Education, Faculty of
Educational Studies (EDST), Department of
DSpace
UBCV
Hunter, Glenda Maria
Doctor of Education - EdD
University of British Columbia
This work focuses on implementation of sustainability policy and practice within a post-secondary environment at Vancouver Island University in British Columbia, Canada. It adopts a case study approach that is qualitative and exploratory in nature, and relies on data collected from policy documents, declarations and reports, and interviews with different groups on campus, including administrators, faculty and students. Research findings indicate sustainability initiatives are developed within a context of environmental, educational and leadership concerns on campus. Dominant and collaborative leadership strategies are apparent in transformation of policy into practice through an exercise of power “over” and power “with and to” relationships among members of the university community. Environmental and educational concerns lie at the heart of policy initiatives like the Energy Management Policy and Recycling Policy, and practices like composting, green building design, and instruction in marine based ecosystems and global studies programs. A number of factors have influenced sustainability initiatives on campus. These include the effect of international declarations and reports, government funding and policy decisions including carbon neutral legislation, the influence of community partners and the media, volunteer activities on campus, internal budget decisions, and research pursuits of faculty. The interplay of such factors has led to positive outcomes like creation of a formal Sustainability Policy, adoption of an energy management plan, and inclusion of sustainability curricula in academic and technology programs. Research indicates, however, that challenges remain in attracting support for sustainability across campus, and adopting important initiatives like alternative transportation strategies and disposal of e-waste. To address this, the work of sociologist Pierre Bourdieu is examined, including the concepts of habitus, field and capital. Bourdieu’s work helps explain why certain policies and practices are more successful than others, and why some initiatives remain unrealized on campus. Recommendations for dealing with this are put forward including enhancing communication strategies, encouraging greater involvement with community partners, increasing interdisciplinary activity, and creating incentives for sustainability behavior. Implementing these can help achieve what Bourdieu has referred to as a “transformation” of habitus to strengthen the social, cultural and symbolic capital of sustainability at Vancouver Island University.
SUSTAINABILITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A CASE STUDY OF POLICY AND PRACTICE AT VANCOUVER ISLAND UNIVERSITY by Glenda Maria Hunter BSc (Agr) Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Truro, NS DipEd University of Victoria, Victoria, BC MSc (Bio) Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Doctor of Education in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Educational Leadership and Policy) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) August, 2014 © Glenda Maria Hunter, 2014 ii Abstract This work focuses on implementation of sustainability policy and practice within a post-secondary environment at Vancouver Island University in British Columbia, Canada. It adopts a case study approach that is qualitative and exploratory in nature, and relies on data collected from policy documents, declarations and reports, and interviews with different groups on campus, including administrators, faculty and students. Research findings indicate sustainability initiatives are developed within a context of environmental, educational and leadership concerns on campus. Dominant and collaborative leadership strategies are apparent in transformation of policy into practice through an exercise of power “over” and power “with and to” relationships among members of the university community. Environmental and educational concerns lie at the heart of policy initiatives like the Energy Management Policy and Recycling Policy, and practices like composting, green building design, and instruction in marine based ecosystems and global studies programs. A number of factors have influenced sustainability initiatives on campus. These include the effect of international declarations and reports, government funding and policy decisions including carbon neutral legislation, the influence of community partners and the media, volunteer activities on campus, internal budget decisions, and research pursuits of faculty. The interplay of such factors has led to positive outcomes like creation of a formal Sustainability Policy, adoption of an energy management plan, and inclusion of sustainability curricula in academic and technology programs. Research indicates, however, that challenges remain in attracting support for sustainability across campus, and adopting important initiatives like alternative transportation strategies and disposal of e-waste. To address this, the work of sociologist Pierre Bourdieu is examined, including the concepts of habitus, field and capital. Bourdieu’s work helps explain why certain policies and practices are more successful than others, and why some initiatives remain unrealized on campus. Recommendations for dealing with this are put forward including enhancing communication strategies, encouraging greater involvement with community partners, increasing interdisciplinary activity, and creating incentives for sustainability behavior. Implementing these can help achieve what Bourdieu has referred to as a “transformation” of habitus to strengthen the social, cultural and symbolic capital of sustainability at Vancouver Island University. iii Preface The certificate H-10-02286 for this research study was issued by the UBC Behavioural Research Ethics Board as a Minimal Risk research study. This dissertation is original, unpublished, independent work by the author, Glenda Hunter. iv Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ii Preface ........................................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... viii Dedication ..................................................................................................................................... ix Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 About the author ......................................................................................................................... 1 Environmental challenges and sustainability ............................................................................. 3 Sustainability and the role of higher education .......................................................................... 4 Location of the current study - Vancouver Island University .................................................... 8 Purpose of the current study ....................................................................................................... 9 Case study overview - unit of analysis and units of observation ............................................ 10 Research questions ................................................................................................................... 12 Importance of the study ............................................................................................................ 15 Outline of chapters ................................................................................................................... 15 Chapter 2: Overview of the Literature ..................................................................................... 17 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 17 Characteristics of sustainable universities and colleges ........................................................... 18 Sustainability policy in higher education ................................................................................. 20 Students and sustainability in higher education ....................................................................... 24 Administrators and sustainability in higher education ............................................................. 26 Faculty members and sustainability in higher education ......................................................... 27 Others factors of significance ................................................................................................... 28 Theoretical concerns ................................................................................................................ 29 Bourdieu and sustainability in higher education ...................................................................... 31 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 35 Chapter 3: Research Approach ................................................................................................. 37 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 37 Overview of qualitative approaches ......................................................................................... 38 Background to case study research .......................................................................................... 39 v Types of case study research .................................................................................................... 42 Single, multiple and nested case studies .................................................................................. 44 Critiques of case study research ............................................................................................... 46 Ethical considerations .............................................................................................................. 47 Reliability and validity in case study research ......................................................................... 47 Document sources and gathering methods ............................................................................... 49 Interview and research participants .......................................................................................... 50 Remaining chapters .................................................................................................................. 52 Chapter 4: Research Findings from Documents ...................................................................... 53 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 53 External documents .................................................................................................................. 53 The Brundtland Commission Report ....................................................................................... 54 The Talloires Declaration ......................................................................................................... 55 The Earth Charter ..................................................................................................................... 57 Other external documents ........................................................................................................ 59 Internal documents ................................................................................................................... 60 The Recycling Policy ............................................................................................................... 61 The Environmental Trust Policy .............................................................................................. 61 The University Sustainability Policy ....................................................................................... 62 The Sustainability Policy in the Nanaimo Campus Master Plan ............................................. 63 The Response to the Nanaimo Campus Master Plan ............................................................... 64 The Academic Plan of the University ...................................................................................... 65 The 2010 Carbon Neutral Report of Vancouver Island University ......................................... 66 The Energy Management Policy .............................................................................................. 68 The Sustainability Website ...................................................................................................... 69 Overview of research findings – documents ............................................................................ 70 Chapter 5: Research Findings from Interviews ....................................................................... 72 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 72 Interview participants ............................................................................................................... 73 The meaning of sustainability .................................................................................................. 73 The meaning of sustainable development ................................................................................ 77 vi Types of involvement with sustainability policy and practice ................................................. 80 Motivation for involvement in sustainability policy and practice ........................................... 83 Roles in creating a sustainable campus .................................................................................... 85 Contributions to sustainability on campus ............................................................................... 88 Characteristics of those making effective contributions to sustainability ................................ 91 Challenges in creating a sustainable campus ........................................................................... 93 Accomplishments toward creating a sustainable campus ........................................................ 98 Factors enabling efforts to create a sustainable campus ........................................................ 101 Factors blocking efforts to create a sustainable campus ........................................................ 106 Overview of research findings – interviews ........................................................................... 110 Chapter 6: Discussion ............................................................................................................... 114 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 114 What do the terms sustainability and sustainable development mean to different groups on campus at Vancouver Island University? ............................................................................... 116 Summary and conclusion ....................................................................................................... 118 How is sustainability policy transformed into practice at Vancouver Island University? ..... 120 Administrator led sustainability practices .............................................................................. 120 Faculty led sustainability practices ........................................................................................ 120 Student led sustainability practices ........................................................................................ 121 Shared sustainability practices ............................................................................................... 121 Summary and conclusion ....................................................................................................... 122 What factors affect development of sustainability policy and practice at Vancouver Island University? ............................................................................................................................. 123 External factors ...................................................................................................................... 124 Internal factors ....................................................................................................................... 126 Summary and conclusion ....................................................................................................... 129 How is institutional power and leadership exercised in the development of sustainability policy and practice, and what examples are there? ................................................................ 130 Institutional power and leadership ......................................................................................... 