include: student sustainability educators program, student sustainability outreach campaign, sustainability in new student orientation and sustainability outreach and publications. These indicators relate primarily to our exploration dimension, which is logical, as they are all components of education. The student sustainability educators criteria reward institutions which use peer-to-peer education to advance sustainability. We feel this is a highly valuable indicator, and address peer-to-peer education in our framework. The outreach campaign is a slightly vaguer criterion, and refers to institutional programs that “engage the student body in sustainability issues” and “advance the institution’s sustainability performance”. In the credit details, AASHE highlights how education must be the end goal of this programming. However, education is a very difficult impact to assess. Interestingly, AASHE believes “increased awareness” and “additional members of a mailing list or group” are not sufficient proof of a successful outreach campaign   26 (“Version 1.2 Tech Manual”). This debate could be developed further in a UBC-specific context.  The sustainability in orientations credit directly speaks to the need to create a culture of engagement. While orientations are not one of the case studies examined in this report, they serve as a critical opportunity to build community and emphasize the importance of engagement. This would be a worthwhile element to emphasize within the exploration or behaviour dimensions. Finally, the sustainability outreach and publications credit indicates the need to widely disseminate information about sustainability programming, so that students see that a culture of engagement exists and are able to explore ways to become involved with sustainability at their university. This credit is difficult to assess because it covers a wide range of activities, from a university sustainability website to a green-buildings tour, and much more. Some of these activities, such as the tours, pertain to the exploration dimension, while others seem to relate more broadly to marketing sustainability. We address marketing and outreach in our recommendations section; however, we do not explicitly consider information sharing about sustainability to be a type of exploration. Instead, we posit that outreach should be a part of each dimension, as students must learn about engagement opportunities before they actually participate.  The sub-category for public engagement “seeks to recognize institutions that give back to their communities through community service, engagement, and partnerships”. This set of indicators explicitly rewards engagement that bridges the divide between the university and its surrounding community. Our framework does not directly address whether students should be engaged with sustainability on-campus or off. One of the case studies, of UBCC350, examines student engagement with governance issues beyond the university. However, we decided that for the purpose of this project, it was easier to assess the impact of on-campus engagement opportunities, because these activities are directly relevant to the university. Nonetheless, we acknowledge the importance of community-based service learning, and other such partnerships between UBC and the broader Vancouver community, as integral to the exploration and implementation   27 dimensions.  Interestingly, the public engagement sub-category focuses more directly on social sustainability indicators. Two of the credits, community service participation and community service hours, reward institutions whose students volunteer for any type of non-university, community organization. AASHE believes these are valuable criteria because “volunteerism and the sense of compassion that community services help develop are fundamental to achieving sustainability” (“Version 1.2 Tech Manual” 289). Within the behaviour dimension, we touch upon the need for social sustainability initiatives, and discuss the need for a culture of student leadership, as part of the community building section. These credits serve as a reminder that social sustainability is an equally important element of fostering sustainability-minded post-secondary students.    STARS shows that measurement does not have to be quantitative; rather, engagement can be assessed qualitatively. To do so, institutions should collectively agree on what initiatives constitute a certain type of engagement, and how to report progress towards these goals. The STARS technical document outlines the rationale for each credit, the criteria to receive that credit, to which institutions the credit applies and how the credit is scored. Our engagement framework and subsequent case studies draw upon this model. The framework provides the broad categories for assessment. The description for each dimension explains why this type of engagement is important, and what initiatives the dimension might encompass. Finally, the case studies serve as examples of how the credit would be scored, as each example is recorded in the same format, with particular emphasis on outcomes. These outcomes are synthesized at the end of the section, which acts as a summary for overall engagement success.  Our report differs from the STARS methodology in that we do not assign numerical values to any of the dimensions, as we did not feel comfortable weighting the dimensions. Instead, we only suggest that exploration is the most abundant type of engagement, as it is the entry point to each of the other engagement dimensions. In addition, we did not divide the dimensions into specific initiatives that must occur as   28 part of each dimension, as STARS does with its sub-categories. We explain what a dimension looks like in practice yet chose not to mandate criteria which must be met within that dimension. As the framework is discussed and analyzed in greater depth by additional campus stakeholders, it may become desirable to develop specific indicators for each dimension. The AASHE credits related to engagement are an ideal starting point for that conversation.  OUR ENGAGEMENT FRAMEWORK   While many existing frameworks to assess campus sustainability address student engagement issues, we wanted to create a framework that specifically looks at student engagement in greater detail, as there is a lack of literature in this important subject. We also wanted to create something that best represents the rich insight we have gained as student sustainability leaders over the past half decade and stimulate further exploration into what it means to strive towards holistic student engagement for sustainability at any postsecondary institution. This framework helps qualify what it means for a student to be engaged with sustainability while attending a post-secondary institution. While the framework offers four categories of engagement, and case studies to exemplify the meaning of each dimension, we chose not to create mandatory criteria for each dimension. Student engagement is a highly difficult subject to quantify, and we struggled to determine what indicators would reflect successful engagement in each of the dimensions. Ultimately, we drew upon the insight of Harvard professor Alnoor Ebrahim, who claims that “’not everyone needs to measure impact, and that what you should measure is contingent on what you’re trying to achieve’”. He explains “’that’s affected by two things: your theory of change and your operational strategy’”.  In our model for change, the university should create multiple engagement opportunities, in order to actively cultivate a culture of involvement. The creation of multiple engagement opportunities is more of a holistic goal, and does not necessarily require a standard for applicable activities. In addition, our model for change   29 emphasizes the need for a diversity of opportunities. The four dimensions already ensure a variety of sustainability-focused programming is offered to students, without needing to produce metrics or indicators to evaluate success. Nonetheless, UBC’s operational strategy may value more robust evaluation tools for student engagement. In this case, additional stakeholders should continue to discuss applicable assessment criteria for each dimension, drawing on resources such as STARS or the C –SAF. DIMENSIONS We call our framework “the Four Dimensions of Campus Student Engagement in Sustainability”. The four dimensions include: (1) Exploration, (2) Governance, (3) Implementation, and (4) Behaviour.  Before we can tie all these dimensions together and paint a larger picture, we must first attempt to define the dimensions. Please note that the terms we have used to coin each dimension are not meant to be definitive; we have created them to be suggestive in nature. We are open to the idea that there might be words to better describe what we are trying to encapsulate, and invite suggestions and improvements. DIMENSION 1: EXPLORATION Description: Represents the reflective, contemplative, dialogic, relationship building, value-driven and visionary processes of student engagement.  Includes:  Awareness-raising campaigns  Classroom discussion  Social events  Conferences  Administrative staff participating in courses as guest speakers   30 DIMENSION #2: GOVERNANCE Description: represents the need to include students at all levels of decision-making, including at the higher levels of administration  Includes:  Campus-wide consultations for larger university issues  Student representation on decision-making committees, including sustainability related or focused committees  Voting opportunities in elections and referendums DIMENSION 3: IMPLEMENTATION Description: Represents the need to engage students in the design, planning and execution of campus initiatives, including both social, educational programs as well as infrastructural projects. This promotes a culture of collaboration and co-learning, consequently training the next generation of leaders and workers with real-world, practical knowledge, and fostering a strong sense of responsibility and accountability for campus staff.  Includes:  Student sustainability internship and paid job opportunities  Courses that employ community service learning or community-based research  Grants/funds that include/are focused on student sustainability initiatives  Formal or informal opportunities to work with staff on student initiated projects DIMENSION 4: BEHAVIOUR   31 Description: Represents initiatives that influence the daily environmental and social sustainability choices each individual makes. Environmental choices are related to campus infrastructure and ultimately result in an ecological impact / diversion. Social choices are related to the social interactions and norms that ultimately result in a culture of sustainability on campus. The two reinforce one another and are not mutually exclusive. Includes:  Student activism in social issues; awareness-raising campaigns  Action circles, interest groups, hobby-related clubs, etc.  Workshops for social, personal sustainability, health, DIY, etc. skills  Conservation contests, competitions, events, etc...  Infrastructural choices (bike lanes, compost bins, water fountains, etc.)  Alternative options at food outlets (organic, Fairtrade, vegan, etc.)  THE BIGGER PICTURE: WHY DIMENSIONS? The choice to use the term ‘dimensions’ stems from the need to communicate the implicit interconnectedness and interdependency of each of the aspects of student engagement.  In terms of interconnectedness, while there are some “near-perfect” examples that could be logically categorized into one dimension, all examples of student engagement tend to have two or more “dimensions”. For example, while participation in student elections would seem to be solely a governance activity, it offers an explorative component as well, as students explore the issues and consider all candidates prior to voting (ideally).   32 In terms of interdependency, while each dimension can be explained independently, the purpose of even defining dimensions is to highlight the importance of the whole, rather than just the sum. What we are arguing here is that, when students are effectively engaged holistically in all dimensions, a post-secondary institution will be most effective in its aim towards sustainability.  An alternative perspective could be that Exploration, Governance, Implementation and Behaviour are meant to holistically represent the engagement of students in creating a sustainable campus community from deliberation to decision-making, implementation and enacting, respectively.  In this way, one way to understand the four dimensions is that they are part of a cyclical, reflective process. Sustainability is an evolving process, at both the personal and collective level. Any implemented decision will inevitably need to be revisited, as social, economic or environmental circumstances transform through the ebb of time.  Figure 2: Dimensions of Holistic Student Engagement SUBSTANTIATION OF HOLISTIC STUDENT ENGAGEMENT   33 What does this engagement model mean, in real terms? How many students need to be engaged? Does each student need to be engaged in all four ways and to what degree?  In light of UBC’s target to reduce GHG emissions by 100%, this would necessitate active engagement from all members of the campus community. Indeed, while not necessarily everyone needs to comply with the rules of the game, we think it is quite obvious that the majority of students need to be engaged. Not only do students need to be engaged holistically as a collective, but they also need to be engaged holistically as individuals; the individual is inevitably tied to the collective. It would be inaccurate for a postsecondary institution to claim they are holistically engaging their students towards a sustainable campus if they have initiatives that engage students in all of our dimensions and yet, do not meaningfully engage those students in anything substantive. It is critical to have student engagement initiatives of high quality, rather than just large quantity.  For example, it is hypocritical for an institution to claim they have engaged their students in a consultation if no students attend, or if the methodology does not actually translate the student voice into real considerations in the final decisions. It is more important to have one quality consultation that engages a representative number of students and translates their voices into transparently communicated ends, rather than numerous consultations that produce no meaningful results. Inevitably, these ideals can be difficult to realize. Even if a consultation is well designed and the largest outreach efforts were conducted, it is a failure if no students come. This is a systemic, complex issue. In order to ensure quality student participation in consultations, students need to have an inherent interest in being involved in the first place. This is a challenge nested deep within the structures of the university, and the culture of society itself. As most students are only at university for four years, they might not have a long-term vested interest in the university’s affairs. Furthermore, even if students did want to participate in a consultation, their course schedule and general   34 life demands might be inhibiting factors. Lastly, students may feel the issues being discussed are too complex and too large for them to meaningfully contribute an informed, well-considered opinion. We are by no means experts on consultations, so our ability to provide constructive feedback on this specific topic is limited. But we do have a few ideas. What if active participation in democratic processes and decision-making were an inherent aspect of a student’s academic life? What if classrooms were re-designed to be integrated in campus community life? What if students changed the world from the classroom? Engagement with governance, as well as with the three other dimensions, offer a unique opportunity to reconsider what it means to be a student, and where and how learning take place within the university.  STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AT A PERSONAL LEVEL As one means of supporting holistic student engagement, we also explored supplementary models. The primary model which we pursued both in research and workshops was the concept of a pie chart which represents the typical student’s areas of activity in their daily lives. We would call this model a “Pie Chart for a Sustainable Life” as it strives to portray how sustainability can be infused into all aspects of a student’s life. The inspiration for this assessment came from the UBC Health and Wellness   35 Department’s model, as seen here:                            Figure 3: UBC Health and Wellness Quiz We ultimately decided to postpone further development of this particular framework because it requires extensive research into health and wellness literature and, if such a chart were developed for UBC, large amounts of additional buy in from previously uninvolved stakeholders. AN ASSESSMENT OF UBC ’S STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN SUSTAINABILITY Now that we have provided a holistic framework with which to define effective student engagement in sustainability, it is important to go through the exercise of elaborating what this means in a real-world case study. In the following sections we will explore how UBC measures up to the Four Dimensions, and provide some insight into where the institution is most successful, as well as which areas could use further growth. Overall, we think that UBC has one of the most holistic student engagement enterprises in the world. Over the past decade, significant strides have been made to   36 engage students more frequently and more meaningfully. These case studies prove that some students feel a strong degree of engagement with the university, and are motivated to contribute to a better, more sustainable campus.  SECTION 2.3: CASE STUDIES INTRODUCTION Student Engagement Case Studies - Our Experiences The following section describes and illustrates our insight on the various initiatives with which we have been involved. While we consider some of these initiatives to be quality examples for our framework of student engagement dimensions, we also recognize that other student groups and initiatives may better exemplify the dimensions. We offer these case studies as good examples, not necessarily best practices.  Each initiative may fall under more than one dimension, but we chose to categorize them based on what we deem are the strongest connections.  Case Study #1 (Exploration) – UBCC350’s Storm the Riding  Case Study #2 (Exploration) – Chew On This  Case Study #3 (Exploration) – eARTh Festival  Case Study #4 (Governance) – Waste and Water Action Plan   Case Study #5 (Governance) – Climate Action Plan  Case Study #6 (Implementation) – SEEDS  Case Study #7 (Implementation) – AMS Sustainability Projects Fund  Case Study #8 (Behaviour) – UBC’s Got Skillz  Case Study #9 (Behaviour) – Do It In The Dark Residence Energy Competition CASE STUDY #1 (EXPLORATION) – UBCC350’S STORM THE RIDING Introduction   37 Storm the Riding was an innovative event organized by UBCC350, which aimed to mobilize students in political activism against proposed oil pipeline projects in BC. Specifically, the event rallied students and Point Grey community members together to go door-to-door in Christy Clark’s riding (Vancouver-Point Grey); asking voters to sign a petition demanding the premier oppose the Enbridge pipeline. Project Specifics UBCC350, or the UBC Community for, is a newly-formed collaboration between UBC students, faculty and staff who support “meaningful climate action” (UBCC350). The group was formed after Bill McKibben, the founder of, visited UBC in November 2011. aims to build a “global grassroots movement to solve the climate crisis”, and has received recent publicity for its instrumental role in mobilizing opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline ( In his presentation, McKibben emphasized the unique role BC stands to play in the global effort to combat climate change, as current pipeline proposals will export large amounts of oil, and subsequently GHG emissions (Harrison 1). He further called upon the UBC community to embrace a spirit of activism, and stand together to oppose these developments. UBCC350 was a unique outcome of this event. Rather than students getting fired up together, and professors turning to further research opportunities, the two joined forces to work on a compelling joint interest. Two of the primary gaps identified by this group were: 1) a lack of awareness amongst UBC students of proposed carbon export projects and 2) a lack of meaningful opportunities to combat pipeline developments. To address these needs, UBCC350 hosted an information session on March 8, in part to recruit volunteers for the March 31st Storm the Riding event. How it fits under our framework   38 We see the work of UBCC350 as predominantly an exploration-focused form of engagement, both in terms of its external and internal dynamics. Externally, the information event, as well as Storm the Riding promotional work, focused heavily on educating fellow students about the pipeline proposals and the importance of collectively acting against them, through the political process. The group’s internal dynamics also fostered a unique form of collaboration between faculty and students. Meetings and event planning allowed group members to learn about these issues outside of the classroom from rigorous academic sources (the faculty) in more of a casual setting. The Storm the Riding event, in particular, also relates to the governance dimension. While the governance dimension calls for students to be an integral part of all levels of university decision-making, it could also be argued that engaging students in political action beyond the campus also instills a sense of agency within our democratic system. By educating students about how grassroots activity, like door-knocking and informing voters about key issues, can affect decision-makers, UBCC350 is fostering an understanding of broader governance processes and encouraging political action beyond the campus borders. Anticipated outcomes Storm the Riding had primary aims: 1) To strengthen opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline project, by working strategically within the political system. Specifically, the group identified Christy Clark, as a linchpin decision-maker in the pipeline approval process, and knew that the best way to influence a politician is to rally opposition amongst voters in her riding. 2) To build community amongst the various, disparate opponents of oil infrastructure development at UBC, and in the Point Grey community. Many   39 students and faculty read about these issues, but feel uncertain how best to take action between election periods. Storm the Riding rallied these potential advocates to a common cause, and in the process, sought to renew a sense of community amongst climate activists at UBC. In particular, UBCC350 and the Storm the Riding event emphasized the power of personal, face-to-face interactions in movement-building (Price), hence why the group chose to door-knock to reach out to voters. Actual outcomes Storm the Riding effectively drew 190 climate activists out on a rainy Saturday morning. The group primarily consisted of students, from both local high schools and UBC, but also included various other community members who were inspired by the event’s purpose. As an exploration activity, this made the event highly successful, as large numbers of people were willing to move from discussion of pipeline developments to action. The event was also a successful tool for engagement through exploration because it challenged traditional boundaries of students working with students, professors only teaching in the classroom, and the Point Grey community being separate from the UBC community. In so doing, the event was able to foster broader discussion, draw together larger numbers of advocates, and have greater impact beyond UBC borders. The event was featured extensively in local media (Pacheco-Vega). This coverage is a testament to the group’s ability to engage students through climate activism, and the relevancy of this discussion. It also speaks to the need for exploration to sometimes move beyond the classroom, into the broader community, as it can be very rewarding for students to see that the issues they learn and care about resonate with the public outside of UBC.   As a governance-related activity, Storm the Riding was also incredibly empowering for all students involved. From anecdotal evidence, all student attendees saw this as   40 a unique and rewarding experience, particularly because of the community built through proactive political action.   Figure 4: UBCC350's Storm the Riding event (Photo Credit: UBCC350) On a personal level, the knowledge that a group of concerned citizens can collect over 2000 signatures in one morning, and receive such extensive media coverage in so doing, is both saddening but also supremely heartening. I feel saddened because the media is surprised by such committed youth involvement in the political process. However, the event was also inspiring, as it helped transform so many students from learners into confident political advocates. Some question whether academics should take such political stances, and actively call upon their students to do likewise (Hoberg). However, with young voter turnout at a record low (Menard), and with the university’s commitment to develop critical-thinking, engaged citizens (UBC,   41 “Student Learning”), surely this type of initiative should be seen as a positive one, if it enables students to apply what they learn and engage in a democratic process. In particular, it addresses a typical criticism of university students, as being unwilling to engage in issues beyond simple “clicktivism” (Kendzior). This type of faculty-student partnership serves as an accessible vehicle for students to become more meaningful participants in the democratic process. CASE STUDY #2 (EXPLORATION) – CHEW ON THIS Introduction Chew on This Week was a collaborative series of event co-hosted by Common Energy UBC, Oxfam UBC and CUS Sustainability. The week ran from Feb 13-16, and over the course of these 4 nights, offered different perspectives on the issues of sustainable food and food security. The three aforementioned groups chose to collaborate on this event as a result of one of the USI’s student meetings, facilitated by Kshamta Hunter. During this meeting, the representative from CUS Sustainability expressed interest in engaging the Sauder community with the topic of sustainable food, which was often thought of as irrelevant to business students. Rosalind and Quinn, representing Oxfam and Common Energy respectively, seized on this opportunity to draw new audiences to a discussion about food security, and the implications of this concept in various realms of society. Project Specifics Chew on This was a truly collaborative and multi-stakeholder initiative. The three campus groups which produced this event are all student-led organizations. Common Energy UBC, as mentioned in the introduction, is a group of “diverse and forward-thinking individuals working to incorporate sustainability into all aspects of the UBC community” (Common Energy UBC). Oxfam is an international social   42 justice organization that works to build “lasting solutions to global poverty and injustice”, through supporting “organizations in poor communities overseas in their struggle to secure basic [human] rights” (Oxfam Canada). CUS Sustainability is the sustainability committee of the Commerce Undergraduate Society. Their vision is to “fill the sustainability void within the CUS and ultimately within fostering and developing an understanding of sustainability among Sauder students as they transform into tomorrow’s business leaders” (CUS Sustainability). As the week’s programming was established, other partners were approached to provide funds and services. These include: Irving K. Barber learning centre, UBC Food Services, the AMS Sustainability Fund and Sprouts. In terms of programming, the organizers decided to examine these issues from the angles of business, local, national and global, through a variety of presentation formats. We decided to present these topics firstly at a local level, and then build towards a national and global understanding of food security and its implications. The week began with the business night, featuring a traditional lecture from Annie Moss and Randy Hooper, founders of Discovery Organics and Chef Steve Golob from Place Vanier Residence. The business perspective was a particularly crucial element, as we wanted to present a “business case” for sustainable food, in the hopes of translating these issues into the “language” of Sauder students. During the local night, UBC Sprouts facilitated an interactive food mapping workshop, which helped students to connect the dots between their food and its origins, and better understand the implications of our individual food choices. The national night featured a panel discussion between food security experts of various backgrounds. The final evening engaged students in a discussion of global food security, through Oxfam UBC’s “Hungry 4 Change” dinner. This meal, by dividing attendees into high, middle and low income groups and feeding them accordingly, aims to foster reflection and dialogue around inequities in the global food system.   43 How it fits under our framework Chew on This week primarily serves as an exploration initiative, as it seeks to foster dialogue and discussion around a sustainability topic. In particular, we aimed to provide multiple formats for this discussion, to accommodate different learning types and maximize the event’s appeal to the student body. The event also has the potential to catalyze behaviour change. The exploration of food and choices regarding food is a highly personal subject, with clear and direct implications for students’ own consumption patterns (Shepard). As such, this event helped bridge the often-present gap between exploration of a topic, and any subsequent impact on behaviour (McKenzie-Mohr). Anticipated outcomes Overall, we aimed to provide attendees with an opportunity to reconsider their perspectives on the various issues related to food security and sustainable food, by unpacking some of the hype and confusion often surrounding such topics. We sought to market the event in an innovative and engaging manner, in order to reach out to students typically uninvolved in sustainability-related discussions. We also hoped to set a precedent for collaboration among student sustainability groups, by co-hosting an event of this scale and scope. Actual outcomes Chew on This was an effective engagement initiative for a number of reasons. An important measure of success for an event seeking to foster dialogue is the number of individuals participating in the discussion. Chew on This drew in over 200 students over the course of the four events. Hungry 4 Change, in particular, attracted high numbers of attendees, because an instructor offered credit to students in his ESL course to attend the event. Not only   44 was this a unique way to diversify students’ learning opportunities, it also brought an audience to the event who might not have typically engaged with this kind of programming. The high attendance also speaks to students’ appetite for this type of discussion, and emphasizes that food-related initiatives provide an ideal opportunity to draw students into a broader sustainability dialogue. Finally, the event fostered important collaborations between the co-hosts, which contributed to further partnerships beyond the event. For example, Oxfam and Common Energy coordinated a flash mob to promote fair trade purchasing during UBC’s first “Fair Trade Week”, held from March 5-9. The two groups were invited to participate partly due to a strong partnership formed with UBC Food Services, during the planning of Chew on This week. Chew on This was therefore also successfully set a precedent for successful collaborations within the UBC sustainability community. CASE STUDY #3 (EXPLORATION) – EARTH FESTIVAL Introduction eARTh was a festival to celebrate sustainability in the arts both through a month-long art display in CIRS (the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability, the most sustainable building in North America) as well as a performance show featuring dance, spoken word, and live music on the opening night. Project Specifics The eARTh festival was organized by the Dialogue team of Common Energy UBC. eARTh began on March 7th with the opening show and the start of the physical displays (which concluded on April 6th). The purpose of eARTh was to open up interaction with the ideas around sustainability to the fine arts community and to creatively explore the concept of sustainability. The Festival also included a more   45 academically minded “sustainability in the arts” panel discussion and a showing of the film Manufactured Landscapes. How it fits under our framework eARTh fits most clearly under the “exploration” component of our model. This is because it allows for students who are not typically involved in sustainability to interact with the topics and have an introduction to the topic through a forum which may be more appealing to them. It also is a more traditional form of creative exploration for the artists who submitted work for the three week display or who performed at the opening show. As well, eARTh allowed for exploration for those who interacted with the art pieces throughout the three week show period simply by being in CIRS. While CIRS is already a space on campus where many sustainability-minded students, faculty, and staff work and spend time it is also a space frequented by other students because of the 450-person lecture hall on the main floor. This meant that all of the students who attend lectures in the building were also exposed to an artistic expression of sustainability. For some, this may have resonated in such a way that they felt inclined to continue learning and exploring the topic further. For others, it may have simply augmented their present understanding and that is still satisfactory because the ultimate goal of the “exploration” component is to simply give an opportunity to expand one’s horizons and look at an issue from a new perspective. In this sense, while many of the people using space in CIRS likely already have an understanding of sustainability, eARTh allowed them to view sustainability from a new perspective. eARTh also utilised the CIRS building in a way that it had not been used before. The interaction of the fine arts with the sciences and humanities through eARTh allowed for greater exploration in sustainability. Anticipated Outcomes   46 The sustainability community at UBC must continue to strive to be open and accessible to a wide range of people, not just those who are already engaged. It is only through wide-scale involvement that campus-wide (and broader) change will ever occur. The eARTh festival was meant to open up the dialogue around sustainability to the fine arts community on campus. For many, environmental issues can appear to be a very daunting topic and so by ensuring that there are a number of different entry points to the discussion increases the accessibility of the sustainability community at UBC. eARTh brought together a number of artists including individuals from the UBC community as well as the broader Vancouver area. The display of art in a public space through the use of CIRS as a creative form was also an anticipated outcome of the eARTh festival.   