131 Institutional power and sustainability at Vancouver Island University ................................. 132 Power, leadership and consent on sustainability issues ......................................................... 135 vii Other influences on institutional power and sustainability .................................................... 136 Summary and conclusion ....................................................................................................... 137 How can the work of Pierre Bourdieu provide insight in the development of sustainability policy and practice at Vancouver Island University? ............................................................ 139 Bourdieu and the application of field, habitus and capital ..................................................... 141 Summary and conclusion ....................................................................................................... 149 Chapter 7: Summary and Recommendations ........................................................................ 152 Case study summary .............................................................................................................. 152 Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 155 Forming a standing committee on sustainability ................................................................... 155 Increasing the profile of the Sustainability Office ................................................................. 157 Enhancing the Sustainability Website .................................................................................... 158 Encouraging volunteer and interdisciplinary activities .......................................................... 160 Appointing an officer or director of sustainability ................................................................. 161 Partnering with Aboriginal groups and local governments .................................................... 163 Effecting change in key initiatives including recycling and disposal of waste ...................... 164 Encouraging research on sustainability issues ....................................................................... 166 Increasing incentives for sustainability studies and activities ................................................ 168 Infusing sustainability studies into university curricula ......................................................... 169 Summary and suggestions for further research ...................................................................... 172 References .................................................................................................................................. 178 Appendices ................................................................................................................................. 188 Appendix A: The Recycling Policy of Vancouver Island University ................................... 189 Appendix B: Environmental Trust Policy ............................................................................. 190 Appendix C: The Campus Sustainability Policy ................................................................... 191 Appendix D: The Sustainability Policy of the Nanaimo Campus Master Plan .................... 192 Appendix E: Campus Plan Response: Draft Sustainability Policy ....................................... 204 Appendix F: Vision Statement of the 2010 – 2013 Academic Plan ..................................... 207 Appendix G: Letter of invitation to the Solutions Group ..................................................... 208 Appendix H: Letter of invitation to administrators and faculty ............................................ 209 Appendix I: Interview consent form ..................................................................................... 210 viii Appendix J: Interview guide of interviewer .......................................................................... 211 Appendix K: Interview guide for administrators/leaders ...................................................... 213 Appendix L: Interview guide for faculty members ............................................................... 214 Appendix M: Interview guide for students ........................................................................... 215 Appendix N: Interview debriefing letter ............................................................................... 216 ix Acknowledgements I am grateful for the assistance of my research committee consisting of Tom Sork, Pierre Walter and Robert VanWynsberghe at the University of British Columbia. I also acknowledge the help and cooperation I received from those engaged in sustainability activities at Vancouver Island University, including administrators, faculty and students who contributed their time and effort to this study. x Dedication For my husband Blair whose patience was so appreciated throughout this work. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction About the author For the past nineteen years, I have worked as a chemistry instructor in adult education at Vancouver Island University in Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada. Laboratory work is a common feature of chemistry courses in British Columbia, and a number of topics have guided laboratory and teaching practice over the years. These include scientific measurement, balancing chemical equations, chemical nomenclature, stoichiometry, and states of matter. Articulation guides have focused on the need for laboratory work to assist with investigation of these topics as a fundamental part of chemistry curricula. Indeed, the laboratory experiment has become a “rite of passage” for students in the province, including those at Vancouver Island University. Conducting experiments with educational value is challenging because students are exposed to health and safety risks in the laboratory. Hazardous waste can be generated so students have to wear protective eye gear, gloves and other clothing. Collecting, labeling and storing chemical waste is also mandatory under federal and provincial law, and this creates a significant disposability issue. Responsible waste management and associated costs are important issues in post-secondary education. There may be those who believe laboratory wastes are spirited away and disposed of without difficulty by technicians, but “out of sight” does not mean “out of mind”, and traditional disposability practices are not always safe or effective. I have had firsthand experience with disposability issues as an instructor and through committee work dealing with environmental and waste management practices on campus. It is my belief that “sustainability” policies and practices can help address these issues. 2 In 2009, Vancouver Island University formally adopted a Sustainability Policy designed to guide environmental practices on campus. I envisaged that this would extend to more detailed strategies for dealing with laboratory chemicals, plastics, and old electronic devices or e-waste. To date, however, sustainability initiatives have tended to focus more on issues connected with energy reduction, green building design, resource conservation, and reduction of waste items like food and paper products. All of these are important initiatives. However, a personal concern with accumulation and disposal of laboratory waste has helped motivate me to pursue the current research project, and investigate development of sustainability policy and practice at Vancouver Island University. The scientific community has had a history of contributing to debate on environmental issues and sustainability. In 1902, Gilbert Newton Lewis introduced the concept of fugacity to the American Chemistry Society. His research demonstrated how chemicals change their physical state from liquid to gas as they move through soil, air and water. This had an important effect on the study of ecosystems and pollution as it demonstrated how difficult it was to contain the spread of chemical wastes. In 1925, Alice Hamilton of Harvard University published Industrial Poisons in the United States and followed this with Industrial Toxicology in 1934. Her work focused on environmental health effects in neighborhoods subject to accumulation of industrial waste (Walter, 2009). Twenty-eight years later in 1962, Rachel Carson published her seminal work, Silent Spring. This linked industrial pollution to biological fragility over a broad range of circumstances and was supported by rigorous scientific data. Like the work of Lewis and Hamilton, Carson’s publications were influential in stimulating debate about environmental issues in the latter part of the twentieth century. 3 The tradition of scientific inquiry has helped ground awareness of environmental and sustainability issues during the last hundred years. It should continue to stimulate research and development of sustainability initiatives in many contexts, including post-secondary education. Policy development, of course, also has a role to play. An underlying theme of this work is that those involved in the educational process, including science education, have a responsibility to ensure that those who attend educational institutions can engage in a more balanced and sustainable use of resources so they are able to confront the ecological and environmental challenges of the future. Environmental challenges and sustainability Human populations live in environments in which terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems contend increasingly with an infusion of plastics, industrial waste, genetically engineered organisms, pharmaceuticals, and discarded commercial goods. The latter has become particularly prevalent. The World Book Encyclopedia (2013) estimates that 40,000,000 metric tons of household and business appliances were discarded in dumping sites worldwide in 2009 including refrigerators, televisions, computer monitors, keyboards, and other electronic equipment. The figure does not include automobiles and automobile parts. Developed countries produce, consume and dispose of such products at unprecedented rates, and developing countries are beginning to do so as well. This increases the number of land fill and dumping sites worldwide, and increases the risk of chemical decay and leaching of toxic materials into the land, air and water around them. Product disposability has been a feature of human activity over the past century. Plastic products, metals and other non-biodegradable goods are routinely discarded at land fill sites. 4 Consumption of oil and gas products has also generated carbon, sulfur, nitrous dioxides, and carbon particulates that have significantly affected the atmosphere. The Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies (2009) has estimated that the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 280 parts per million in 1950. By 2009, the figure had grown to 387 parts per million, an increase of 38 per cent. This has impacted on oceans as well as land-based ecosystems, and has been linked to ocean acidification, coral reef bleaching and marine dead zones. Deposits of artificial debris have also increased in this period, including plastics, netting, oil, and other chemical products that coalesce in ocean currents producing ocean gyres as large as 1700 square miles in size. Microorganisms do not decompose such debris and other organisms mistake it for food. It is unclear to what extent ecosystems can absorb this waste without serious disruption to natural processes. To confront the problem, governments and businesses have pursued initiatives including regulation of landfill sites and treatment of waste entering ocean waters. Post-secondary institutions have also become involved in research to find solutions. Waste disposal issues and matters of resource depletion, climate change and declining environmental habitat have contributed to a growing interest among governments, business and the public at large with “sustainability” concerns and “sustainable development”. These have also become a focus of study at educational institutions, both at a national and international level. Sustainability and the role of higher education The term “sustainable development” became widely used following the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, Sweden in 1972. Its roots can be traced back to the environmental movement of the 1960s which emerged in North America and Europe amid growing concerns about air and water pollution. The term was subsequently endorsed at 5 the Stockholm conference to describe a process for balancing human activity with environmental concerns to help sustain the planet for future generations. In 1972, Meadows, Meadows, Randers and Behrens published their “limits to growth” theory based on the influence of five environmental factors. These included rapid population growth, accelerating industrialization, wide spread malnutrition, deterioration of environmental habitat, and depletion of nonrenewable resources. The authors argued these were going to seriously impact the course of human development in coming years. The “limits to growth” theory affected how business, government, and educational institutions came to view sustainable development. The theory holds that if current trends are not reversed, resource capacity to sustain further growth worldwide will be exhausted by the year 2072. Meadows and her colleagues (1972), further noted that “society could alter these growth trends” and establish “ecological and economic stability that is sustainable”, but steps to do so would have to be undertaken before the turn of the century (pp. 1–2). In 1987, the concept of “sustainability” was examined at length in the Brundtland Commission Report, an ecological and environmental study prepared by an international group of politicians, civil servants and scientific experts. They defined the term “sustainable development” to be “development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p.1). While “development” and “sustainability” might seem contrary in meaning, the term survived and became part of the dialogue on environmental and sustainability issues. By the early 1990s, models of “sustainable development” in the spirit of the Brundtland Report had been put forward by governments, businesses and academics worldwide. Elkington (1994), for example, proposed that business and industry adopt a “triple bottom line” of 6 corporate enterprise. This entailed a “traditional” bottom line of profit and loss, a “people” bottom line of social concern, and a “planet” bottom line of environmental responsibility (pp. 73, 380). Dawe and Ryan (2003) suggested that sustainable development was composed of “three pillars” of responsibility consisting of a sustainable society, a sustainable environment and a sustainable economy (p. 1459). This was widely endorsed when it first appeared, but critics argued it diminished the importance of the environment in the face of economic and political concerns. McDonald (2006) in particular suggested that those who supported environmental protection would be pitted against those who favored economic or social sustainability. Policy making would become mired in political infighting between different stakeholders, something Suzuki (2005) has also suggested. Despite this kind of criticism, the “three pillars” theory continues to be referred to in studies of sustainability policy. It has been updated by Hawkes (2001) to include a fourth pillar of “cultural” sustainability. The terms “sustainability” and “sustainable development” were subsequently addressed in a number of international declarations by governments and academic institutions that called for greater environmental awareness and environmental protection. These included the Talloires Declaration in France in 1990, which was signed by a significant number of colleges and universities, and the Earth Charter, drafted in 1990 and brought to international attention at the Earth Summit on environmental issues in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. In these declarations, “sustainability” and “sustainable development” were linked again to conservation of resources for future generations, and people and institutions around the globe, including post-secondary institutions, were urged to combat environmental deterioration. 