Actual Outcomes The feedback from the eARTh festival was overwhelmingly positive. Many felt that it was the first time that a campus event had explicitly connected sustainability with the arts. The opening night was a success with almost 100 in attendance for the opening night. The performances included interpretive dance, spoken word poetry, and musicians. The next three weeks, of course, had a number of students, faculty, and staff view the installation art as well as read the accompanying artist statements for each piece. Overall, this event was a great success in bringing a “new” community into the discussion about sustainability at UBC and beyond. The level of community engagement was immense in terms of connecting local artists with UBC students and also having community members attend the opening event. eARTh successfully opened the conversation about sustainability and created space for creative exploration. CASE STUDY #4 (GOVERNANCE) – WASTE AND WATER ACTION PLAN   47 Introduction As part of UBC’s ongoing efforts to reach its sustainability goals, a Water and Waste Engineer was hired at the Sustainability Office to develop and ultimately implement campus Waste and Water Action Plans. Project Specifics In the beginning stages of developing the Plans, consultations were organized, including a full-day workshop and open house in early 2011 to get input from the UBC community. Each consultation drew between 40-80 participants, including staff, faculty, students, residents and others, who participated by sharing their visions, ideas and priorities. After the consultations, next steps were to convene 6 different working groups to further refine the Plans. These working groups varied between waste and water issues, technical and behaviour change issues, and different stakeholder groups. As of April 2012, the Action Plans are still under development, with the working groups still giving feedback. How it fits under our framework While students have not been directly involved in the bottom-line decision-making for the two Action Plans thus far, the initiative to develop the waste and water action plans has deliberately included them all along the way. Students were invited to attend the community consultations as well as to act as representatives on the working groups. What differentiates these activities from what one might consider principally as “Explorative” student engagement, is the explicit intention and context behind why they have been set up: ultimately, to make decisions on how UBC should implement a campus that employs sustainable waste and water practices. Additionally, while this is not completely clear to us, final bottom-line decisions will be made by the University Sustainability Initiative Steering Committee, which   48 includes a student with voting power. Information on that particular student, the degree to which they are able to best represent the interest of students, and whether or not that student has much influence on the committee is unknown. Ideally, however, decisions are made by consensus, and that student is well versed in sustainability and well connected to students in the community. Our impression is that it has been set up for success in this way. We know that the student is also part of a Student Advisory Committee who selects among themselves a Chair, who also acts as representative on the Steering Committee, and thus, has the responsibility to consult the student committee prior to Steering Committee decision meetings. While the students of the Advisory Committee are not elected by students, they are selected via application, which sets criteria ensuring the student is a strong representative of their peers and can navigate sustainability issues competently. Anticipated & Actual Outcomes and Overall Discussion As none of our team has been involved with the core organizing of the Waste and Water Action Plans, and since the Plans have yet to come to fruition, it is obviously difficult to reflect on why the process was successful. However, it can be said that the process has thus far been successful because all stakeholders - students and administration alike - have been deliberate about engaging themselves and each other toward a meaningful purpose. CASE STUDY #5 (GOVERNANCE) – CLIMATE ACTION PLAN Introduction In 2007, a group of students from the newly formed Common Energy UBC began approaching key UBC staff with an idea.  UBC would commit to going beyond climate-neutral.  It would launch a collaborative planning process to decide on the actions to achieve this goal.  The UBC administration eventually agreed, and Liz Ferris was hired into the Sustainability Office to create the UBC Climate Action Plan (CAP).   49 Project Specifics The CAP was created through a broadly participatory collaborative planning process.  Two well-attended workshops brought together a large cross-section of the UBC community create a vision for the plan.  With this vision in place, issue-specific working groups were formed to develop strategies to achieve that vision.  Those strategies were pulled together into a draft plan that was sent back out the UBC community for feedback.  The UBC Board of Governors then adopted the revised draft and an implementation plan was created. How it fits under our framework The CAP is an excellent example of governance engagement.  The fact that the administration responded to student interest by the creation of the process was evidence of willingness to engage with student priorities.  The process itself allowed for relatively low-barrier participation in vision formulation, and worked with Common Energy UBC to conduct outreach to students.  Multi-stakeholder working groups conducted the more technical and effort-intensive work of strategy formulation.  Through CAP process, a substantial minority of the UBC population was engaged in making an important set of collective decisions.  Anticipated Outcomes UBC is on track to achieve a 33% reduction in GHGs below its 1990 baseline by 2015.  The CAP has had considerable success in driving climate action at UBC, and some projects, such as the energy-saving steam-to-hot-water conversion were financed when they might not otherwise have been.   Figure 5: The UBC Climate Action Plan (UBC Climate Action Plan)   50 CASE STUDY #6 (IMPLEMENTATION) - SEEDS Introduction The SEEDS program “brings together staff, faculty and students to work collaboratively on the development and implementation of projects that apply the “Campus as a Living Lab” concept and address real-life campus sustainability challenges” (SEEDS Program). The SEEDS acronym refers to social, ecological and economic development studies. The program provides students with an opportunity to receive credit for investigating sustainable solutions for the UBC campus. While over 700 SEEDS reports have been produced since the initiative’s inception in 2000, this report will assess the program’s role as an engagement tool through the experience of Angela and Rosalind, who co-authored a report on marketing sustainable drinking water in 2010. Project Specifics The SEEDS program is coordinated and supervised by the campus sustainability office. The program coordinators “match staff and their project ideas with faculty and students...looking for applied, accredited research opportunities, and provide ongoing support to the team throughout the project” (UBC, “SEEDS”). Alternatively, students can approach the sustainability office with a prospective topic to research, and the SEEDS coordinators can link them to relevant departments who may value their research. Students either receive directed studies credit or undertake these projects as part of a course requirement.   In the case of Angela and Rosalind, both were involved with Common Energy’s efforts to transition UBC away from bottled water sales and consumption. Initially, the group relied on volunteers to lead outreach and education efforts to fellow students. However, while these tactics may have had some impact on student behaviour, they were deemed insufficient without broader institutional support for   51 sustainable drinking water practices. In addition, as the educational outreach was a volunteer effort, it was often stymied by over-burdened, overly-busy student schedules. In the face of these realities, Angela and Rosalind decided to approach the sustainability office, to see if staff would support and make use of student investigations into the bottled water issue. The initiative was deemed SEEDS-worthy, due to staff buy-in from the waste and water engineer at the sustainability office and from AMS and UBC Food Services, the two UBC-controlled food providers on campus. As a result, Rosalind and Angela researched and developed a social marketing plan to transition the UBC community away from bottled water, allowing them to infuse their existing advocacy efforts with academic insight. How it fits under our framework SEEDS projects are a highly tangible example of the implementation dimension. The program enables students, staff and faculty to go beyond simply exploring sustainability improvements and actually test these ideas. The program is a particularly effective means of engaging students through implementation. It gives purpose to their education and demonstrates their research output is actually valued. In particular, students can prioritize the development and realization of ideas to enhance campus sustainability, as this activity no longer detracts from time devoted to academics. SEEDS also consists of a strong exploration component because students explore more thoroughly the academic underpinnings of potential sustainability projects, and in the process, gain a greater understanding of various aspects of the sustainability “puzzle”. Anticipated outcomes   52 The SEEDS program aims to provide students, staff and faculty to collaboratively research and implement sustainable innovations at UBC. In so doing, the program strives to facilitate more productive solutions than if these three parties worked independently. For staff, the program offers the chance to academically inform existing or potential operational work. For faculty, SEEDS offers a chance to actively help shape a more sustainable campus and to enrich curriculum with applied research opportunities. Finally, the program enables students to enrich their educational experience. Students are able to combine learning about sustainability issues with meaningful, applied research. Overall, the program also intends to build working relationships amongst staff, faculty and students which would not otherwise have existed. Actual outcomes SEEDS’ success as an implementation initiative is best captured by the program’s own description: “UBC SEEDS is Western Canada’s first academic program that combines the expertise and commitment of staff, the academic and research experience of faculty, and the energy and enthusiasm of students to integrate sustainability on campus. Since 2000, SEEDS has produced over 700 student reports and engaged over 4,000 participants in developing and implementing a wide variety of sustainability projects on campus.” (“SEEDS”) From Angela and Rosalind’s experience, the program is highly successful in achieving its aims. The project afforded a highly meaningful educational experience, especially because their voices were given equal weight to those of the staff partners in an important campus decision. Both students appreciated this aspect of the SEEDS program, as they were able to forge new relationships with a variety of campus staff, which made the university seem more personable and accessible. The project also allowed both students to hone their research skills and techniques,   53 which is a strong resume asset. In particular, as committed student sustainability advocates, Angela and Rosalind appreciated the opportunity to combine a project of considerable personal interest with their academic workload, to enrich their educational experience and help avoid burnout. CASE STUDY #7 (IMPLEMENTATION) - AMS SUSTAINABILITY PROJECTS FUND Introduction The AMS Sustainability Projects Fund was initiated in September 2011 to advance the implementation of sustainability goals on campus by supporting the work and innovation of students. Between annual student fees and partnerships with the UBC office of Campus and Community Planning and the University Neighborhoods Association, there was approximately $120,000 available through the fund for the 2011/2012 academic year. Taking into account overhead, outreach and administration costs, there was actually $90,000 available for student projects. Project Specifics Understanding the need to provide more financial opportunities for student-run sustainability initiatives and spark further innovation, Justin Ritchie, the AMS Sustainability Coordinator, successfully spearheaded the creation of the fund. After conducting research of similar initiatives, he worked with the AMS Executive to pass a larger referendum that proposed increasing student fees, a percentage of which would go towards the Sustainability Projects fund. Through effective strategizing and marketing, the referendum passed, resulting in $2.25 from each UBC student towards the Fund! After the fund was officially passed by the AMS, partnerships were quickly formed with Campus and Community Planning, as well as the University Neighborhood Association, both of whom contributed more funds to ensure some projects would focus on issues in their respective spheres. How it fits under our framework   54 The most prominent dimension of the AMS Sustainability Projects Fund is Implementation, as the main mission of the Fund is to facilitate and enable students to implement projects that will make a real difference on campus. In the application process, students must identify how their project addresses sustainability issues in the following categories: (1) Reduction of Ecological Footprint, (2) Increased Student Engagement, (3) Education and Outreach, (4) Sustainability and Feasibility, and (5) Impact at UBC. Another strong dimension of the Fund is Governance. The Fund is overseen by a committee of multi-stakeholder representatives from the University Sustainability Initiative, the AMS, and student leaders at-large, totalling 7 committee members (excluding the AMS Sustainability Coordinator, who acts as a non-voting facilitator). Of the 7 committee members, 5 are students, and decisions about funding projects are made by consensus. Anticipated outcomes The goal of the Fund is to distribute all $120,000 towards student sustainability projects in one year cycle, and ensure all areas of the fund criteria are robustly represented, as well as the specific target areas of funding partners, UNA and C+CP. Actual outcomes As of April 2012, or eight months into the year cycle, project proposals have totalled $80,000, with approximately $47,000 successfully funded. Projects were diverse and innovative, engaging many students and reaping tangible outcomes. A final showcase was organized to celebrate a successful first year as well as recognize the efforts of the students. Students who received funding were given the opportunity to present their project, after which the audience voted on their favorite projects. The top two projects, as selected by the audience, were rewarded with an all-paid trip to the renowned AASHE Conference (Association for Advancing Sustainability   55 in Higher Education) to present their project to a larger North American network of campus sustainability organizers. The winners included UBC’s Got Skillz (see Case Study #8) and UBC Solar, the latter of which involved engineering students designing a solar-powered vehicle to participate in international competitions. CASE STUDY #8 (BEHAVIOUR) – UBC’S GOT SKILLZ  Introduction UBC’s Got Skillz is a series of workshops that aim to equip students with concrete skills to lead more sustainable, lower-footprint lives. However, the series also aims to inspire students to take greater ownership over their consumption habits, by embracing a DIY ethic, which can ultimately contribute to greater community resiliency (Pargam).  