7 The Talloires Declaration and Earth Charter marked a period of increasing involvement by post-secondary institutions in environmental and sustainability initiatives worldwide. Academic research became more common in matters of climate change, preservation of ecosystems and sustainable resource development. Colleges and universities also began adopting sustainability policies of their own, and engaging in practices like energy conservation, recycling and waste management more than they had before. Researchers like Clarke (2009), Moore (2005a), and M’Gonigle and Stark (2006) have documented this at a number of Canadian institutions and their results are referred to later in this work. In general, it appears progress has been made implementing sustainability initiatives on campuses over the last twenty years. Members of university communities now participate regularly in recycling and energy conservation programs, though there is less progress on certain initiatives like reducing personal automobile use to and from campus. After the 1990s, educational institutions, municipalities and private industry were impacted by government programs designed to address environmental concerns in building and transportation, waste disposal and resource development. In British Columbia, for example, educational institutions and local governments were required for the first time to produce “carbon neutral balance sheets” pursuant to the Greenhouse Gas Reductions Target Act of 2009. This called for reductions in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, and encouraged activities like green building design, waste recycling, and acquisition of hybrid vehicles for transportation fleets. In June 2011, Vancouver Island University and twenty five other post-secondary institutions prepared their third annual Carbon Neutral Action Report detailing steps taken to reduce or control emissions. Much of the language in these reports reflects wording in the Brundtland Report and Talloires Declaration 8 about the need for sustainable development and reducing energy consumption. While it is still too early to confirm major trends, the reports indicate steps are being taken to reduce carbon emissions on many campuses. This is being accomplished through initiatives like more efficient building construction, food waste recycling programs, and transportation initiatives such as electric car parking and re-charging sites. Location of the current study - Vancouver Island University Vancouver Island University is situated on traditional lands of the Snuneymuxw people and is located in a unique geographical setting in the coastal rainforest zone on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. The Mount Arrowsmith Biosphere, one of 152 such areas designated worldwide by the United Nations, lies adjacent to the Nanaimo campus. Federal marine research facilities are also located in the nearby centers of Nanaimo, Sidney and Bamfield, British Columbia. The university maintains contact with these facilities and also has its own coastal research facility and shellfish research station in Deep Bay on Vancouver Island. These centers engage routinely in environmental research and address issues of sustainability and conservation of resources. This helps define Vancouver Island University as a location for environmental studies, and makes it an institution appropriate for this study. The university began as a vocational school in Nanaimo in 1936 serving the population of central Vancouver Island. By 1969 its programs had expanded and it became a community college offering both academic and vocational courses. In 1994 the institution became a university college with some degree granting power and was officially known as Malaspina University College. The institution was later chartered as a regional university in 2007 and renamed Vancouver Island University (VIU). 9 The institution currently has 18,000 full and part-time students including a large number of aboriginal and international students, and a teaching and administrative staff of over 2,000. It offers undergraduate and graduate degree programs in a variety of disciplines including arts and science, education, and business. A number of these programs reflect an interest in environmental studies. For example, a multi-disciplinary “Global Studies” program is available which cuts across a number of disciplines and focuses on environment, sustainable development and resource management skills, along with other course work. A leisure management program offered by the business faculty instructs students in eco-tourism and sustainable recreational activities. Vocational training is also available in a range of environmental programs including forestry technician work, fisheries and wildlife management, and resource conservation studies. Clearly, Vancouver Island University has become associated with a culture of environmental awareness and sustainability because of its physical location and the focus of its research and instructional programs. Purpose of the current study Vancouver Island University, like other institutions, has become involved with sustainability issues both on and off campus. As Sharpe (2002), Wright (2007) and others have suggested, colleges and universities are expected to assume a leadership role in such matters, and to have expertise in assisting local communities with sustainability objectives. As indicated, I have had personal experience with sustainability issues in a post-secondary environment. This has contributed to my interest in exploring the matter, and it is my intention here to undertake a case study of sustainability policy and practice at Vancouver Island University. 10 This institution has been selected for a number of reasons. First, it is where I have worked for the past nineteen years and been engaged with sustainability initiatives. Secondly, as noted, the university is associated with a culture of sustainability because of its physical location and the focus of its post-secondary programs. Thirdly, the university is a signatory to the Talloires Declaration, and has adopted its own sustainability policy drawing upon the Brundtland Report, the Earth Charter and other documents for its basic principles... Fourth, the university has undertaken a number of steps including adoption of a Nanaimo Campus Master Plan that commits to sustainability initiatives now and in future. Fifth, a principal goal of the Master Plan is to create a “culture of sustainability” on campus, while a core value of the university Academic Plan is to promote sustainability initiatives. It seems clear, then, that the university intends to pursue sustainability objectives, and is in a position to provide leadership on the issue to members of the campus community as well as the public at large. Case study overview - unit of analysis and units of observation As the focus of a case study, Vancouver Island University would be subject to a research process that seeks to uncover information about sustainability initiatives on campus. There are a number of different interpretations of case study research. Yin (1989) refers to it as an “empirical inquiry that investigates a phenomenon within a real life context” and derives information from “multiple sources of data” (pp. 23-30). Merriam (1998) describes it as an “intensive holistic description and analysis of a single entity, phenomenon or social unit” (p. 27). Thomas (2011) suggests it denotes analysis of “persons, events, decisions, projects, policies, institutions or other systems that are studied holistically” (pp. 511-12). Common to 11 each of these is a concern with accumulating data in a holistic manner to describe or communicate about a particular phenomenon as a whole. Despite different interpretations, researchers including Stake (2005), Merriam (1998, 2009), and Tellis (1997) agree that case studies analyze phenomena within defined boundaries of place and time. While the “bounded system” may be a recognized feature of case study research, there is less agreement that it represents a research methodology or design. Creswell (2007) and Tellis (1997), for example, speak of a case study methodology, but Merriam (1998) suggests the most important characteristic is delimiting the “object of study”, as opposed to process or design (pp. 27-28). Similarly, VanWynsberghe and Kahn (2007) propose that case studies be characterized not in terms of method or design, but as a means of uncovering the “unit of analysis”, or the phenomenon that is subject to study. Other writers like Hamilton and Corbett-Whittier (2012) acknowledge that there are interpretive differences, but suggest the case study may be thought of as a research “approach” or “genre” of study, rather than a methodology (pp. 9-10). The intent here is to treat this study as an approach to uncovering a particular unit of analysis, that is, implementation of sustainability policy and practice at a particular institution of higher learning. The dimensions of case study research are more fully explored in Chapter 3, including a discussion of why it was chosen over other approaches for this work. At this point, however, it can be stated that the boundary of the study is Vancouver Island University and the unit of analysis consists of sustainability policy and practice at that institution, in particular how policy is made and implemented. Units of observation for the study consist of documentary materials such as reports and declarations produced on and off campus and various research publications, 12 along with interview responses from members of the university community, including administrators, faculty and students. Yin (2003), Zucker (2009) and others have stressed the importance of identifying units of analysis and units of observation at the outset of case studies because doing so helps define the scope of inquiry and the kind of data that will be gathered. They also suggest that “propositions” or conjectures about the research, if any, should be advanced at the outset of the study. As Yin (2003, 2009) explains, research that is explanatory or evaluative in nature, particularly quantitative research, can benefit from propositions or hypotheses which the data is used to prove or disprove. Still, as Rowley (2009) and Tellis (1997) point out, propositions are not always possible with certain case studies, particularly those that are exploratory in nature and which offer little basis for speculation about research findings. Propositions may not always be necessary, but Yin (2003), Stake (2000), and Merriam (2000) agree that research questions are very important. They help focus research within a bounded system of study, and provide a context in which the unit of analysis can be more fully examined. The present work is qualitative and exploratory in nature, and does not advance a specific set of propositions to be proved or disproved by data that is collected. Research questions The study addresses a number of research questions based on analysis of documents and interviews. These are set out as follows:  What do the terms sustainability and sustainable development mean to different groups on campus at Vancouver Island University? 13 The concepts of sustainability and sustainable development are referred to in documents like the Brundtland Report and Talloires Declaration, and are fundamental to an understanding of environmental and sustainability issues. This question will explore what members of the university community believe the terms mean, and how this is connected to sustainability policy and practice at Vancouver Island University.  How is sustainability policy transformed into practice at Vancouver Island University? This question will investigate links between policy and practice, assess what practices have emerged from which policies, and explain how administrators, faculty and students have contributed to this.  What factors affect development of sustainability policy and practice at Vancouver Island University? Influences on sustainability policy and practice will be explored in this question. Factors on and off campus that have impacted sustainability initiatives will be identified, and the nature of their influence will be addressed.  How is institutional power and leadership exercised in development of sustainability policy and practice at Vancouver Island University, and what examples are there? 14 Research data provides insight into the decision making process when sustainability policy and practice is adopted on campus. The focus of this question will be to investigate the dynamics of power and leadership in the decision making process, identify who exercises power and under what conditions, and provide examples of this.  How can the work of Pierre Bourdieu provide insight into development of sustainability policy and practice at Vancouver Island University? This study does not advance a specific hypothesis which research data is intended to prove or disprove. This question, however, will explore to what extent the work of sociologist Pierre Bourdieu may be of assistance in understanding development of sustainability policy and practice in an institutional environment like Vancouver Island University. As Thomson (2006) and Wacquant (2008) point out, Bourdieu was concerned with analyzing the behavioral dynamics of groups and individuals as they interact with one another in various social spaces or fields like education, business or government while pursuing different resources within those fields. It is suggested that Bourdieu’s analytical framework can be applied to development of sustainability policy and practice, including acquisition of sustainability behaviors within a field of post-secondary education. In particular, it will be suggested that Bourdieu’s concepts of “habitus”, “field” and “capital” are of relevance, and can help explain why certain policies and practices at Vancouver Island University are more successful than others, and how sustainability issues might be more appropriately addressed in future. 15 The research questions posed here will be explored in more detail in Chapter 6 following disclosure of data through case study documents and interviews. Answers to these questions should assist in drawing conclusions and making recommendations at the end of the study about sustainability policy and practice at Vancouver Island University. Importance of the study Considerable research has been undertaken already on development of sustainability policy and practice at post-secondary institutions. As the next chapter indicates, studies have focused on characteristics of sustainable universities, on progress made developing sustainability policy on campus, on the kinds of initiatives that have been implemented, and on the roles of those who pursue sustainability initiatives. Case studies have been produced tracking development of sustainability policy at a number of colleges and universities in different countries, including several Canadian universities. In addition, researchers have focused on the response of members of the university community to sustainability initiatives, and on the strengths and weaknesses of sustainability policy at various institutions. While strengths and weaknesses of sustainability policy have been discussed, studies have not commonly relied on a theoretical framework to better understand these, or to develop strategies for increasing strengths and overcoming weaknesses. That is the intent of the present work in turning to the analysis of Pierre Bourdieu. By doing so, it is hoped new insights can be gained into successful implementation of sustainability initiatives in higher education. Outline of chapters In Chapter 2, the existing literature on sustainability and post-secondary education is reviewed, and an introduction is provided to Bourdieu’s theoretical constructs in relation to 16 matters of sustainability policy and practice. Chapter 3 focuses on the nature of the case study approach and how this is appropriate to the current study. Chapter 4 addresses research findings derived from documentary sources associated with sustainability policy at Vancouver Island University. Chapter 5 examines research findings obtained from interviews with different groups in the university community. Chapter 6 addresses the research questions posed in this chapter based on data collected in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5, and based on the work of Bourdieu. Finally, Chapter 7 offers a case study summary and provides recommendations for implementing sustainability policy and practice at Vancouver Island University, including suggestions for future research. 17 Chapter 2: Overview of the Literature Introduction This work involves a study of sustainability policy and practice in higher education and focuses on a particular institution, Vancouver Island University. Numerous studies have dealt with sustainability and higher education, many of which were produced in the years following the Talloires Declaration in 1990. The Talloires Declaration stated that academic institutions had a responsibility to confront worldwide environmental decline by increasing environmental awareness, by pursuing sustainable development on campus, and by providing educational leadership through curriculum design, research, and community involvement. Since 1990 more than four hundred institutions have endorsed the Talloires Declaration worldwide, and researchers have produced a wide range of material on sustainability issues. Studies have focused on characteristics of sustainable colleges and universities, the nature of sustainability initiatives at such institutions, and the impact of this on university and college communities. Sustainability accomplishments have also been addressed including successful energy and waste management policies on campus, and adoption of initiatives like recycling and green building design. At the same time, studies have pointed to difficulties implementing certain initiatives. These include conflict over policy proposals on campus, problems in planning and communication, funding complications, and a lack of institutional support. Researchers have proposed different strategies for dealing with these. They include bringing groups and individuals together through better communication strategies and increased participation in policy and research. Reviewing policy on a regular basis is also recommended, 18 as is obtaining feedback on sustainability initiatives, and insuring that funding for specific initiatives is in place. Much of this consists of practical solutions for implementing policy initiatives on an ongoing basis. Yet there is arguably a need for transformative action to create a more supportive culture of sustainability. In this regard, the work of Bourdieu and the concepts of habitus, field and capital are of interest. They help explain why certain initiatives may be more successful than others, and how support for sustainability can be limited through the influence of “habitus” among members of any community, including post-secondary education. Steps can be taken to address this and help achieve what Bourdieu referred to as a “transformation” of habitus to bring about a greater culture of sustainability at post-secondary institutions such as Vancouver Island University. Characteristics of sustainable universities and colleges Descriptions of what sustainable universities and colleges might look like began appearing by the mid to late 1990s. For example, Clugston and Calder (1999) described “sustainable” universities as ones in which students were taught about sustainable “behaviors” and the “injustice” of unsustainable economic and environmental practices (pp. 31-46). They suggested institutions of higher learning should adopt sustainability goals in their mission statements, and promote instruction of sustainability across a broad range of disciplines. Along with researchers like Arenas (1999) and Allen (1999), Clugston and Calder (1999) proposed that administrators, faculty, and students work together developing ecological and social ideologies of sustainability, and pursue sustainability initiatives on and off campus. Sustainable universities should form partnerships with governments and industry to advance 19 sustainability initiatives locally and globally, and each partner would work to lower its own “carbon footprint” (pp. 45-46). Arenas (1999) in particular suggested that universities become a focus of government programs for modeling sustainability initiatives like recycling and waste management. Allen (1995) indicated post-secondary institutions would be good locations for sustainability “offices” that could provide expertise to local communities in environmental and related matters. Orr (1999) recommended that universities become places where sustainability innovations were adopted, tested, specially recognized and rewarded. In sum, there were calls for action to make colleges and universities centers for theoretical research, and a source for practical solutions to address problems of sustainability and the environment. Despite this kind of interest, Wals and Jickling (2002) reported the educational community was divided on how to respond to “education for sustainability” in the 1990s (pp. 220-221). They noted educators held different views about the meaning of sustainability and sustainable development. Some were comfortable using the terms “to address under-represented issues through traditional environmental education” (p. 221). Others were not so comfortable because the terms implied resource development was inevitable, even if on a sustainable basis. Reference might be made to such concepts, but the focus should be on nurturing “alternative perspectives such as deep ecology and ecofeminism” (p. 222). Still other educators recognized limitations in the language of sustainability, but supported it because it was “consistent with the global political agenda” put forward in documents like the Talloires Declaration (pp. 222-223). Lozano, Lukman, Lozano, Huisingh and Lambrechts (2011) noted that certain post-secondary institutions made more progress than others in the years following the Talloires 20 Declaration. While many had adopted sustainability policies by the first decade of the twenty-first century and pursued practices like recycling, alternate transportation, and energy conservation, very few were measuring their own progress on such initiatives, or identifying sustainability goals they might achieve in future. Lozano and colleagues estimated that less than 20 of approximately 14,000 universities worldwide were preparing regular sustainability reports at the time of their study. They also found sustainability initiatives tended to be treated as tasks for facilities managers on campus with little input from researchers or others. Academic studies focusing on sustainability issues were confined to certain faculties or departments, and were not widely discussed or shared. Lozano and colleagues explained their findings by suggesting that universities are characteristically slow to adopt new paradigms and that they “continue to rely upon Newtonian and Cartesian models which relegate learning and action to reductionist thinking and mechanistic interpretation” (pp. 1-5). In other words, there appeared to be an institutional reluctance toward adopting a holistic, uniform approach to sustainability issues on campus. This was complicated by the fact that educators tended to hold different and conflicting views about sustainability, and what constituted a sustainable university environment. Sustainability policy in higher education Regardless of divisions in the post-secondary community, Filho (1999) suggested effective sustainability policy should facilitate dialogue among different groups on campus and contribute to meaningful initiatives. He argued that all groups, including students, faculty and administrators should participate in policy making, and close attention had to be paid to the language of sustainability policy to make it relevant to stakeholders. This was important because sustainability issues, unlike others, affected so many people on campus and cut across so many 21 aspects of post-secondary life. He also cautioned against centralization of control over sustainability policy because stakeholders might consider this too narrow and exclusive. Filho (1999) went on to suggest that sustainability policies contain clear plans for implementation. Without these, the gap between “intention” and “action” could become too great, and policies might not be transformed adequately into practice (p. 29). Orr (1999) discussed the importance of implementation as well. He suggested successful sustainability policies encouraged implementation of energy efficiencies and reduced use of resources on campus. Runhaar, Dieperink and Driessen (2005) outlined “three complexities” inherent in pursuing sustainability policy. The first of these was addressing environmental, social and economic values simultaneously, and in a manner acceptable to a majority of stakeholders. Second was a need to confront a lack of a shared understanding about sustainability issues. It might be difficult, for example, to craft university policy on climate change if there was strong disagreement among administrators, faculty and the board of governors about the extent to which human activity contributed to global warming. A third complexity was policy development within a “multi-actor policy context”. The authors explained that policy makers at colleges and universities were subject to the influence of different “actors” trying to shape policy outcomes. These included private donors, government representatives, members of unions and professional organizations, and social activists within the community (pp. 2-7). Some of these groups and individuals would have greater influence than others on adoption of sustainability initiatives. Runhaar and colleagues also explained that students, faculty and administrators had different perceptions about sustainability depending on their position in the “governance” structure of post-secondary institutions (p. 2). Those lower in the governance structure felt less 22 able to effect meaningful change. The challenge of policy making, then, was to rally sufficient support from stakeholder groups despite concerns over power imbalances, the credibility of scientific evidence, and whether budgetary resources were in place to implement sustainability objectives (p. 2). The authors recommended “stakeholder analysis” as a tool for developing sustainability policy. This involved interviewing different groups to identify common values and interests that could be used to structure policy alternatives. Groups lower in the governance structure might be reluctant to participate, but this could often be overcome if it was suggested “the whole world, or future generations have a stake in the [sustainability] policy problem under study” (p. 9). Bringing members of different groups together to create effective policy has its challenges. In 1997, administrators, students and faculty at the University of British Columbia accomplished this by working together to draft a campus Sustainability Policy. Researchers have since commented on the efficacy of that policy. Gudz (2004) interviewed members of all three groups. She concluded that while most respondents were in favor of the policy, they also believed “a larger standard of human and ecological health remains unaddressed in many areas of the university, with or without a [sustainability] policy” (p. 157). Her findings indicated it was “the same handful of committed people getting involved, taking risks and doing all the work” to implement policy in the years following the Talloires Declaration. Most were associated with the faculty of agriculture. There, commitment to sustainability initiatives like recycling, waste management, and energy conservation was part of a “planned, non-adversarial facilitated process that helped participants develop a shared understanding of [sustainability] issues and . . . potential solutions” (p. 166). 23 Moore (2005a) tracked a large number of stakeholders through facilitated workshops at the University of British Columbia using a “value-focused thinking framework”. During this process, she collected data from students, faculty and administrators who were involved in different sustainability initiatives at the university (pp. 327, 329). Her study suggests sustainability policies can become out of date, and should be reviewed on a regular basis with academic plans. This would help stimulate a “transdisciplinary” approach to better assist with sustainability initiatives on campus (pp. 329-331). Moore (2005a) pointed out that a large number of sustainability programs competed for limited funds at the University of British Columbia. This, together with a lack of coordination among programs, underscored the need for “transformation, alternative pedagogy and new kinds of organizational and evaluative structures” (p. 338). Facilitated workshops might be valuable in bringing people together to discuss sustainability, but it was clear “only a small percentage of people are engaged in sustainability research at the university”. In addition, the “realities of lean budgets, increasing student numbers and reduced government support” made it difficult to put recommendations into practice (p. 337). Moore, Pagani, Quayle, Robinson, Sawada, Spriegelman, and VanWynsberghe (2005) also studied aspects of sustainability policy at the University of British Columbia. They relied on a method of collaborative inquiry to engage various groups on campus and brought them together as a “collaborative resource” to explore factors contributing to sustainability policy and practice. They noted that “universities are complex systems” and there was “no single answer to any of the questions raised” (p. 71). They also identified five limitations to creation of sustainability programs at the University of British Columbia. These included “a lack of institutional commitment”, a “diffuse power structure and unclear decision-making”, “difficulties 24 among participants balancing energy and exhaustion”, a “general lack of strategic vision or historical continuity” and “difficulty implementing policy initiatives” (p. 72). It is arguable such influences would limit development of sustainability policy and practice in any institutional setting. M’Gonigle and Starke (2006) studied aspects of sustainability at the University of Victoria in British Columbia. They suggest the challenge of implementing sustainability policy is “unlike any social struggle of the past” because multiple systems of power need to come together across space “to bring forth life and locally generated power” (p. 83). They argue that policy changes of this kind “would not entail an old-fashioned revolution of one class against another, but a gradual transition by people . . . against an inherited structure of spatial dependency”. They refer to this as “the challenge of institutionalizing sustainability” (p. 84). They go on to state that any institution, including academic institutions, must address the institutional character of unsustainability which means a tendency to over-consume resources as the status quo. They also suggest it is important in developing campus wide sustainability policies to bring tensions between “territorialism and centralism” into balance between different power structures on campus. This would help insure that broad sustainability goals are not lost among competing interests of different groups (p. 85). Students and sustainability in higher education Whyte (1999) suggested educational programs should provide more opportunity for collaborative research between faculty and students on sustainability issues. This would encourage more students to become involved, and might assist with novel solutions to environmental problems. It would also help students carry forward a deeper commitment to sustainability goals. 