Project Specifics The UBC’s Got Skillz series was developed and co-ordinated by the Tangible Solutions team of Common Energy UBC. Rosalind was inspired to lead the initiative after realizing her own lack self-sufficiency, which she felt directly conflicted with her desire to consume less and rely less on unethical multinational corporations. As the leader of the Tangible Solutions team for that year, Rosalind drew together a number of keen advocates to help make the project a reality. The team researched and contacted various groups on and off campus that offer re-skilling workshops. Some of the groups contacted included Village Vancouver, the Urban Herb School, the Environmental Youth Alliance, UBC Farm and contacts within the Faculty of Land and Food Systems. The eventual suite of workshops was a confluence of other organizations’ availability, perceived student interests and a desire to partner to offer peer-led programming. The following is a list of the workshops; in the order they were offered:   56  Holiday gift-making workshop, hosted by three students from the Student Environment Centre  How to knit, hosted by Nabil Fadai, a Residence Advisor in Totem Park Residence  How to fix your own bike, hosted by Bike Kitchen volunteers  How to brew your own beer, hosted by Connor Wear, a Land and Food Systems student  How to find medicine in nature, hosted by Matthew Kemshaw from the Environmental Youth Alliance  How to repurpose clothes, hosted by Jenny Liu, a Tangible Solutions team member  How to preserve food, hosted by Caitlin Dorward, a former Land and Food Systems student How it fits under our framework UBC’s Got Skillz predominantly falls under the behaviour dimension of the engagement framework, as the skills relate to personal choices students can make. The workshops introduce students to alternatives to conventional purchasing and in so doing, encourages them to change their consumption and waste behaviours. In particular, the series aims to maximize the appeal of this type of behaviour through innovative marketing techniques and eliminating the typical financial barrier to student participation. Got Skillz also doubles as an exploration initiative, as the workshops alone cannot guarantee that students adopt these behaviours. At the very least, it serves as an opportunity for students to learn about these alternatives, which can be drawn upon when they decide to make lifestyle changes (Mobilizing for Climate Action). Anticipated outcomes   57 Attempts to create a sustainable community often focus heavily on what people do wrong, or on the perceived problems in the current system. “UBC’s Got Skillz” aims instead to show how people can be a part of the solution, rather than an obstacle. The inspiration for this project is drawn from the concept of “re-skilling” (Pargam). Equipping people with basic skills, such as how to make your own cheese or beer, how to repair your own clothes or bike or how to make your own household cleaning products, is often seen as unnecessary nowadays. Task specialization is seen as the superior option. However, the re-skilling movement argues that given the likelihood of future resource scarcities, and the benefits of reducing consumption, skills such as these are in fact highly beneficial. And the sooner we acquire them, the sooner we can create a more sustainable society! One that buys less, consumes and produces fewer chemicals, throws away less and feels more empowered to take care of themselves, in a low-footprint manner. “UBC’s Got Skillz” therefore offered workshops to students that enable them to either a) consume less b) waste less and/or c) consume smarter. In so doing, the project also sought to draw together various stakeholders in UBC’s campus sustainability movement. The various sustainability-focused groups on campus often lack co-ordination and effective collaboration. This can lead to programming overlap and to reduced impact than if efforts had been combined. By uniting different groups in a common aim, we hoped this initiative would create opportunities for dialogue between different groups and spur further collaboration. Actual outcomes UBC’s Got Skillz was a highly successful initiative in a number of respects. In terms of attendance, the series engaged over 100 students through the seven workshops, and would have drawn even greater numbers if certain workshops did not have registration limits. From anecdotal evidence while promoting the series, students were enthusiastic about all the skills on offer. The brewing and natural medicine   58 workshops received the strongest interest. While the brewing workshop’s success is unsurprising, the immense success of the natural medicine workshop speaks to students desire to take a more holistic, self-sufficient approach to their health and relationship with the natural world. The link between environmental sustainability and personal health is thus a potentially powerful lever to affect behaviour change in students, as has been corroborated by other studies (Shorne and Marx, 13).  Timing was a considerable source of debate for the Got Skillz organizers. It was difficult to establish whether students preferred midday or evening workshops, as midday would hypothetically be more accommodating of commuter students. Meanwhile, some students might see evenings as a more typical time to attend workshops and longer events. Both the bike repair and canning workshops were offered in the evenings, and were filled to capacity. However, the lunch-time and afternoon workshops also received strong attendance. Ultimately, it was decided that timing did not significantly impact Got Skillz’ appeal, as students seemed equally interested in these skills and concepts regardless of the time of day offered. The only consideration worth mentioning is that workshops over two hours are better suited to the late afternoon and evening, as students are usually reluctant and/or unable to devote such an extensive amount of class-time hours to an extracurricular activity. CASE STUDY #9 (BEHAVIOUR) – DO IT IN THE DARK  Introduction Do It in the Dark is an energy reduction competition lasting three weeks which takes place in UBC’s first year residences, Place Vanier and Totem Park. It is organized in collaboration between the Common Energy UBC Challenges team, the Campus Sustainability Office, and RezLife. Project Specifics   59 The purpose of Do It in the Dark is to reduce energy consumption in residence through fun and innovative programming that both fosters a sense of community in residence while also pushing behaviour change through community-based social marketing. Do It in the Dark first took place in November 2010 in Totem Park residence, followed by a competition in Place Vanier in March 2011, and then the competition encompassing both residences in November 2011. The first competition included both Canada and the USA and was overseen by the Campus Conservation Nationals, an American competition run by Lucid, while the next two only included BC institutions and was overseen by goBEYOND, a BC-wide climate action network. In the most recent competition, in November 2011, 41 buildings across 6 post secondary institutions participated. Totem Park, at UBC, finished in 1st place for energy reduction while Place Vanier finished in 3rd place in the involvement category. The competition encompasses a number of community-based social marketing driven events and promotions to encourage residents to reduce their energy consumption. Events include “Dine in the Dark” at which time all lights in the Dining Hall are shut off, boothing to talk to residents about the competition, and other fun promotions (Runkle).  How it fits under our framework The component of our model under which Do It in the Dark best fits is Behaviour Change. Whilst students are involved in the planning and implementation of the competition, the basis of Do It in the Dark is to encourage peer-to-peer transfer of knowledge about sustainable behaviour. Behaviour Change is a significant step in choosing a sustainable future. Through the Do It in the Dark energy competition, the entire residence community is able to develop new, more sustainable, norms for energy consumption.   60 Anticipated Outcomes Of course, the most highly anticipated outcome is a reduction in energy consumption during the competition period as well as an overall energy reduction as a result of changed habits after the competition. The competition goes beyond the actual energy reduction because it actively uses events based on building community. Actual Outcomes The Do It in the Dark energy competitions are an innovative way to communicate to students the importance and the relative ease of behaviour change in regard to energy consumption. The fall 2011 competition’s winning house was Haida (in Totem Park) which actually reduced its overall energy consumption by 27.7% (Long, 3). As mentioned previously, Totem Park finished first in regards to energy reduction and Place Vanier finished third in the involvement component of the competition.   As well, the online campaign was significant during the Fall 2011 Do It in the Dark competition. By incorporating a Facebook App called “My Everyday Earth” (or MEE), students were able to also engage with the competition online through video blogs (vlogs), talk to your politician campaigns, tracking one’s own commitments and actions, and sharing the information with others online. During the competition the likes on the Do It in the Dark Facebook page rose by 147 and the posts were viewed 23,727 times.  The poster campaign complemented the branding of Do It in the Dark and presented energy-saving tips in fun and refreshing ways. They played off of “themes” from first year student experiences like the Freshman Fifteen and RezLife. The opening campaign also included a promotion with glow in the dark condoms with the Do It in the Dark dates and logo printed on the side of the package.   61 To increase interactivity in the competition, there was also an opportunity for residents to make their own suggestions for energy reduction. These included “turn off the lights, unplug my appliances, unplug chargers when not in use, take the stairs, study in common places, limit laptop use” (Long, 3-4).  The Do It in the Dark energy competition is an example of behaviour change through community-building. The competition gives students the tools and encouragement to change their own behaviour in terms of their energy consumption. Through programming like the Do It in the Dark competition, it is truly possible to alter how particular communities behave. CONCLUSION  These case studies are examples of each of the dimensions of our student engagement framework and, as such, serve as a model for examining engagement on university campuses. The overall recommendations that result from these case studies’ best practices can be found in the “Recommendations” section later on in this report. Overall, these case studies allow sustainability practitioners at post-secondary institutions to better understand the nature of each dimension, as they provide examples of strong engagement practices for each dimension.  SECTION 2.4: SUSTAINABLE CAMPUSES CONFERENCE The Sustainable Campuses Conference (SCC) is an annual gathering of student sustainability advocates from academic institutions across Western Canada. The conference is organized by the Sierra Youth Coalition and the goBEYOND project. The Sierra Youth Coalition coordinates the Sustainable Campuses initiative, which, since 1998, “has worked with thousands of students from across Canada in order to: change environmental and social practices on Canadian campuses and empower youth to influence decision makers”. However, this year’s conference was largely directed by the goBEYOND Campus Climate Network. goBEYOND seeks to engage “students, faculty, staff and community partners at post-secondary move schools beyond   62 climate-neutral”, meaning schools take “responsibility for [their] social and ecological impacts while taking the opportunity to create climate change solutions” for the broader community.  Together, the two organizations produced the SCC, which was held at Simon Fraser University and centered on the theme of “Campus as a Living Lab”. The conference programming focused on how campuses can “move from places of learning about sustainability, towards learning by doing” (Sustainable SFU), which fit nicely with how our project was using directed studies credit to enhance student sustainability initiatives at UBC. As a result, the three of us were given the opportunity to consult other student leaders at the conference as part of a concurrent workshop session. For the purposes of this section, we have chosen to refer to the workshop process as “consultation.” The consultation aimed primarily to facilitate a dialogue among these student leaders regarding the types of engagement with sustainability on their campuses and what role they see for a framework to evaluate those opportunities. We also used this occasion to test our facilitation skills and hone workshop techniques before conducting the UBC-specific manifesto discussions. METHODOLOGY "Participation works best when people feel that they can make a difference, when they have the time to fully engage with the issues, and when there is a healthy relationship of mutual respect. It works worst when it is rushed, ill-informed and vague about the links to formal decision-making or when it allows the loudest voices to dominate." Geoff Mulgan, Involve Chair, United Kingdom. Community engagement and participatory decision-making are fields of extensive scholarly research. Numerous resources and guides seek to establish ‘best practice’ for both processes; the above quote is a sample contribution to the debate. However, despite the extensive range of available literature, our consultation development and implementation was informed primarily by two sources: the Sierra   63 Youth Coalition’s “Multi-Stakeholder Guide” and Good Practice Participate’s Guide to Community Participation. As mentioned above, the Sierra Youth Coalition “acts as a networking and resource centre for youth aged 15 to 30 concerned about environmental and social justice issues” (“About Us”). Good Practice Participate is an online resource centre provided by the New Zealand government that “guides public servants and others on ways to follow good community engagement practices” (Office for the Community and Voluntary Sector).  We drew upon both resources in order to incorporate some broad-based and some campus-specific tools. Good Practice Participate encompasses a well-researched, widely-applicable set of principles to ensure inclusive and participatory decision-making. The work we do ultimately contributes to building a stronger public institution (UBC); hence we felt it would be worthwhile to draw upon public sector literature on the topic. However, we wished to specifically consult students on how to engage other students, during their time in higher education. For that reason, we chose to draw upon the SYC, as the organization is a strong authority in the campus sustainability movement and has an extensive body of knowledge in this field. Overall, this section aims to provide insight into how to effectively consult with students and build community through that process. We hope our experiences help inform future student-focused workshops and consultations. WORKSHOP FINDINGS   Feedback Action Taken Is the framework only meant as a tool for student groups? We acknowledged that the exploration- governance- implementation- behaviour cycle exists at many levels in a university, and that student groups and university operations would likely benefit from working to engage their peers   64 with all 4 dimensions through their work. However, we emphasized that the engagement work of staff should link with the engagement efforts of students, to feed into the same overall cycle of building a more engaged and sustainable campus.  Is the process of exploration- governance- implementation- behaviour always a linear one? (Do all initiatives have to follow that order?) Some participants seemed confused as to whether this was an evaluative framework, or whether this was a prescription of steps to follow (from exploration to behaviour) to create a more sustainable campus. We clarified that a campus would be most effective in engaging students if initiatives addressed all 4 of the dimensions, but that student advocates could focus initially on any one of the dimensions. We merely created this order because exploration is often the first step, and behaviour change is typically the end goal of any campus sustainability effort.  Once staff members have implemented physical infrastructure changes, how do students engage with these developments/ use them to inspire behaviour change? This question did not directly relate to the effectiveness of our framework as a tool, but was a reasonable query nonetheless. We addressed this concern by emphasizing the framework’s cyclical nature. Even if an initiative has been implemented, there may be a need for further exploration initiatives (what is the purpose of this new building? what can we do with it?) or governance activities (what role do students play in deciding the building’s uses?) that can strengthen the capacity for a physical structure to engage students.    65 The framework is more of an evaluative tool, not as accessible to new students We initially presented the framework as something student leaders could use to assess the state of their campus sustainability efforts. However, given the proper clarifications, the framework could be used by new students to understand how they can become with sustainability at UBC (or another university). For example, 1st year courses, the Sustainability Education Resource Centre, the involvement fairs in student residence, etc. could explain to students how they can maximize their sustainability involvement at UBC by seeking opportunities in all 4 circles.  Exploration and implementation are often “bottom up”/grassroots, but governance often remains admin-driven; how do we change this? We sought to address this concern by emphasizing how students can be involved with the governance dimension, and by explaining that student control over decision-making is built over time, through participation in lower-level, lower-stakes decisions. We also emphasized that communication is an integral part of the framework. Students and staff should communicate about initiatives in every dimension, and about whether the current mix of activities effectively contributes to holistic student engagement. In other words, the sustainability “community of practice” at post-secondary institutions should be founded on a principle of open communication between staff and students, because once this norm is established, students can discuss possibilities for more meaningful   66 governance engagement.  To bed noted: the unique nature of student engagement with governance is addressed in the framework section.   EVALUATION How do you know if your process is effective in achieving your goals? Here are some examples of outcome criteria that can indicate a successful multi-stakeholder process (Sierra Youth Coalition, “Multi-Stakeholder Guide”):  Criteria Extent to which reflected in workshop Increases the sense of community, trust and unity of the group or committee Some extent- The workshop offered quite an intimate setting for discussion, as there were only 15 students in attendance. As a result, students had a greater ability to have meaningful dialogue with one another and learn about other campuses’ initiatives in greater depth. These discussions may have fostered ongoing relationships amongst various campus sustainability advocates; however, we have no means of attributing this outcome to our workshop.  Nonetheless, the Facebook group created for all conference attendees remains active two months after the conference, and provides at least a basic network for ongoing idea-sharing, networking and community-  67 building.  Have support of management (even in principle) that can be substantiated with action Some extent- The conference itself had the support of SYC and goBEYOND staff, and students who wished to initiate projects as a result of attending the conference could receive resources and guidance from those networks. However, our framework was presented as an evaluative tool, for students to use in conjunction with administration, to help implement more comprehensive sustainability programming. In that regard, our workshop had no way of ensuring administrative buy-in at attendees’ home universities, which could make it more difficult to implement governance or implementation-style initiatives  Face-to-Face communication is well coordinated, facilitated and maximized Large extent- The workshop drew extensively on dialogue and discussion, in order to ensure multifaceted learning opportunities. The workshop included group brainstorming, small group discussions and reporting back to the larger group, as well as full group discussion, which was guided by questions from the workshop facilitators.  Produces information and decisions that all the committee stakeholders understand and accept Large extent- In order to ensure attendees felt comfortable with the idea of a framework, we prefaced the workshop with small group discussion about the types of engagement students saw at their campuses.   68 This segued into a discussion about how engagement could be made more effective through categorization. After we presented our framework, we allowed ample time for attendees to ask questions and strengthen their understanding of how the framework could be used. As such, all attendees seemed accepting of the purpose and uses of our framework.  Produces agreements that recommend actions Some extent- The framework was clearly presented as a tool for attendees to use at their own campuses, to assess current engagement opportunities and determine potential gaps. However, several of the attendees expressed uncertainty around which dimension was the “most important” and what type of engagement was most valuable to initially prioritize. This confusion could lead to reduced uptake of the framework’s message, if students feel they lack the resources to infuse sustainability into all aspects of campus life.  The learning and change are shared beyond the individuals in the committee or group Not explicitly- it is probable but not certain this occurred. The framework was certainly offered as a tool for students to enhance the breadth and quality of opportunities on their campus for students to engage with sustainability programming. However, whether this tool is actually used depends on attendees’ ongoing interest in the notion of holistic engagement, which would determine their eagerness to share their learning    69 Sets in motion a cascade of changes in attitudes, behaviours and actions, spin-off partnerships and new practices Not explicitly- the workshop could catalyze change if, as a result, one of the student attendees decided to re-assess engagement strategies on their own campus and address weaknesses and gaps. However, this impact is not a direct outcome of the workshop, as it depends on students’ intrinsic willingness to implement similar initiatives once they return to their respective campuses.  Furthermore, no system was implemented to monitor ongoing use of the framework on other campuses, making it difficult to draw linkages between workshop material and future developments on other campuses. This is one aspect of the workshop design which could be improved in the future, to ensure more effective follow-up and ongoing resource-sharing.  Improves the ability of the entire campus community to be more effectively responsive to change and conflict Some extent- This workshop allowed student sustainability leaders to reflect on the current state of programming and opportunities at their respective campuses. By gaining a better understanding of existing initiatives, these campus sustainability movements are better placed to develop and expand, and can more effectively respond to institutional changes     70 COMMUNITY BUILDING SECTION 3.1: INTRODUCTION This project’s emphasis on community building stems from the recognition that a) attitudes and intentions regarding sustainability often do not translate into sustainable behaviour and b) that a sense of community is needed to foster a culture of involvement. In regards to the first aim, research has shown that individuals are more likely to make sustainable choices if they are supported by a community of like-minded individuals (Shorne and Marx). It is therefore important to focus on community-building if we hope to engage students not only with the exploration dimension, but also with behaviour and implementation.  As student leaders in the UBC sustainability community, we perceived a lack of cohesion and formalized collaboration amongst this community. Efforts to build community can create more effective engagement initiatives. However, it has a number of co-benefits for UBC’s social sustainability. If students find a strong, supportive community of like-minded individuals, they are more likely to feel a sense of belonging at university, and to assume leadership roles. Through these experiences, students become invested in the betterment of the university, because they feel a sense of ownership in the campus.  It is for these reasons that we organized the NOW Forum, and examine community building strategies within this section.  SECTION 3.2: NOW FORUM  The NOW conference was first offered in 2010, to engage students in a dialogue about the “no other world” concept, through various presentations and workshops. In 2011, the workshop doubled as the Western Canada Sustainable Campuses’ gathering. In 2012, the conference evolved once again, as student leaders saw a greater need to build capacity within the UBC student sustainability community, rather than offer informational workshops, as the Sustainable Campuses conference had just taken place   71 in February. Common Energy UBC and UBC Sustainability Connection, which were the two groups responsible for organizing the NOW forum, opted to advertise the Sustainable Campuses conference to all students, as a chance to learn about the “university as a living lab” theme, and decided to use NOW as a skills-building and community-building opportunity for sustainability student leaders.  Why community-building for student leaders? One of the greatest weaknesses of the student sustainability movement at UBC, as identified by members of both organizing groups, is a lack of clear communication and co-ordination between various initiatives. In particular, while the movement may implicitly share a common vision, there is no official understanding about the details of that vision, and how the different groups contribute to realizing these aims. As such, NOW organizers invited representatives from all of the sustainability student groups on campus, as well as other relevant stakeholders and student leaders, to discuss common needs and goals, with the hope of agreeing on a shared purpose and collaboration strategies.  METHODOLOGY In order to focus this discussion, Rosalind, Quinn, Angela and Spencer drafted a student manifesto, which encapsulated their visions for UBC and its student sustainability community. The manifesto’s content was drawn from each student’s experience with sustainability at UBC. Through their combined experiences, the four students were able to identify some key characteristics of a sustainable future UBC. In addition, the four offered suggestions as to how the UBC sustainability community could more effectively work towards this shared vision of a sustainable future.  The manifesto is envisioned as a living document. The text was open to revision from all other student sustainability leaders, during the conference. Once a text was agreed upon, the document would be used as an overarching vision statement for all student sustainability groups, as a means to guide future initiatives and introduce new students to the community norms of the UBC student sustainability movement.    72 FINDINGS/EVALUATION  Criteria  Increases the sense of community, trust and unity of the group or committee Large extent- The NOW forum was an important milestone in the development of a UBC student sustainability community. Student leaders were brought together to build a common vision, which would enable more effective collaboration and programming in the future. New relationships were formed between attendees, both between groups and between individuals, helping to build trust within the community. In particular, the manifesto discussion strengthened students' unity, as it provided a common vision from which to develop future initiatives.  Have support of management (even in principle) that can be substantiated with action Large extent- The NOW forum was supported by the USI and AMS Sustainability, two important bodies that oversee sustainability affairs at UBC. Kshamta Hunter and Justin Ritchie attended the forum, as representatives of these organizations. Hunter oversees   73 student engagement with the USI. As such, she demonstrated clear support for the forum's purpose, as a community-building opportunity, and for the manifesto's intent, which bodes well for conference follow-up.  Face-to-Face communication is well coordinated, facilitated and maximized Large extent- The NOW forum sought primarily to enhance the skill-set and build relationships amongst sustainability student leaders. For this reason, face-to-face communication was prioritized throughout the day. The workshop on personal narratives, led by Miciah Prull from the David Suzuki Foundation, allowed students to share their “sustainability story”. This process helped students better understand one another's experiences, which helps strengthen relationships within the community. In addition, the manifesto was discussed through small-group dialogue, thereby ensuring all students' voices were heard.    74 Produces information and decisions that all the committee stakeholders understand and accept Large extent- The manifesto discussion involved multiple levels of discussion. Attendees discussed their own visions and values, independently of the manifesto text, and then dissected the manifesto content, in small and large group discussions. This process ensured that all attendees' voices were heard and that they supported the final manifesto content.  Produces agreements that recommend actions Large extent- The workshop design purposely scheduled time for a discussion of next steps, to ensure the visioning session had lasting impact. During that dialogue, student leaders discussed how they could be better supported as a community, and what procedures should be implemented to ensure information-sharing and collaboration continues between groups.    75 The learning and change are shared beyond the individuals in the committee or group Some extent- The manifesto is intended to be a values and visions document that student leaders use to guide their own clubs' activities, and as an introductory read for new student advocates. However, because the manifesto text was not finalized during the forum, groups could not share it at that time with their membership. In the fall semester, Quinn will table the manifesto during the USI-sponsored community meetings, to re-establish these common visions and ensure that clubs make use of the document.  