25 Allen (1999) argued that students should be able to practice sustainable behaviors and see them adopted at post-secondary institutions if they are to model them for society as a whole. Sharpe (2002) went on to suggest that universities and colleges should encourage students to engage in a broad range of sustainability initiatives, including policy making and research. Without this, they are less likely to commit to sustainability goals. Kyburz-Graber (2004) explained that educational institutions can play a significant role in sustainable development if “they focus on their teaching and learning culture and involve students in decision-making” (p. 63). Students tend to be among more activist members of the post-secondary community, and are more likely to pursue sustainability initiatives if they are given an opportunity to implement and evaluate them. Helferty and Clarke (2009) noted there was not much information about student led initiatives on sustainability. To address this, they surveyed sixty-five post-secondary institutions in Canada, focusing on student involvement in climate change issues. Gathering data through campus visits, telephone calls and e-mail questionnaires, they found a significant number of initiatives had been undertaken. These included “awareness raising, sustainability assessments and greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories, sustainability funds, residence challenges, campus retrofits, conferences, staff/faculty programs and policy development” (p. 3). This engagement, particularly in policy development, was described by students as a way to “ensure the initiative will continue once they left campus” (p. 6). In general, Helferty and Clarke (2009) found youth involvement ranged “from socialization and indifference to exercising influence and power”, depending on the type of initiative and extent to which students participated. They concluded the “best option for engaging youth leaders in creating climate solutions on campus is a shared power relationship” 26 (pp. 1, 7). It appears, then, that students believe they can have an influence on sustainability policy and practice, particularly if this is encouraged at institutions they attend. Administrators and sustainability in higher education Administrators would seem more likely to be involved with sustainability policy than students or faculty because policy making is one of their professional responsibilities. Interestingly, however, Filho (1999) reported that at least some university administrators shied away from sustainability policy because they viewed it as a “declaration of commitment” in which funding limitations, stakeholder conflict and other issues made it appear there was a lack of “readiness to perform the work envisioned” (p. 29). Adopting a general policy approving the Talloires Declaration may be one thing, but seeking consensus on complex institutional policy is another. As Sharpe (2002) explains, administrators tend to be “wary of a perceived power on the part of faculty and students” to block initiatives they disagree with, or that they have had little opportunity to consider (p. 13). Moore (2005a) points out that administrators often have little “direct or even indirect influence over who teaches, or what gets taught”. Accordingly, they may perceive “no one is responsible” for curriculum or policy concerns involving sustainability, and this can cut “across all academic life” (pp. 6-7). It may be difficult, then, for administrators to engage faculty and students in policy making even if this is encouraged at institutions where they work. Wright (2007) notes that when interviewed, Canadian university presidents and vice-presidents “focused more upon environmental aspects than economic or social aspects [of sustainability]” (p. 7). Perhaps this was because they perceived a greater consensus of support for environmental issues. In a global context, however, university presidents and vice-chancellors from G20 countries have continued to meet annually since 2008 to discuss a wide 27 range of sustainability concerns. In May 2010, they focused on sustainability initiatives in three key areas: energy, health and higher education. Interestingly, there was no consensus as to which was most important. Faculty members and sustainability in higher education Sharpe (2002) suggests faculty members believe their primary task is to meet the challenges of academic life through teaching and research. Focusing on policy development is not part of their “core mission” on campus (p. 11). For faculty to engage successfully in sustainability initiatives, Sharpe suggests they be able “to value placing themselves within a [relevant] system of study” (p. 12). Sustainability studies differ from traditional studies in at least two ways. First, they are transdisciplinary, cutting across academic boundaries and focusing on research from different sources. Second, research is often applied and action oriented instead of theoretical. Wright (2007) argues there should be more “cohesion among researchers” in defining their role in sustainability studies, and deciding how this might best influence development of sustainability policy (p. 35). Timmerman and Metcalfe (2009) found universities had better success implementing sustainability policy through operational initiatives like “green” building design, recycling programs and energy conservation than through educational initiatives like integrating sustainability studies with academic course work. They reviewed policy documents dealing with sustainability and education at the University of British Columbia to assess their pedagogical significance. Policy statements were classified as to whether they revealed a “direct” or “indirect” pedagogy. Statements of direct pedagogy dealt primarily with curricular concerns. The authors found evidence of this in statements linking sustainability with “curriculum content”, “ways of learning” and “new 28 academic courses and programs”. An indirect pedagogy was revealed by statements linking sustainability to other concerns like “the campus community”, “qualities of UBC graduates”, and “teacher recognition” that did not have explicit curricular content. Goals and strategies in policy documents were also sorted into “emergent or recurring themes” (pp. 50 – 53). Timmerman and Metcalfe (2009) concluded the language in policy documents was rather general, though it did reveal a direct and indirect pedagogy and disclosed themes broadly supportive of sustainability initiatives. It was difficult, however, to determine who would oversee implementation of sustainability initiatives in academic curricula, and whether this would extend to graduate as well as undergraduate programs. It was also hard to determine how individual instructors would develop sustainability studies in their course work, and to what extent administrators would approve curricula (p. 53). The authors advised that “the effects of sustainability policy” should be seen in “lesson plans, classroom settings, community partnerships and teacher-student relationships”. Still, it was hard to see how implementation strategies identified in university policy documents would lead to this (p. 58). Other factors of significance Cortese (2003) has indicated personal belief systems can confound development of sustainability policies in any context, including higher education. For example, there are those who support policies to counter what they believe to be the negative impact of human activity on the environment. Others oppose this because they believe problems of climate change and environmental deterioration are due mainly to natural processes, and only minimally to human influence. In addition, there are those who believe natural resources are abundant on a global scale and natural ecosystems can absorb the impact of industrial and other activity for years to come. Still others believe technology will be capable of resolving problems associated with 29 climate change, resource depletion, and the environment. Of course, there are others who believe environmental collapse is inevitable. For them it is already too late, even if sustainability initiatives were adopted on a global basis. Conflict between these positions can be difficult to mediate, and policy makers have to work with those who share different beliefs about the planet, the environment and sustainability in general. Employment opportunities, job security and expenses are also of concern to those who work in higher education. Issues about tenure, job regularization and benefits can keep faculty preoccupied, and limit the time and inclination they have to work on sustainability initiatives. Administrators may be involved with financing, operations and other issues which distract from sustainability concerns. Students, in turn, are preoccupied with their studies and obtaining work to cover the cost of their education. Sharpe (2002) has suggested that one of the main impediments to sustainability policy on campus is exhaustion or personal “burnout” from career activities and job related concerns (p. 7). She describes working for eight years to build a sustainability “change-management team” at Harvard University to support wide-scale engagement across a decentralized, complex and politicized campus of over 40,000 staff, faculty and students (p. 5). This was challenging to say the least, and not everyone she worked with remained a member of the team. Sharpe (2009) suggests that better communication or “connectivity” between management tiers is very important, and that “distribution of power” among groups on campus must be re-assessed to create a healthy culture of sustainability (p. 9). Theoretical concerns Sustainability policies and practices have been adopted increasingly at post-secondary institutions since the 1990s. However, it can be difficult bringing groups together to develop 30 successful initiatives. This is due to a number of factors including funding limitations and disagreement over policy alternatives and how best to implement them. Conflicts can arise because the interests of one group differ from those of others, and allocation of resources affects certain programs more than others. Indeed, as Cortese (2003) observes, conflicts of interest seem inevitable and are likely to form “an indispensable content of dialogue on sustainable [policy] development” (p. 12). Competing interests and unequal power relationships undermine effective policy making in any environment, including post-secondary institutions. A transformative approach may be necessary to assist people in coming together to create a better environment for achieving sustainability goals. To date, researchers have developed a number of proposals to address this. For example, Moore (2005b) has proposed a series of recommendations for creating education programs that are broadly applicable to other sustainability initiatives. These include “infusing” sustainability concerns into the institutional decision making process, practicing collaboration and “transdisciplinarity” among administrators, faculty and students, and engaging in sustainability activities (pp. 330-335). Clarke (2006) produced a model for effective environmental management based on data collected from Dalhousie University over a 15 year period. Her work provides practical suggestions for implementing sustainability initiatives in higher education. These include following a schedule of best practices, using information “feedback” loops so initiatives can be adjusted based on feedback about performance, and “renewal” analysis in which initiatives are reviewed on an ongoing basis and updated or renewed as necessary (pp. 376-387). Ferrer-Balas, Adachi, Banas, Davidson, Hoshikoshi, Mishra, Motodoa, Onga, and 31 Ostwald (2008) conducted a comparative analysis of sustainability initiatives at seven universities in different countries. They identified a number of important “drivers” of sustainability. These included bringing together “units” of committed individuals, building connections with surrounding communities, and providing secure funding arrangements (pp. 297-298). This assisted with development of sustainability policies and practices at each institution. Vaughter, Wright, McKenzie and Lidstone (2013) have suggested there is a need for comparison of sustainability initiatives across multiple institutions to better understand the impact of sustainability policy and practice in post-secondary education. Data from multi-site studies seems to be lacking, and what there is has tended to focus on measurement of outputs in relation to “environmental externalities” such as emissions reduction on campus (p. 2252). While this is important, a broader examination of policy and practice concerns at different institutions would be helpful. Much of this research provides practical suggestions for implementing sustainability initiatives in a post-secondary environment. Yet there is arguably a need for a broader transformative vision. In this regard, the work of sociologist Pierre Bourdieu may be of relevance. As Karol (2004) suggests, Bourdieu’s conceptual analysis of “habitus”, “field” and “capital” may be useful in achieving a transformative culture of sustainability in higher education (pp. 1-5). Bourdieu and sustainability in higher education The focus of this study is on assessing development of sustainability policy and practice within a particular institutional environment at Vancouver Island University. It can be helpful to conceive of this as unfolding within a “field” of education, as Bourdieu (1986) describes it. A 32 “field”, according to Bourdieu, denotes a “social space” or social “arena” in which groups and individuals engage one another as “agents” in pursuit of “resources” within the field (pp. 58 and 66). Many “fields” exist including religious, political, educational, and economic. Examples of “resources” sought after include knowledge within the educational field, financial wealth within the economic field, and decision making power in the political field. As Navarro (2006) points out, however, these kinds of resources can be available and sought after across all fields (pp. 11-12, 16). As Thomson (2008) explains, sub-fields can exist within larger fields. Examples include banking and investment within the economic field and post-secondary education within the educational field. In this context, students, faculty and administrators at colleges and universities could be seen as interacting with one another as agents within a sub-field of higher education. Members of different groups bring different sets of background experiences and perceptions to the fields and sub-fields in which they interact. These experiences and perceptions, or “dispositions” as Bourdieu (1984) referred to them, form the basis of what he called “habitus” (p. 170). Bourdieu describes habitus as a cognitive structure created by a social process that leads to patterns of behavior “that are enduring and transferable” from one engagement to another in human interaction (pp. 170-171). It is acquired through “the form of lasting dispositions, or trained capacities and structured propensities to think, feel and act in determinant ways” (pp. 170-171). As such, it is shaped by past events and structures, and shapes current practices and structures as well. 33 As Wacquant (2005) explains, the habitus or “dispositions” of members of different groups forms part of their identity, and helps guide them in fields in which they interact (p. 316). At the same time, it can conflict with the habitus of members of other groups that is derived from a different set of dispositions. The concept of habitus helps explain why cooperative efforts may be possible among some groups and individuals, but not others. As Wacquant (2005), Swartz (2002), and Maton (2008) suggest, those who share a similar habitus are more likely to engage in collaborative behaviors with one another than those of a different habitus. For example, Swartz suggests those brought up in families of athletes are more likely to develop their own sports abilities and acquire “dispositions and know how” pertaining to athletic performance than those raised in other circumstances (pp. 62-64). This athletic “habitus” also disposes them to engage in cooperative endeavor with those from similar backgrounds, both in sports and other activities. It does not mean they will not cooperate or share with others, only that they are more likely to do so with those who share a similar habitus. The pursuit of resources within fields is a competitive endeavor, according to Bourdieu (1986). It involves an acquisition of “capital” which may be defined as “all the goods, material and symbolic, without distinction, that present themselves as rare and worthy of being sought after in a particular social formation” or particular “field” (pp. 175-176). Apart from economic or financial capital, Bourdieu (1986) identifies “cultural”, “social”, and “symbolic” capital as important. Cultural capital consists of resources like knowledge, skills and information within a particular field. Social capital refers to the benefits of group membership like “strategic alliances” and “networks” of influence and support. Symbolic capital denotes the value of prestige, honour and recognition that can accrue to groups and individuals through their interaction in a particular field (p. 35). 