Sets in motion a cascade of changes in attitudes, behaviours and actions, spin-off partnerships and new practices Some extent- The forum set a precedent for how student sustainability leaders could interact and work with one another. Participants greatly appreciated the skills-building component of the day, which could be an initiative the USI spearheads, in order to support engaged students. As a result of the discussion about community visions and norms, students were better placed to implement joint projects. In particular, the emphasis on   76 relationship-building enabled new partnerships and idea-sharing.  Improves the ability of the entire campus community to be more effectively responsive to change and conflict Large extent- Well-qualified and well-supported student leaders are more able to create resilient organizations and lasting change. In particular, the manifesto sets a precedent for discussing and developing common values and visions, which allows for more purposeful and goal-oriented programming. This kind of programming helps the sustainability movement to be more effective as a whole.       77 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are a culmination of all components of this project. They are divided into “student engagement” and “community building” and have brought together realisations both from our own case studies (found in the “case studies” section) and an investigation of other successful UBC student organizations (found in Appendix E).    STUDENT ENGAGEMENT LESSONS FROM OUR CASE STUDIES & OTHER UBC ORGANIZATIONS  1. Collaboration is fostered at many stages of the project a. This is exemplified by: i. UBCC350 – students and faculty working together ii. Chew on This – Common Energy UBC, Oxfam UBC, and Commerce Undergraduate Society Sustainability, with support from IKBLC, UBC Food Services, and AMS Sustainability Fund iii. UBC’s Got Skillz – coordinated by Common Energy UBC (funded by the AMS Sustainability Fund) and brought together a variety of organizations from across campus to teach the “skills” iv. SEEDS – staff, faculty, and student partnerships v. Do It in the Dark – brings together RezLife, Common Energy UBC, the Campus Sustainability Office, and goBEYOND 2. Student-Driven and Peer-to-Peer a. Chew on This – educational opportunities created for students by students in an out-of-the-classroom setting b. UBC’s Got Skillz – peer to peer hands-on education c. Can be accomplished by showcasing the work of other students i. AMS Sustainability Fund Showcase ii. eARTh   78 d. Other UBC examples: i. The Global Lounge is completely staffed by students with one full time employee for support 3. Creates opportunities for professional development a. Student-led events and teams (Common Energy initiatives like eARTh, Do It in the Dark, and UBC’s Got Skillz) b. Hones the ability to pitch an idea (AMS Sustainability Fund) c. Contributes to a better work/academic/personal life balance for students (SEEDS) d. Other UBC examples: i. Global Lounge has student-led professional development days ii. UBC Rec pays honorariums to Directors of each Rec team to create a more formal and supported commitment 4. Blends old and new initiatives  a. A strong basis of programming is critical while it is also important to build upon new channels b. The strong basis is maintained through quality long-term partnerships  c. New initiatives can be formed with well-established  “non-sustainability” communities on campus (Chinese Varsity Club, Ski and Board, Greek Life, like what Sustainability in Rez has done) 5. Challenge traditional notion of education in a classroom a. Recognize learning outside of the classroom by: i. Giving credit for attendance at other events on campus ii. Having professors encourage students to act on theory learned in class iii. Improving and expanding opportunities for community based learning b. Faculty and student interactions i. Working together on initiatives ii. Helps students to feel like a valued learning partner   79 iii. Professors are encouraged (and rewarded) for outside of classroom interaction with students c. Greater support for new courses so as to allow for more professor-led course design and restructuring 6. Explicitly includes students a. In terms of governance processes, make it clear that students are desired participants not barriers b. Make all consultations extremely accessibly 7. Marketing and Outreach a. Marketing and promotion are important when engaging students with each of the dimensions. Some strategies include:  Designed to appeal to students as both the general student body and targeted communities  Multiple avenues of information – could require student team in charge of promotion and outreach (UBC Rec) o Tabling, posters, social media, classroom announcements, campus newsletters o Widespread advertisement of sustainability opportunities is critical to fostering a norm of sustainability engagement, because students become aware of the diversity of sustainability programming on campus, and it ensures interested students find relevant ways to become engaged   Targets new communities  Creates unique and fun experiences for students, such as concerts (Earth Hour), flash mobs (Fair Trade Week) etc   Free 8. Instills a sense of community a. See next section!    80 COMMUNITY BUILDING LESSONS FROM NOW! CONFERENCE  1. Institutionalize sustainability through a sustainability club manifesto 2. Build a peer-to-peer community of practice which would call upon club executives to meet minimum once per month (during the school year) to better coordinate programming, increase collaboration, and build mutual support  3. Establish a physical space for the student sustainability community to interact, share ideas, and have a sense of belonging a. It would be worthwhile to consider re-working the Grad Student space to function as a “Global Lounge” space for sustainability groups. i. Sustainability ambassadors could have similar role as Global Lounge Assistants 4. The continuation and expansion of USI-supported community gatherings with greater emphasis on professional development and skills building a. Incorporate sustainability ambassadors into these networking meetings. At the first meeting, they can use the manifesto as a starting point for discussion about values and visions for the year, and at subsequent meetings, evaluate progress on these common goals. In this way, the manifesto will become a living document and continue to create unity amongst the student sustainability community. b. Use engagement framework within these meetings to assess breadth of current programming and identify areas where groups could collaborate to provide more engagement opportunities 5. Regularly scheduled informal social gatherings styled after Green Drinks events which are a feature of the Connecting Environmental Professionals Network (and have been run by both the Environmental Sciences Students Association and Common Energy in the past)    81 LESSONS FROM OTHER UBC ORGANIZATIONS  Physical student-run space with extended hours, work space for multiple groups, and storage (Global Lounge, UBC Rec)  Student staff tasked specifically to organize information and idea-sharing, as well as social activities (Global Lounge, UBC Rec)  Student retreat to facilitate team bonding and peer-to-peer collaboration(UBC Rec)  Several small teams, but all part of overall, unified organization (many different positions available through which students can volunteer) (UBC Rec)   Bi-weekly meetings of representatives to network and share ideas (Global Lounge representatives)     82 WORKS CITED, About. 2012. Web. 20 April 2012.  AASHE, About, 2012. Web. 1 May 2012.  AASHE. Overview. STARS, 2012. Web. 27 February 2012.  AASHE. Version 1.2 Technical Manual. STARS, Feb. 2012. Web. 8 March 2012.  Ackerman, Josef Daniel, Marena Brinkhurst, Gillian Maurice, and Peter Rose. “Achieving campus sustainability: top-down, bottom-up, or neither?” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 12.4 (2011): 338-354.  AMS Sustainability,, Web, May 1 2012. Anam, Tracy, Cindy Chao, Beatrie Lamoureux, and Jasmin Logg-Scarvell. “Cultivating Green Student Engagement: Exploring Leading Practices of Student Engagement in Sustainability at the University of British Columbia and Australian National University, with Recommendations made to the University of Toronto.” Centre for the Environment, University of Toronto April 14, 2009: 1-166. Astin, A.W. (1984). Student Involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.About. Oxfam Canada, 2012. Web. 26 April 2012.  Astin, Alexander. “Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.” Journal of College Student Development 40.5 (1999): 518-529.  Brunetti, Anthony J, Royann J. Petrell, Brenda Sawada. “SEEDing Sustainability: Team project-based learning enhances awareness of sustainability at the University of British Columbia, Canada.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 4.3 (2003): 210-217.  Common Energy UBC, About. 2012. Web. 26 April 2012.    83 CUS Sustainability, About. 2012. Web. 26 April 2012.  goBEYOND, About us. 2012. Web. 26 April 2012.  Good Practice Participate. Ready Reference Engagement Guide. The Office for the Community and Voluntary Sector, 2012. Web. 24 March 2012.  Hanna, Julia. The Hard Work of Measuring Social Impact. Harvard Business School, 14 June 2010. Web. 17 April 2012.  Harrison, Kathryn. Backgrounder on Carbon Exports. UBCC350, 2012. Web. 20 April 2012.   Hoberg, George. Can College and University Campuses become Nodes of a more Formidable Climate Movement? GreenPolicyProf, 12 March 2012. Web. 20 April 2012.  Kendzior, Sarah. “The Subjectivity of Slacktivism”. Aljazeera, 5 April 2012. Web. 22 April 2012.  M’Gonigle, Michael and Justine Starke, Planet U: Sustaining the World, Reinventing the University. Victoria: New Society Publishers. 2006. Print. Mckenzie-Mohr, Douglas. “Promoting  Sustainable Behaviour: An Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing”. Journal of Social Issues  56.3 (2000): 543-554. Web.  McNamara, Kim H. “Fostering Sustainability in Higher Education: A Mixed-Methods Study of Transformative Leadership and Change Strategies.” Environmental Practice 12.1 (2010): 48-58.  Menard, Marion. Youth Voter Turnout in Canada- Reasons for the Decline and Efforts to Increase Participation. Library of Parliament Research Publications, 20 April 2010. Web. 19 April 2012.    84 Mobilizing for Climate Action. Video- M4CA Keynote Panel with Tom Crompton & Susanne Moser. Climate Access. The Social Capital Project, 2012. Web. 16 April 2012.  Orr, David. “What is Education For?” The Learning Revolution (1991): 52-59.  Pacheco-Vega, Raul. Galvanizing Social Change: A Perfect Example through Storm the Riding. Hummingbird 604, 2012. Web. 19 April 2012.  Pargam, Daniel. The Great Reskilling. Energy Bulletin, 17 Jan. 2010. Web. 18 October 2011.  Price, Matt. Revenge of the Beaver: Building Power in the Age of the Canadian Culture War. Climate Access, 2012. Web. 12 Feb. 2012.  Runkle, Quinn. “Do It In The Dark: Energy Competitions as an Effective Means of Student Engagement around Energy Consumption.” UBC SEEDS Library 2011: 1-64.  SEEDS Program,, Web, 15 February 2012. Shepard, Richard. “Social Determinants of Food Choice”. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 58 (1999): 807-812. Web.   Shorne, Debika and Sabine Marx. “The Psychology of Climate Change Communication”. Centre for Research on Environmental Decisions, 2010. Web. Nov. 2010.  Shriberg, Michael. “Sustainability management in campus housing: A case study at the University of Michigan.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 1.2 (2000): 137-153.  Sierra Youth Coalition, About us. 2012. Web, 30 April 2012.  Sierra Youth Coalition, C-SAF Tool,, Web, 5 March, 2012.  Sustainable Campuses. Sierra Youth Coalition, 2012. Web, 28 April 2012.    85 Sustainable Campuses. The Multi-Stakeholder Planning Guide. Sierra Youth Coalition, n.d. Web. 25 March 2012.  The University of British Columbia. External Benchmarks. UBC Sustainability, 2012. Web. 27 February 2012.  The University of British Columbia. Student Learning. Place and Promise: The UBC Plan, 2011. Web. 4 April 2012. The University of British Columbia. The SEEDS Program.  UBC Sustainability, 2012. Web. 15 April 2012.  UBC Climate Action Plan,, Web, 20 April 2012.  UBC Health and Wellness Quiz,, Web. 12 April 2012.  UBC Strategic Plan,, Web, April 10, 2012.  UBCC350,, 2012. Web.  20 April 2012.  Western Canada Sustainable Campuses Conference 2012. Sustainable SFU, 2012. Web. 23 April 2012.        86 APPENDIX A: LITERATURE REVIEW INTRODUCTION  Universities are agents of change, they can act as living laboratories and testing grounds for new theories and they directly influence the upcoming business leaders, politicians, and change-makers. Engaging students in the university is a critical strategy for building environmentally sustainable campus communities. An engaged student body alters the norm for how students interact with and react to their university. In the article “Cultivating Student Engagement,” Anam, Chao, Lamoreux, and Logg identify a serious gap in best practices research on student engagement strategies (16). As well, the authors recognize that there are no indicators or measurement tools for evaluating student engagement in sustainability (22). Given these factors, there is presently very little research on the specific topic of student engagement for the purpose of fostering sustainable communities. Therefore, this literature review strives to examine the specific information provided by each paper for the purpose of informing the further exploration of comprehensive engagement planning at the University of British Columbia.  STRATEGIC PRINCIPLES FOR STUDENT ENGAGEMENT As discussed by Anam, Chao, Lamoreux, and Logg in their article “Cultivating Student Engagement”, student “engagement refers to making students understand environmental issues, internalize the responsibility to act and cause them to perform environmentally-conscious behaviours” (15). In order to fulfill this goal, each author demonstrated specific principles to guide the pursuit of an engaged student body. The main principles described include: taking a passive or active approach; the question of top-down, middle-out, or bottom-up programming; and the format of targeting places   87 where students already engage (for example, residence). Each of these principles can be useful in considering the best student engagement strategies for a campus.  1. ACTIVE VERSUS PASSIVE ENGAGEMENT Anan et al identify two main sources of engagement: active and passive:  “Active sources include direct actions and opportunities such as environmental events that promote awareness and outreach to students’ motivations. On the other hand, passive sources are indirect measures that facilitate the internalization of green behaviours, such as a built university environment that contains visible recycling bins.” (15) This differentiation is important to consider because ultimately, a campus community should incorporate both. Active and direct engagement is what changes the mindset of the student body, and then passive and indirect engagement actually allows students to fulfill sustainability-minded actions.  2. BOTTOM-UP, MIDDLE-OUT, OR TOP-DOWN Both McNamara and Ackerman et al also emphasize that student engagement opportunities must not only exist but truly engage. They describe institutional change as being most effective through “bottom-up” or “middle-out” initiatives rather than “top-down” (Ackerman, Brinkhurst, Maurice, and Rose 338-354, McNamara 48). Top-down programming is when changes are mandated by the university. While change is rapid, it is often championed by one individual and so can be short-lived. In terms of engagement, top-down programming would be if a university makes particular programming mandatory (for example, a required first-year sustainability course). This is ineffective because it does not allow students to have ownership over their engagement and does not result in meaningful behaviour change. Bottom-up programming, on the other hand, is completely overseen by students such as student campaigns and clubs. Bottom-up programming is strong in the sense that the students   88 are fully engaged and have full ownership but it can suffer due to lack of resources and high turnover. With university support, however, bottom-up programming can be highly effective. Overall, though, middle-out programming can be the most effective. Institutional change championed by faculty and staff (the university’s “middle”) lacks the problems of high turnover and ultimately integrates sustainability into the day-to-day function.  