34 As Moore (2008) explains, acquisition of capital can take place on a “cooperative” basis, for example, between individuals working together in a particular group, or on a “contested” basis between competing members from different groups (pp. 110-119). Like the influence of habitus, competition over different forms of capital helps explain why there can be cooperation as well as resistance to pursuit of resources within a particular field, including sustainability initiatives in higher education. It also suggests why there may be a need for transformative action to overcome resistance to such initiatives. Bourdieu (1986) suggested that the challenge in assessing the behavior of participants who compete with one another for capital in fields or sub-fields including higher education was to “identify underlying master patterns that represent deep structural patterns that cross-cut and find characteristic forms of expression in cognitive, moral, and corporeal dimensions of action” (p. 109). As Swartz (2002) explains, these underlying “patterns” refer to dispositions, attitudes and behaviors that lie at the heart of habitus. In this study, factors affecting sustainability policy in higher education would represent “cognitive, moral, and corporeal dimensions of action” which are in turn affected by the underlying “patterns” or habitus of those engaged in implementing policy initiatives on campus. It is suggested that while there is evidence of successful sustainability initiatives at the university, the existing habitus of administrators, faculty and students, indeed all members of the university community, can at times constrain adoption of sustainability policy and practice. This will be explored in detail through the research questions posed in this work, once the data from different sources has been examined. It will be suggested, though, that transformative action may be necessary not only to reduce conflict over the acquisition of capital on campus, but to address the impact of habitus on whether acquisition of capital takes place or not. 35 Conclusion This work adopts a case study approach to examine sustainability policy and practice within a particular post-secondary environment. Numerous studies have focused on sustainability and higher education. They have examined the characteristics of colleges and universities that have pursued sustainability initiatives, and on activities administrators, faculty and students have engaged in to achieve objectives. Case studies have also been prepared on sustainability policy and practice at specific institutions, including several Canadian universities. Sustainability achievements have also been documented including implementation of energy management and sustainability policies on campus and adoption of specific initiatives like green building design, campus recycling, and sustainability studies in curriculum and instruction. Challenges have also been identified. Wals and Jickling (2002) have noted that educators tend to hold different and conflicting views about the meaning of sustainability on campus. Sharpe (2009) identified difficulties in communication between management tiers and an uneven distribution of power as impediments to various initiatives. Moore and colleagues (2005) pointed to a number of problems including a lack of institutional commitment and limited strategic vision. Cortese (2003) and M’Gonigle and Starke (2006) referred to conflicts between personal belief systems as well as funding limitations. Researchers have proposed a number of strategies for dealing with such issues. Filho (1999) suggested groups and individuals be brought together through increased dialogue on sustainability initiatives, and recommended that groups participate more in policy development, especially students and faculty. Whyte (1999) suggested there be more opportunity for collaborative engagement, particularly in sustainability research, while Moore (2005b) proposed 36 infusing sustainability concerns into the institutional decision making process. Clarke (2006) recommended obtaining feedback on sustainability initiatives and reviewing policy on a regular basis. Ferrer-Balas and colleagues (2008) suggested building support networks with surrounding communities, and insuring there was secure funding for sustainability initiatives. Much of this research offers practical recommendations for implementing sustainability initiatives in a post-secondary environment. As Karol (2004), Moore (2005b) and others suggest however, there is arguably a need for transformative action to create a more supportive culture of sustainability on campus. In this context, the work of Bourdieu and his analysis of habitus, field and capital are of relevance. They help explain why certain sustainability policies and practices may be more successful than others, and how support for sustainability can be limited through the influence of “habitus” among members of the university community. It will be suggested that this influence can be addressed to achieve what Bourdieu referred to as a “transformation” of habitus to increase the social, cultural and symbolic capital of sustainability in higher education. 37 Chapter 3: Research Approach Introduction The purpose of this study is to explore development of sustainability policy and practice within a bounded system at Vancouver Island University. To accomplish this, a case study approach has been adopted as a means of inquiry. The approach taken is qualitative rather than quantitative for a number of reasons. First, this is an exploratory study. It gathers information from original sources in which the researcher is the key instrument of data collection. While quantification of data may be useful in further studies, the focus of the current work is on gathering information from primary sources and making observations about it, some of which may be speculative in nature. Secondly, the approach is to collect data from different sources, including groups and individuals on campus. Subjective data, including opinions, personal experiences, and feelings of participants is examined, much of which is difficult to quantify. Third, while the influence of factors affecting sustainability policy and practice may be objectively measured in certain cases, this is not necessarily so in other cases. Influences may be subtle or indirect, especially within a context of social and political debate in which sustainability issues are often addressed. These can be hard to quantify, while qualitative analysis may be quite revealing. Fourth, the study examines development of sustainability policy and practice from a theoretical perspective based on the work of Pierre Bourdieu. The intent, again, is exploratory and to introduce a theoretical framework that may be of assistance in further study. In that regard, a qualitative approach seems more useful than a quantitative one. 38 Overview of qualitative approaches A number of qualitative approaches were considered for this study. One was a straightforward narrative design, which seemed of value because the focus of inquiry is on a specific area of research. As Creswell (2007) and Merriam (2009) point out, however, narrative inquiries are generally used for capturing different life experiences or life “stories” of a single individual, or select number of individuals. They are not particularly amenable to a broader research focus, and do not generally draw on different sources of data. A phenomenological study was another possibility. As Merriam (2009) explains, it focuses principally on the meaning of a “shared” experience or phenomenon within a particular group, such as those who have shared a life changing experience like winning a lottery or surviving a natural catastrophe. As with the narrative approach, the focus is on a particular experience, or “essence of that experience”. It does not typically extend to a broad range of experiences or rely on multiple sources of data. Ethnographic research focuses on the experience of an entire cultural or social group. As Atkinson and Hammersley (1994) suggest, it usually involves a large number of participants and focuses on their “collective” values, behaviors and beliefs. Ethnographic studies are not typically used to examine a specific issue or set of issues, however, nor do they focus on different groups or a limited number of individuals from different groups. A grounded theory approach was also considered. Unlike other approaches, it goes beyond analysis of group and individual experiences, and seeks to generate a theory about the interactions of people engaged in a certain process. As Strauss and Corbin (1998) point out, it involves sampling of groups and individuals, generally through a structured interview process, and seeks to categorize data to support an underlying proposition or hypothesis. Yet researchers do not rely on documents or other secondary sources, and try to set aside theoretical 39 perspectives. The intent is to discover whether an underlying theory emerges from data that is collected. The case study approach offers another alternative. As Stake (1995) and Yin (2009) point out, it involves investigation of behavior through one or more studies in a “bounded system”, or particular setting or circumstance. It also relies on collection of data from multiple sources such as interviews, documents and reports. Researchers typically focus on key issues in the data, but not on uncovering an underlying hypothesis. At the same time, as Stake (1995) suggests, case studies do engage in interpretative analysis, and can draw on theoretical propositions to help explain what emerges from the data. Qualitative approaches share certain similarities. They seek meaning and understanding, and use the researcher as a primary instrument of data collection. As Merriam (2009) observes, they also rely on an inductive strategy, and produce a descriptive end product. The case study approach offers much to the present work. Unlike other approaches, it permits focus on a “bounded system” like a university campus, and encourages collection of data from different sources like students, faculty and administrators. It also provides for identification of important themes or factors, and allows for interpretive analysis to explain the significance of these in an institutional setting. For these reasons, a case study approach has been adopted in this work. This is explored further in what follows, including how the case study can be applied to analysis of sustainability policy and practice in a post-secondary environment. Background to case study research Tellis (1997) refers to the case study as an analytical tool that has its roots in European academic research. It became popular in North America in the early 1900s and for several 40 decades was closely associated with the Department of Sociology at the University of Chicago. It declined in popularity after the 1930s and did not experience a revival until the 1960s. The decline was attributed to a movement in sociology to more quantitative analysis, and to support from governments and industry for more scientific research and technological studies in higher education. The revival of the case study coincided with development of grounded theory as a research approach in the 1960s. Both reflected a renewed interest in qualitative analysis to complement quantitative research. Since that time, researchers have suggested the case study is flexible enough to embrace both a qualitative and quantitative dimension. As Yin (2003) writes, case study research draws on “the logic of design, data collection and specific approaches to data analysis” and those approaches “may be qualitative or quantitative” in nature (p. 13). He also goes on to suggest no routine formula should apply to case study research. Stake (2000) acknowledges the value of the case study in qualitative research, and points out the importance of maintaining the parameters of such an approach: . . . a case study is both the process of learning about the case and the product of our learning, each one entailing a respectful attention to context, boundary drawing and the concerns of the stakeholders (p. 237). Polkinghorne (2005) suggests case studies have been particularly useful for assessing human behavior because they allow for qualitative analysis within bounded systems of human interaction. He comments as follows: Human experience is a difficult area to study. It is multi-layered and complex; it is an ongoing flow that cannot be halted for the benefit of researchers. Unlike the objects of nature, the layers of experience are not rigidly ordered, nor are its moving contents [always] related according to mathematical patterns. Qualitative methods are specifically constructed to take account of the particular characteristics of human experience and to facilitate the investigation of experience (p. 138). 41 While quantitative analysis may have a place in case study research, Creswell (2007) notes that a qualitative approach has been predominant over the last half century. In this analysis, a case study “boundary” is drawn around a particular post-secondary institution, Vancouver Island University. As VanWynsberghe (2007) and others explain, it is important to identify boundaries and the “unit of analysis” in case study research, as well as “units of observation” and research questions to be explored (pp. 1-9). In this study, the unit of analysis has been identified as sustainability policy and practice at Vancouver Island University. Units of observation consist of documents, reports, and declarations produced on and off campus, as well as interview responses provided by administrators, faculty and students at the university. A set of five research questions has also been identified which will be used to explore implementation of sustainability policy and practice at the university. VanWynsberghe and Khan (2007) refer to case study research as a “transparadigmatic and transdisciplinary heuristic that involves the careful delineation of the phenomena for which evidence is being collected” (pp. 2-9). In this regard, the case study seems appropriate for exploring sustainability initiatives in a post-secondary environment. Policy making at universities is arguably transparadigmatic and transdisciplinary because it cuts across many disciplines and involves many participants and decision makers. Factors that influence sustainability policy and practice are likely to be diverse, and would have to be carefully delineated or distinguished in the data that is collected. Ultimately, it is the implementation of sustainability policy that is the primary focus of research, and which constitutes the unit of analysis in this study. 42 Types of case study research Bassey (1999) has suggested that case studies are undertaken for three different purposes. One of these is “theory based” which relies on a particular theory to explain data that is gathered, though not necessarily to prove an underlying hypothesis. Another purpose is “evaluative” in which researchers assess data that is collected and address certain themes, but do not make use of particular theories to explain this. A third purpose is “story or picture based” in which the data presents its own “story” and the case study is primarily observational without much if any interpretation. The purpose of the present work is evaluative in seeking to explore sustainability policy and practice at Vancouver Island University and making observations about the data that is collected. There is a theory based purpose as well, however, based on the work of Pierre Bourdieu. Stake (1995, 2000) identifies three types of case study research. In the single “instrumental” study, a researcher focuses on a particular issue or concern and then selects a specific bounded system or “case” to examine. In a collective or multiple study, the researcher focuses on a particular issue but selects multiple “cases” to examine. In an “intrinsic” study, the bounded system itself is examined without reference to a particular issue or concern. Under this classification, the current work could be described as a single instrumental study, or simply, a single case study. The issue or concern lies in exploring sustainability policy and practice in a post-secondary environment, otherwise referred to as the unit of analysis, and the bounded system of study is Vancouver Island University. Yin (2003, 2009) identifies three different forms of case study which he calls descriptive, explanatory and exploratory. A descriptive study is one in which data is gathered and patterns 43 may be identified, but the intent is not to engage in explanations about phenomena. This seems to correspond to the type of study in which the purpose is “story or picture based”, as Bassey describes it. An explanatory study goes beyond description and addresses causal connections to explain phenomena that are subject to study. While some interpretation is involved, specific hypotheses and theoretical concerns are generally not applied to analyze data. This may best describe studies where the purpose is evaluative, as Bassey explains it. An exploratory study engages in theoretical analysis, and would have a theory based purpose. The intent is not only to present data and identify themes, but to explore theoretical propositions in relation to the data, and suggest avenues for further study. Merriam (2009) has suggested that case studies can be particularistic, heuristic or descriptive, depending on what is offered in the research. A particularistic study maintains a specific focus in presenting or analyzing data, and offers readers insights into what they might expect and what they might do under similar conditions. A heuristic study sheds new light on a phenomenon and, as Brown (2008) explains, allows participants and readers “to extend their experience, discover new meaning or confirm what is known” about the phenomenon (p. 3). Heuristic studies offer explanations for problems and situations, and provide background to what the data describes, and about what has happened and why. A descriptive study seems similar to the descriptive study proposed by Yin, and offers a range of data without a lot of explanation or interpretation. In all cases, Merriam (2009) emphasizes the importance of maintaining a rich or “thick” reporting of data from a variety of sources. In this study, the purpose is to explore development of sustainability policy and practice at a particular post-secondary institution. The classification schemes of Stake (1995, 2000) and 44 Bassey (1999) suggest it may best be described as an evaluative, single case study which also has a theory based purpose. In relation to Merriam (2009) and Yin (2003, 2009), it might be described as exploratory and heuristic. Regardless of classification, Merriam (2009) suggests the case study approach is well suited to exploratory, qualitative research that tries to answer questions of “how, why or what” (p. 44). Those questions are arguably what this study is trying to answer in relation to sustainability policy and practice at Vancouver Island University. Single, multiple and nested case studies Stake (1995), Merriam (1998, 2009), and Yin (2003, 2009) have written at length about single and multiple case studies. They agree a multiple case study can provide more data than a single study. As Yin (2009) explains, however, a multiple study must follow a careful “replication” design in which data is dealt with the same way in all cases (p. 53). Lotz-Sisitka and Raven (2004) made use of a “nested approach” to conduct multiple case study research on industrial mining in South Africa. Individual case studies were “nested” inside an overall case study as circles within a circle. Each individual study provided unique information within a multiple case format. The authors concluded that while “the context dependent knowledge was useful . . . there are tensions associated with the transfer of case learning within the broader institutional framework of higher education” (p. 68). It appeared to them that different results from nested studies could not always be reconciled, or explained by any particular research theory. Multiple case studies are more expensive and time consuming to complete than single case studies, though they are likely to generate more data. Dillon and Reid (2004) point out, however, that “one well-conducted case study has the potential to cast doubt on existing 45 assumptions”, and combined with “single” case studies by other researchers in a particular area may be “superior” to a multiple case study (p. 36). A single case study at one university can shed light on sustainability policy and practice at other institutions. Two such studies have been completed at Canadian institutions. Clarke produced a single case study focusing on sustainable policy development at Dalhousie University in 2002, and Moore completed another at the University of British Columbia in 2005. Both refer to sustainability policies at other institutions. Clarke (2002) noted that because her research was “bounded by time” and focused on outcomes at “one university”, the single case study was appropriate (p. 23). Moore (2005) relied on a single case study to examine how the educational component of sustainable environmental policy was addressed at one institution. This approach enabled “extensive examination” of a particular situation rather than a more cursory study of different situations (p. 2). As in the studies of Clarke and Moore, the units of observation in this study consist of documents and reports dealing with sustainability issues at Vancouver Island University and structured interviews with members of different groups on campus. Research at multiple institutions can provide more information than a single case study, but it may not lend itself to as in depth an examination of data as at one institution. It was possible in this study to acquire a rich, focused set of data with which to analyze sustainability issues at Vancouver Island University. At the same time, as Vaughter (2013) and colleagues suggest, there is a need for more multi-site studies to compare data from different institutions, and to provide a balance to the number of single case studies. 46 Critiques of case study research Corcoran, Walker and Wals (2004) have been critical of case studies, including those dealing with sustainability research. They suggest that few studies address the theory of case study research to any extent, and often do not explain why this approach was adopted in the first place. They also point out that elements of the case study approach are not discussed or well defined including formulation of specific research questions. There is also limited discussion of issues like validity and reliability of data. The authors go on to devise a “table of considerations” to assist with case study research. These include defining case study parameters, describing how data will be collected from different sources and stakeholder groups, and including more explanatory theory about the case study approach. Dillon and Reid (2004) have critiqued the “table of considerations” because, in their view, it presents “single-loop” paths to solutions. They argue instead for a problem-based approach to case study research. In this approach, researchers engage in a “self-study” of their own work where problems interpreting data are characterized as an opportunity for ongoing learning, and are not subject to tabular summaries as a “fixed or finalized utterance to end all utterances about the case” (pp. 31, 34). In contrast, VanWynsberghe and Khan (2007) suggest the case study should not be described as a form of methodology, strategy or research design. They believe this has led to confusion about the meaning and application of the term. As noted earlier, they ascribe “transparadigmatic” and “transdisciplinary” qualities to the case study which, properly undertaken, reveals or delineates the unit of analysis or phenomenon about which evidence is being sought (pp. 1-9). What becomes important is not methodology or design, but the process 47 of identifying or uncovering the unit of analysis during the course of research. They argue this should be the principal goal of case study research, not concerns about analytical strategy and application of design methodology. Ethical considerations Two frameworks for ethical decision making during the course of research have been described by Haverkamp (2005). One of these is an “ethics of virtue” and the other an “ethics of care”. An ethics of virtue requires a researcher to be “aware of ethically important moments” while an ethics of care prescribes “a duty to attend to people on their own terms, consider their needs and recognize the interpersonal character of research” (pp. 146, 154). Both of these should be kept in mind by any researcher and have been addressed in the present study. For example, interview participants were given consent forms and interview protocol guides before interviews began, and received copies of transcribed interviews thereafter. Further, the research protocol used in this study was reviewed and approved by the University of British Columbia Behavioural Ethics Review Board, and by the VIU Research Ethics Board at Vancouver Island University. Reliability and validity in case study research The quality of case study research is a function of reliability and validity of data. In discussing this, Hite (2001) suggests “very few reports and articles provide sufficient information” about a case. Conscientious researchers, however, must make efforts to “locate evidence for the reliability of research” (p. 52). 48 In this study, interview questions were designed to seek answers to help address the five research questions posed in the opening chapter. The expectation, then, was that reliance could be placed on interview data to help address research questions. Barbour (2001) has recommended checklists to insure rigor in qualitative research, but cautions against these being too prescriptive. Polkinghorne (2001) states that research strategies like purposive sampling, grounded theory, multiple coding, triangulation and respondent validation are useful “technical fixes” but cannot guarantee rigor in qualitative research (p. 1). Both authors suggest checklists and technical fixes can help with reliability, but there must be a consistent approach to analyzing data. In this study, purposive sampling, checklists, data coding, triangulation of data and protocol guides were used to help ensure reliability of data. Validity refers to the accuracy of research findings from the perspective of researchers, participants, and those who make use of such findings. Creswell (2003) outlined six strategies to help ensure validity. The first of these is data triangulation which is accomplished by examining multiple sources of data. The more diverse the sources, the more likely information will tend to be accurate. In this study, data was derived from a variety of sources including interviews with various groups at Vancouver Island University. Other data sources included international reports and documents such as the Brundtland Report, the Talloires Declaration, and the Earth Charter which are referred to in university policy documents. Internal documents were also examined including copies of the Master Campus Plan, the university Academic Plan and “Carbon Neutral Reports” for the university. Finally, secondary literature and the work of researchers at other institutions were analyzed as part of the study. A second strategy to help ensure validity is to convey findings using a “rich, thick description” as Merriam (1998) describes it, to transport the reader to a place of “shared 49 experience” (p. 29). In this study, interview questions were designed to be open-ended, and to elicit the personal experience of interview subjects so readers could better identify with this. A third strategy is to control for researcher bias. In this regard, interview questions were designed to limit the influence of the researcher on narratives provided by respondents. Other strategies to ensure validity include addressing information that runs counter to research themes, engaging in peer de-briefing, and auditing research findings. Each of these was pursued during the course of this study. Kyburz-Graber (2004) asserts that the case study reflects an application of the “scientific method” if conditions of objectivity, reliability and validity are met. The scientific method suggests researchers can obtain the same or similar results when analyzing data from different sources. This can be difficult to achieve in qualitative research. Participants in one phase of a study may provide different information in another phase, and there is always a possibility of participant as well as researcher bias. In any event, as Yin (2003) suggests, a case study investigator should be able to “ask good questions and interpret the answers, be a good listener, be adaptive and flexible, have a firm grasp of the issues being studied and be unbiased by preconceived notions” (p. 57). This remained an important goal throughout the course of this study. Document sources and gathering methods As units of observation, policy and planning texts were collected from Vancouver Island University pertaining to environmental and sustainability policy from 1991 to 2009. Three policy texts in particular dealt with sustainability issues. One of these was the institutional Recycling Policy adopted in 1991 (Appendix A). The second policy was an Environmental Trust Fund measure adopted in 2000 by the Transportation and Safety Management Initiative 50 Committee (TASMI), now known as the Campus Sustainability Advisory Committee or simply the Sustainability Committee (Appendix B). This dealt broadly with environmental and sustainability initiatives on campus. In January 2009 a third institutional policy was adopted by the university, entitled simply the Sustainability Policy (Appendix C). It affirms a commitment of the university to sustainability principles which were first endorsed when the university became a signatory to the Talloires Declaration in 2008. Other sustainability initiatives in the campus Master Plan were reviewed during the course of this study. This included “the Sustainability Policy of the Master Plan”, the “Campus Plan Response: Draft Sustainability Policy”, and the “Vision Statement of the Academic Plan” of Vancouver Island University (Appendices D-F). All these were used to develop interview guides for the current study, to assess responses given by interview subjects, and to identify factors affecting implementation of sustainability policy and practice at Vancouver Island University. Interviews and research participants Several pilot interviews were conducted before formal interviews were undertaken as units of observation. This helped refine the interview process and clarified interview questions. Responses assisted in developing a protocol guide and with timing and technique during the interview process. Participants were selected for interviews based on having had some level of involvement with sustainability issues at Vancouver Island University. For example, students were approached through the “Solutions” club at the university which is a volunteer organization engaged in sustainability initiatives on campus. A letter of invitation was extended to all 51 members of this group. They were asked to contact the research investigator confidentially, and interviews were arranged with those who did so (Appendix G). Administrators and faculty were invited to participate if they had been involved in activities like recycling or waste management on campus, or if they had assisted with groups like the Solutions Club and Sustainability Committee, or if they had been involved in developing environmental or sustainability policy. They also received letters of invitation to engage in an interview process, and arrangements were made with those who decided to do so (Appendix H). Each participant committed to one and one half hours of time over the interview period from June to December, 2011. No additional time was expected or required, though some participants provided more during the course of their interview. The study was designed so participants remained anonymous. All received transcripts of their interviews. In total, twenty-three participants were contacted and seventeen were available for interviews including six administrators, six faculty members and five students. Of the six participants who did not participate, three did not respond or could not be reached, one was away on leave, one was too busy, and one participant did not believe they could contribute any useful knowledge to the study. Each of the seventeen participants signed a form consenting to an interview (Appendix I). Interviews were conducted in media room facilities arranged through library services at Vancouver Island University. Participants received a copy of an interview protocol guide and interview questions before interviews commenced (Appendices J-M). At the end of the interview, participants were given a debriefing form (Appendix N). Once interviews were transcribed, participants received a copy of their interview transcript with a message asking them 52 to contact the researcher if they had any questions or concerns. To date, no concerns have been brought to the attention of the researcher. Remaining chapters Different sources of data are examined in the following pages. In Chapter 4, a series of reports, declarations, and policy documents are discussed which have had an impact on sustainability policy and practice at the university. Some of these originated off campus while others were prepared internally by university staff. In Chapter 5, interview data is examined consisting of comments and observations by administrators, faculty and students about implementing sustainability policy and practice at the university. In Chapter 6, the study addresses the five research questions posed at the beginning of this work. These include what sustainability and sustainable development mean to different groups on campus; how sustainability policy has been transformed into practice; what factors influence development of sustainability policy and practice; how power and leadership issues impact on sustainability policy; and to what extent the work of Pierre Bourdieu may be of assistance in understanding sustainability concerns on campus. Finally in Chapter 7, the study offers recommendations to help implement sustainability initiatives at Vancouver Island University and provides suggestions for further research. 