3. ENGAGE STUDENTS WHERE THEY’RE ALREADY ENGAGING By engaging students through their normal day-to-day activities, a university can better integrate sustainability into the norms of student life rather than differentiating it. Brunetti et al and Shriberg strongly argue that engagement can (and should) take place within spaces that students already engage and present arguments behind academic engagement and engagement in residence, respectively. Introducing students to sustainability in spaces where they are already engaged and comfortable normalizes sustainable practices and increases engagement of those on the “fringe” of who may become involved.  THE STUDENT ROLE IN FOSTERING SUCH CHANGE The student role is through the fact that:  Successful student-led campaigns build support for new initiatives and apply pressure for change in university policy and operations, which are later implemented by administration, faculty, staff and sometimes students. The scope of these initiatives varies widely, from specific targeted campaigns, such as recycling or reusables promotion, to calls for deep and sweeping change in policies or systematic campus operations. Student-led campaigns can be catalysts for impressive change. (Ackerman et al 342-343)   89 This clearly defined role of the student is a critical component of fostering change in a university because, ultimately, if there is no student demand for change, it may not occur. SPECIFIC ACTIONS  The exact structures recommended by each article vary greatly but the core message remains the same: universities must act deliberately to create opportunities for engagement and create space and support for student-driven initiative. Anam et al take a comprehensive approach and made recommendations across many aspects of student life. The recommendations made in their paper were based off of using UBC and the National University of Australia for examples of “best practices”. The recommendations included: 1. Student organizational support (a strong and autonomous student union) 2. Visibility of sustainability efforts (synergy of sustainability efforts) 3. Extra-curricular influences (an umbrella organization) 4. Passive organizational support (commitment from upper-level administration) 5. Curricular influences (more curricular choices for engaging all students) 6. Rewards/incentives (a range of incentives for student engagement) 7. Support a green built environment (green buildings, infrastructure and systems) (Anam et al v-vii) As a result of the fact that UBC was one of the model universities, many of the factors are actually already in place. However, it is still of value to place UBC in the spectrum of sustainable universities to better understand what is admired and mimicked by other campuses. While UBC is considered to excel in all seven areas, it is still useful to consider those as the components of UBC’s sustainability that are most valued abroad and that   90 seem to foster the most change. By taking note of these, UBC is able to build on the each topic and further foster change in the university. These authors also suggest that a connection with nature will inherently lead to a more engaged student body because of a “social appreciation and [..] link with nature” (Anam et al 34).  They recommend enabling students to connect with nature as a tool for better sustainability engagement. Ackerman et al envision universities as spaces for “vision and action from the institutional “bottom”” through student initiatives (Ackerman et al 342).  These areas are: sustainability curricula; student engagement in sustainability initiatives; sustainability research; sustainable campus operations; sustainable energy; sustainable transportation; and the investment of endowment and/or foundation monies in sustainable investment funds (McNamara 52). The examples presented by Brunetti et al and Shriberg, as mentioned previously, identify specific projects that bring students into the campus sustainability movement. Brunetti et al describe the successes of the UBC SEEDS (Social, Environmental, Economic Development Studies) program which provides UBC Sustainability Office staff with students who conduct research about campus sustainability issues and gain course credit for their work (Brunetti et al). This innovative type of student engagement is just one example of the progress UBC has made, yet there is still a lot of progress yet to be made. Shriberg describes the case of student housing at the University of Boston and the way in which it has championed innovative student engagement strategies. Not only was the residence itself sustainably-minded, but the housing department also led the university to conduct a “theme semester” on the environment which incorporated a sustainability component into all programs that semester (Shriberg 143). The key factors behind sustainability initiatives of any sort, whether to do with student engagement or not, according to McNamara are “the development of a sustainability plan, the formation of a skilled leadership group, a large and broad base of supporters, and a strong and varied system of institutional supports for the sustainability initiatives” (8). These key factors for action effectively create a framework within which engagement strategies can be implemented. The   91 variety and extensiveness of student engagement strategies in these articles exemplify the range of possibilities for UBC.  THE IMPORTANCE OF ENGAGING STUDENTS The importance of engaging students is clearly the most prominent message in each article. They each present the values behind an engaged student body. “Within universities, students are the most important group to study because they form the largest population and have the most stakes in the future (Anam et al 9).”   All of the authors emphasize the importance of student engagement whilst presenting a wide variety of forums through which to do so. Whether through residence, academic pursuits, student initiatives, or many more (volunteer work, employment, and research opportunities) the consistent message is that no matter how it is achieved, an engaged student body is critical to a campus’ success in moving toward sustainability.  CONCLUSION All of the authors reiterate the unique position of universities in their ability to influence change. This messaging of a university as a living laboratory and as institutions strategically placed to make a difference are ideas common throughout all campus sustainability literature. In order to establish an engaged student body, however, the University itself must include sustainability in its internal value set. Shriberg presents three reasons why institutions should move toward sustainability: “(1) Morality and intergenerational equity, (2) Survival, (3) Organizational benefits and risks” (Shriberg 138-139). He goes on to expand on each of these ideas, all of which I find to be quite novel, yet may influence some decision makers depending on the context. McNamara makes a more powerful statement in the sense that universities have a responsibility to make a difference and “to educate students about environmental concerns and support the development of sustainable innovations (McNamara 48).”    92  These five articles provide grounding and context for the investigation of student engagement in sustainability strategies at UBC. The importance of an engaged student body is clearly reinforced by the articles reviewed as well as the unique position that universities are in to influence the future. The breadth of options without extensive evaluative mechanisms means that there is a true need for further exploration of student engagement strategies.     93 B: STUDENT MANIFESTO FOR SUSTAINABILITY (DRAFT) By 2050, we must have transformed many of the deeply rooted structures of society to avoid the worst effects of climate change, poverty, and other catastrophes.  By 2050, most current undergraduates will be approaching retirement.  This is truly the challenge of our generation, the challenge to which the UBC sustainability movement must rise.  The question is how. Through transforming our campuses, we can transform society.  Our post-secondary institutions train the next generation of leaders, shape patterns of thought, and have substantial direct economic impact.  They also have a mandate for exploration, a degree of independence, and a history of fomenting social movements.  Changing campuses can change the world. Thus far, UBC has emerged as a world-renowned leader in campus sustainability. With an ambitious Climate Action Plan, the world’s most sustainable building, the UBC Farm, high-level administrative buy-in through the University Sustainability Initiative, the first campus Fairtrade Certification in Canada, a gold rating in the S.T.A.R.S. framework, and much more, there is no doubt that UBC is on the cutting edge of campus sustainability initiatives and innovation.  These successes should be celebrated. However, much of the toughest work still lies ahead. UBC must find the courage to challenge is unsustainable practices, even those closest to the heart of what it does.  UBC will need to fully embody the living lab concept. The campus is “not just a site for making protests, but a place for creating precedents” (M’Gonigle and Stark, 9). UBC will need to harness the collective power of its own campus and local community in order to be an agent of change on the global scale. As student leaders in the sustainability movement, we believe that the following are the core qualities required to see the UBC campus through to its vision, the   94 functional characteristics inherent in a culture of sustainability at a post-secondary institution:  Exploration  We need to be changing the world directly from the classroom. Students must not only be learning about sustainability in the classroom, but they must also be actively solving real problems on campus and in the community.  Implementation Whether it means energy efficiency or water management, the campus must be working towards doing more to solve the problem than to cause it. The university must act as a test bed, a living laboratory for solutions that can be adopted by other communities.   Governance Those who are affected by a decision should have opportunities to influence that decision. Participatory decision-making processes should balance efficiency and timeliness with dialogue and participation. The sustainability movement should reflect the actual diversity of the UBC demographic. We will constantly ask ourselves “Who is not in the room”? Why are they not in the room? How can we bring them into the room?” Behaviour Students are not consumers of the campus, but citizens of the university. As citizens, students are part of the institution’s collaborative enterprise for higher learning. The university needs to provide avenues for this collaboration, but should also respect the autonomy and leadership of students. Critical thinking, mindfulness, and opportunities to both challenge and collaborate with authority are all key aspects of a citizen’s “responsibilities”, and should be given precedence within our university’s institutional framework.  Personal Sustainability & Leadership   95 As David Orr says, “The goal of education is not mastery of subject matter, but of one's person” (Orr, 57). While subject matter is an important aspect to sustainability leadership and innovation, it is not the end of the story. Ultimately, if students are to be truly engaged in making the world a better place, the expectations and structure of the university must facilitate a culture of health, compassion and leadership, rather than a culture of high achievement and performance that sees students burning out, or seriously aggravating their physical and mental health, which deteriorates achievement and performance in the long-run. We need students who are strong in their minds, hearts and bodies, not solely effective at marketing themselves and jumping through bureaucratic hoops.  What now? What is next and what is the role of the student in all this?  The student role is to push for these values and to use our unique positions on this campus to advance these aims. If we play our cards right, students have the power to influence and change the university.  It is critical that students embody the values for which we advocate. The student movement needs to actively pursue sustainability education in their degrees, work towards holistic, net positive solutions, and organize inclusively and democratically, and live up to our duties as “citizens”, all while being mindful of our personal capacity. University is a time of self-discovery and personal growth. During this process of introspection, students will learn what issues and ideas they value most, and how their actions have an impact.   We must start at an individual level, but our greatest impact can be realized when we work together. As Margaret Wheatley and Deborah Frieze write, “the world doesn't change one person at a time.  It changes as networks of relationships form among people who discover they share a common cause and vision of what's possible.” To that   96 end, we need people taking the time to build relationships, to meet in person, to know each other’s faces, and to build robust and resilient network of leaders who know and care about each other. Not all students or student groups need to be working on every “functional characteristic”, or working together on every campaign, as we can often be more effective by focusing our efforts. However, it is critical that all aspects are addressed in some way, and that we continue to communicate with each other to ensure that we move towards our collective goals.  When we speak of “collective goals”, do we truly have a clear understanding of what “we”, as in the entire UBC community, see as the purpose(s) of our university’s existence? It is worrisome how seldom we stop and ask this question.  And when we don’t ask this question, the answers are provided to us by market forces and ideological vagaries. We need to foster an ongoing conversation about the purpose of this institution, so that we can understand where and how sustainability should factor into the equation. In other words, the conversation doesn’t stop here.    97 D: MANIFESTO FEEDBACK  Category of Feedback Specific Recommendations  The role of staff Staff are not included: should refer to “community of learners”, as students + professors + staff  Staff should be encouraged, and given the opportunity, to be agents of positive change Need open and accessible channels of communication between all 3; in particular, student voice needs to be heard and incorporated into administrative decisions Administration provides leadership and supports student leadership The role of community  The value of community is not reflected in the manifesto Discussion of student citizenship is very vague, student behaviour seems to be a more tangible measure of change than student citizenship  Manifesto recommendations should emphasize need for greater mutual support and communication between groups, which can be facilitated through a common meeting space/sustainability student “hub”  Discussion of education should include concepts of: self-direction, flexibility, mentorship, inter-disciplinary and global citizenship   98 Operational sustainability and physical infrastructure Housing and transportation are two of students central concerns: manifesto should reflect importance of affordable housing Elaborate on exactly what we mean by “net positive” on campus A truly sustainable university should have an alternative economy, net positive waste Commitment to implement (in some way) all “living lab” sustainability solutions  The role of sustainability education Sustainability education should not be forced upon anyone, but UBC should offer more practical and applied opportunities for those who seek them (more ways for students to go further with their sustainability education)  Instead, we want sustainability to be infused in all academic paths, making sustainability awareness inevitable  Sustainability education should prioritize action and practice-oriented courses, both through interactive classroom-learning and actual project implementation New teaching paradigm: Professors are encouraged and given support to innovate, curriculum is adapted to incorporate current events Learning is: value-based, place-based, outdoors Emphasis on student-designed curricula New teaching paradigm: Professors are encouraged and   99 given support to innovate, curriculum is adapted to incorporate current events Greater emphasis on job skills/preparedness for employment, in particular for green jobs, rather than out-of-date, unsustainable jobs  More explicit mention of how education should build connections between UBC and broader, Vancouver community  Students and professors have a critical and investigative approach to learning       100 D: COMPARISON OF OUTREACH METHODS   Sustainable Campuses Conference NOW! Conference  1. Determine whether consultation is needed  -While goBEYOND and SYC  (the conference co-hosts) have produced literature about different student engagement initiatives, the framework that we were piloting was unique and had yet to receive input from other student leaders -Other assessment tools, such as the C-SAF, were broader evaluations of campus sustainability and therefore could not address specifics like student engagement in the detail we feel is required -Students had not previously been consulted on this particular engagement strategy -Not too late as many - There was no student manifesto in existence. The group had not previously been consulted. - This was in many ways a newly formed group, we had identified a need to bring together student sustainability groups on campus. This was a newly coalesced group of student organizations. - Not too late because this will actually inform the new engagement strategy.   101 campuses are in the early stages of developing student engagement programming strategies 2. Decide at what stage to consult -The timing was determined by the SYC and goBEYOND (the conference occurs at the same time each year) -As we initiated the project, we were already aware of this date and planned accordingly to have the framework ready to pilot at this time - The timing for this consultation was determined by the fact that students leave in late April and the engagement strategy staff person was to be hired in May. This meant that we wanted to have the information available and processed prior to that. Also, it couldn’t have happened very much earlier because we needed a draft of the manifesto. 3. Clarify the purpose of consultation -The purpose of this consultation was three fold: first, to encourage students to think critically about the scope and effectiveness of their own campuses’ current engagement initiatives. Secondly, we provided our framework as a means to focus the discussion and to deepen our understanding of what constitutes meaningful engagement and how we can  We wanted feedback and additional insight into the draft manifesto as well as envisioning a common set of values with which to move forward. It was also a first step in building a sense of community among student sustainability leaders at UBC. We were highly flexible in the values and next steps because we wanted it to fully reflect the community’s vision and their beliefs and thoughts. That being said, we still wanted for there   102 assess this. Thirdly, all information was presented clearly and made applicable to other campuses in the hopes of catalyzing action (similar to ours) at each students’ respective institution -The information was to be used to better inform the applicability of our research to a variety of engagement types and campus situations and ensure that this framework resonates with other students  - The framework was presented as a working draft so as to encourage other students’ input and revision to be a manifesto because it will represent the views of students in a succinct way and be used by student groups to communicate the community norms of the student sustainability movement at UBC to future students. 4. Determine the scope of the consultation - The scope of this workshop was determined by the attendees of the conference: students from across British Columbia representing numerous post- secondary institutions as well as a While the student sustainability movement has many members at UBC, we felt that this conversation required a more intimate setting to allow for more in depth and meaningful dialogue. We also wanted to invite those who felt invested and   103 significantly smaller delegation from Alberta and Saskatchewan - Though we developed the framework from a BC perspective, we readily embraced the contributions from students studying outside of BC - There were 100 student delegates at the conference, our workshop ran concurrently with three others and so we anticipated an attendance ~25 attendees  experienced enough in the student sustainability movement to be able to best articulate the common values and visions under discussion. So, as a result, we invited representatives (presidents, directors, heavily involved members, etc) of each sustainability initiative identified by ourselves, the database on the USI webpage, and through the USI Student Advisor’s list. 5. Plan the consultation We allotted two hours with 30 minutes for explanation and presentation and 90 minutes for small and large group discussion and brainstorming.   - Small groups to be comfortable sharing We allotted three hours with 1.5 hours for vision and values and 1.5 hours for next steps and future strategies for strengthening the student sustainability movement. This was also as a component of a full day’s programming including skills-building for the movement and socializing.  The skills-building component had   104 opinions - Talk themselves first prior to seeing our framework to produce unique and unbiased frameworks of their own - Compare frameworks between groups to build toward a consensus of the entire concept to compare to our rough model - Group discussion testing model - Applicability to other campuses explicitly discussed in the hopes of catalyzing similar consultations on other campuses  The generated feedback both informed the secondary consultation at UBC and this three main parts:  1. Address by George Hoberg regarding the importance of taking action on climate change and why it is critical that there are many progressive-thinking groups. 2. Workshop by Miciah Prull from the David Suzuki Foundation to reinforce the importance of personal contributions and individualized narratives. 3. Warm-up community building exercise by Juanita Sundberg regarding community norms and common values. This set the stage for the process as a facilitated rather than dictated dialogue and allowed for a strong element of self-organizing in regards to ground rules and communication guidelines.  The process that we chose aimed to maximize independent brainstorming and development of the general topics covered in the manifesto. After which, we offered the manifesto as a draft compilation of these various ideas. We then made time for participants to critically reflect on the   105 paper.  manifesto and made clear that the manifesto was by no means a finalized document and nor did our opinion hold any greater weight than the opinions generated during the workshop. We classified ourselves, therefore, as facilitators for dialogue rather than experts or “owners” of the information.  The feedback from the consultation is found throughout this project and featured in the manifesto itself. 6. The consultation itself Discussion was the main goal of the consultation and so while we all had facilitation experience it ultimately came down to having well structured conversation topics and then letting ideas form organically.  The venue was determined by the conference organizers. We encouraged participation by allowing attendees to take ownership of the framework Discussion was the main goal of the consultation and so while we all had facilitation experience it ultimately came down to having well structured conversation topics and then letting ideas form organically. The venue was the CIRS building which we felt was well suiting giving the topic of discussion and the specific room was just large enough for the number of attendees. We encouraged participation by providing free lunch and snacks throughout the day as well as free skills training by highly-skilled speakers and workshop   106 itself and to personalize it to their own situation.   We have the conference listserv if we so choose to follow-up and will present final research and recommendations to the group. leaders. Our system for recording attendance was through a sign-in sheet filled out in the morning which included name, organization, and e-mail address (for follow-up). 7. Analyze and report results We have negated steps 7 and 8 because they are fulfilled throughout the report. We have negated steps 7 and 8 because they are fulfilled throughout the report. 8. Provide feedback -- -- 9. Evaluate the consultation  The consultation was highly successful and fulfilled the goals laid out at the beginning of the project. The planning and implementation of the workshop was simplified and of a higher quality because we learned a great deal in the first workshop at the sustainable campuses conference.      107 E: LESSONS FROM OTHER UBC ORGANIZATIONS Organization: UBC Rec How they engage students in programming:  The organization is divided into three separate components: events, leagues and marketing. The events groups plan and co-ordinate recreational events, such as Longboat and Storm the Wall. The leagues teams oversee athletic leagues, such as Dodge ball and Soccer. The marketing sector includes teams devoted to public relations, media, and Rec's own online newspaper.  ◦ The students in the marketing division can focus their efforts on outreach and promotion, thereby enhancing Rec's ability to engage students with its programming  Rec receives considerable funding with which to deliver its programming, because student recreation and athletics are seen as a core aspect of student development  ◦ UBC employs several full-time staff to oversee Rec's operations, which helps ensure programming is engaging to students, and that the organization fosters student leadership  Rec hosts several hallmark events and leagues annually. This programming continuity creates incentives for students to partake in these UBC “traditions”  The Public Relations team specifically maintains relationships with different campus groups through the “Rec Reps” program. These individuals act as Rec “champions” within their organizations, by signing up teams for various leagues and events  How they foster student leadership internally:   108 Community Building:  Rec successfully fosters highly-engaged student leaders, year after year. While this may be attributed to a number of factors, the most important is likely the organization's division into small “crews”. These teams strive to form strong internal bonds, through various team-building exercises and frequent socials. There is a mentality that Rec staff are a “family”, and that students work and play alongside each other. This emphasis on friendship, as an essential part of volunteerism, is one explanation for why Rec staff are so engaged, and give so much of their time to the organization.  ◦ The socials for each of the three sectors also seek to meet students' need for fun and socialization. Students are more likely to commit to an engagement opportunity if it fulfills several of their needs.    At the start of every year, Rec organizes a retreat for all student staff. This is a critical opportunity for students to connect with one another, and develop a sense of community and common purpose. As an annual event, the retreat is highly anticipated by old and new volunteers, and provides a strong incentive for students to get involved, and stay involved.   A small team of students acts as the “Student Development” staff. These individuals organize a weekly Rec staff newsletter, skills-building workshops and  “staff appreciation” initiatives, such as thank-you cards and a recognition wall for highly-engaged students ◦ The Student Development staff are integral to supporting Rec's culture of student engagement, by helping students feel supported, appreciated and part of a community   Physical student staff space: The Rec office in the Student Recreation Centre is the hub of all staff activity. Every team meets in the office and the full-time staff have offices in the space, which underscores how all teams are working towards   109 common aims, and allows for easy collaboration amongst staff. The office has several computers and other resources to assist staff work, which helps students to feel supported in their work.  ◦ The office also has a relaxation area. Staff are encouraged to take breaks with each other and socialize, which allows students to cultivate a sense of belonging on campus.   Professional Development:   The division of tasks into three sectors allows students to focus on an area of interest, and hone their skills in event planning, marketing, volunteer management etc. This enables students to tailor their professional development to suit their longer-term goals.   Each of the student directors for the teams receives an honorarium each semester, in recognition of their immense time commitment and engagement. This financial incentive also indicates the professionalism and dedication expected from directors, helping to formalize the volunteer commitment.  Similarly, the team members apply for positions as “Assistant Directors”. This frames engagement as a formal role, rather than casual volunteer opportunity, which helps student develop professionally Overall, Rec benefits from dividing the organization into several small teams, helping to build a close-knit community. However, because the organization also creates numerous specific committees, many volunteer opportunities are made available to students. This structure allows for quality and quantity of engagement Organization: Global Lounge How they engage students in programming:   110  Well maintained blog, and requirement for all community members to submit one post per term  Bi-weekly newsletter, distributed to over 1000 contacts  550 + followers on Twitter  Almost 800 friends on Facebook  Incorporates wide range of activities, from charitable organizations, to peer programs, to cultural groups to international service learning organizations. This diversity appeals to numerous student interests, increasing the likelihood that students will find a group with which to connect  Employs student staff to oversee most of the administrative duties, which ensures programming remains relevant and attractive to students  Has a physical central location, where students know they can find these types of opportunities and connect with like-minded students   Provides a Global Fund for globally-focused student initiatives. These grants enable students to overcome financial barriers to event-planning, thereby facilitating engagement opportunities How they foster student leadership internally: The role of staff and professional development:  Global Lounge staff (both the full-time staff and student assistants) act as a support structure for student-designed and student-led initiatives, rather than mandating or overseeing the type of programming run by members   Student groups are able to function independently, allowing more opportunities for professional development, as students hold the bottom-line for event programming and success    111  Staff co-ordinate and offer three yearly professional development days, during which Lounge members can learn about relevant issues and hone their skills as student leaders   Students oversee administrative duties through work-study positions, helping provide another type of professional development opportunity to students.  Networking and community building  The community of globally-minded students is fostered by a requirement that each group provide a global lounge “representative”. These representatives attend bi-weekly meetings, to discuss club events, and how the Lounge can better support member groups, their programming and the professional development of student leaders  Sets a standard for quality student engagement, by establishing membership requirements; however, any organization that is globally-focused in nature and meets these requirements can become a member  Provides “hub” for global citizenship  Offers several physical meeting spaces for member groups, which enables clubs to more effectively self-organize. The Lounge offers meeting rooms, presentation space, a kitchen, resources (such as free computers and printing) and relaxation space, which meets the needs of variety of student organizations, for a wide range of purposes.  As such, the space is continually occupied by student groups, which allows it to function as a hub for collaboration, because groups are more consistently in contact and able to develop joint ventures. This also facilitates promotion of events and idea-sharing between groups. This model of collaboration is well-proven by shared working spaces such as the Network Hub and the Hive.    112 F: UBC SUSTAINABILITY ORGANIZATIONS (STILL TO COME) To be completed.   


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items