53 Chapter 4: Research Findings from Documents Introduction Data sources for this work included a broad range of documents reflecting concerns about sustainability policy and practice at Vancouver Island University. For example, environmental concerns were addressed in documents dealing with implementation of specific sustainability initiatives. Concerns about leadership were expressed in documents focused on achieving policy objectives on and off campus. There was also an educational influence in documents that stressed the importance of sustainability research and instruction on campus. Indeed, it is suggested all three influences can be found in the documents reviewed in this chapter. The documents can be grouped into two categories. The first consists of documents that were not produced on campus, but have had a significant impact on development of policy and practice at the university. These are referred to as “external” documents and consist of international studies, declarations, and reports dealing with environmental and sustainability issues. The second category consists of documents that were prepared at Vancouver Island University itself. These are referred to as “internal” documents, and consist of policy, planning and administrative reports that deal with sustainability issues. External documents Three documents in particular produced outside the university have influenced sustainability policy and practice on campus. They have also had an impact on sustainability initiatives undertaken by other educational institutions, and by governments, industry and businesses around the world. 54 The Brundtland Commission Report (the “Brundtland Report”) The Brundtland Report was prepared in 1987 by the Brundtland Commission, also known as the World Commission on Environment and Development created by the United Nations in 1983. Headed first by Gro Harlem Brundtland, Prime Minister of Norway, the Commission intended to bring countries together to pursue policies of sustainable development on an international basis. Inspired by the Stockholm Declaration of 1972 and the Tbilisi Declaration of 1977 which called for greater environmental awareness, the Brundtland Commission addressed global poverty, deterioration of the environment, and exploitation of resources in its 1987 Report. The Report focused on “sustainable development” as a means of dealing with such problems and defined the term to be “development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Section Two, pages 1-2). The Brundtland Commission recommended a global network of sustainability policies to solve environmental problems. For more than 25 years, it has helped bring governments and businesses together to work on sustainability initiatives. It influenced debate at the Earth Summits of 1992 and 2002, and the international Council on Sustainable Development established by former U.S. President Clinton. The Brundtland Report acknowledged the environment was a resource to be developed but stated “what is needed now is a new era of economic growth, growth that is forceful and at the same time [growth] that is socially and environmentally sustainable”. In particular, Section Two of the Report opened with the following: Environment and development are not separate challenges; they are inexorably linked. Development cannot subsist upon a deteriorating environmental resource base; the 55 environment cannot be protected when growth leaves out of account the costs of environmental destruction. The Report suggested sustainable development would not only slow rates of environmental decline, but combat human poverty as well. Successful initiatives would encourage broader, more evenly distributed resource and industrial development worldwide. More people would share in the benefits of such an economic model, if it was seriously pursued by governments and industry. Educational and leadership concerns were also addressed in the Report. It declared that teachers around the globe had a crucial role to play supporting sustainable development, and called for people from all political fields to contribute to sustainability initiatives as a matter of public policy. The Brundtland Report influenced adoption of sustainability policy at Vancouver Island University. The definition it proposed for sustainable development has been adopted in major policy documents, including the campus Sustainability Policy introduced in 2009, and the Nanaimo campus Master Plan. As interview results will show, it was referred to by administrators as having a significant leadership and educational influence on campus. The Talloires Declaration Proclaimed in Talloires, France in 1990, the Talloires Declaration was one of the earliest attempts by post-secondary institutions to endorse principles of sustainability worldwide. The President of Tufts University in Massachusetts convened twenty-two university presidents and chancellors representing universities in North and South America, Asia, Africa, and Europe to support the Declaration which stated as follows: Universities educate most of the people who develop and manage society's institutions. For this reason, universities bear profound responsibilities to increase the awareness, 56 knowledge, technologies, and tools to create an environmentally sustainable future (ULSF, p. 2). The document identified ten action points in relation to sustainability and sustainable development in higher education. Most of these focus on the importance of maintaining the environment, though they also deal with matters of leadership and education. The first action point states that “…we agree to take action to increase awareness of environmentally sustainable development”. Another emphasizes the importance of educational programs to increase “environmental awareness”. Still another declares that “ensuring students are environmentally literate” is a major responsibility of educational institutions. According to yet another point, one of the most important things is to “encourage . . . environmentally sustainable development” among everyone involved in “higher” learning (p. 2). The Talloires Declaration called for leadership in sustainability education and stated that “university leaders must initiate and support mobilization of internal and external resources so that their institutions respond to this urgent challenge”. It also stated “environmentally sustainable development” should be a “transdisciplinary” feature of curricula, research, university operations and community engagement on university and college campuses. To date, the secretariat for the Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (ULSF) reports that over 400 college and university presidents and chancellors have endorsed the Talloires Declaration. Vancouver Island University became a signatory to the Talloires Declaration in 2008. The document and its principles are referred to specifically in the Sustainability Policy of the Nanaimo campus Master Plan. 57 The Earth Charter The Earth Charter builds upon previous United Nations documents like the Brundtland Report. Perhaps its most noteworthy contribution was to identify human “culture” or way of life as a factor impacting on sustainability issues along with the economy and the environment. The Earth Charter was drafted in 1990 and received international recognition at the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, which was convened by the United Nations to address environmental concerns worldwide. The Earth Summit was attended by representatives from many governmental and non-governmental organizations, and is credited with making sustainability a “global” concern, and the Earth Charter a seminal document. The preamble declared that humanity had reached a critical point in history, and it was important to create one community from a range of different cultures to bring forward a mutually sustainable global society: We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations (http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_a/img/02_earthcharter.pdf). To date, many organizations including government bodies, religious groups, professional associations, and over 250 post-secondary institutions around the world have endorsed the Earth Charter. Colleges and universities were in large measure responsible for the Earth Charter. Since 1970 they had been sponsoring “Earth Day” to celebrate the environment and bring attention to problems of pollution and degradation of natural ecosystems. This was credited with helping initiate the 1992 summit in Rio de Janeiro and proclamation of the Earth Charter: Earth Day 1970 achieved a rare political alignment… Thousands of colleges and universities organized protests against the deterioration of the environment. Groups that 58 had been fighting against oil spills, polluting factories and power plants, raw sewage, toxic dumps, pesticides, freeways, the loss of wilderness, and the extinction of wildlife suddenly realized they shared common values . . . and helped pave the way for the 1992 United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro . . . and proclamation of the Earth Charter . . . (http://www.earthday.org/earth-day-history-movement). The Earth Charter included a number of statements addressing environmental sustainability. Environmental conservation and rehabilitation were declared vital in all development schemes, and recovery of endangered species and ecosystems was to be encouraged. The best way to protect the environment was to prevent harm by “allowing no buildup of radioactive, toxic or other hazardous substances” and avoiding “military activities damaging to the environment”. Setting aside biosphere reserves worldwide was recommended to protect and preserve areas representing “Earth’s life support systems”. The Earth Charter suggested educational institutions had an important role to play. In particular, they were to provide children and youth with “educational opportunities that empower them to contribute actively to sustainable development” and were to promote “sustainability education”. Citing the importance of the Earth Charter, the United Nations declared the decade from January 1, 2005 to January 1, 2015 as the “Decade of Education for Sustainable Development” (http://www.un-documents.net/a57r254.htm). The Earth Charter emphasized the importance of leadership on sustainability issues. It stated that “educational institutions, media, businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and governments are all called on in order to offer creative leadership”. Provisions of the Earth Charter are referred to in the university Sustainability Policy, and similar provisions are contained in the Nanaimo Campus Master Plan and the university Academic Plan. Interview results will show that respondents referred repeatedly to principles set 59 out in the Earth Charter and Talloires Declaration when discussing sustainability initiatives at Vancouver Island University. Other external documents The university is a signatory to several agreements with external organizations that are noteworthy for their impact on sustainability policy and practice. Perhaps the most significant of these is the University and College Presidents Climate Change Statement of Action for Canada, which was endorsed by the university in 2009 along with other post-secondary institutions across Canada. This committed the university to sharing knowledge, research and “best practices” about climate change with students and the public at large, and pursuing “responsible solutions” to address problems associated with climate change. Among other initiatives, the Statement called for each institution to develop its own “climate action plan”, and work cooperatively with businesses, governments, and other institutions of higher learning to address climate change issues. At the same time, the university became a member of the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE). Formed in 2006, AASHE is a network of colleges and universities in North America dedicated to promoting sustainability in all aspects of higher education through policy development, curriculum and instruction, and outreach programs within the general community. A second agreement known as the Public Sector Energy Conservation Agreement was signed with the provincial government in 2008. This allowed the university to access grant monies to assist with implementation of its Energy Management Policy following an institutional energy audit that year. The university also signed a Power Smart Partner agreement with B.C. 60 Hydro in 2008 which assisted with the energy audit and provided funding for a full time energy manager on campus. Together, these agreements demonstrate a commitment to sustainability policy and practice on the part of the university through relationships with other institutions in the public and private sector. Internal documents A number of policy documents, plans and reports have been produced on campus that deal specifically with sustainability policy and practice. The university Protocol for Policy and Procedures (2010) defines “policy” as “a concise, formal statement of principles that indicates how the University will act in a particular area of operation” and states it is to be “supported by and implemented by procedures” (p. 1). With respect to sustainability concerns, the university has produced four documents setting out policies to help guide the campus community. These include the campus Recycling Policy, the Environmental Trust Policy, the university Sustainability Policy and the Sustainability Policy in the Nanaimo campus Master Plan. Unlike the others, the two Sustainability Policies required approval from the University Board of Governors and are “intended to provide for the efficient operation of the University” by giving “clear direction to employees of the University” (p. 4). Other internal documents have also had an influence on campus sustainability issues. These include the Academic Plan of Vancouver Island University, the Response to the Nanaimo campus Master Plan, and “Carbon Neutral Reports” of the university, the Energy Management Policy, and documents on the Sustainability Website. 61 Each of these is discussed more fully as follows. The Recycling Policy The Recycling Policy was adopted by the university in 1991 and was merged with the university Sustainability Policy in 2010. Up until then, it had been administered by Facilities Services and Campus Development, and required paper products to be recycled by all departments on campus. Recycling of materials like food waste and electronic equipment was not mandated under the policy, but informal procedures were followed to accomplish some of this. Recycling is now a feature of the Sustainability Policy which extends to food and other waste products including bottles and various beverage containers. In future, more materials may be subject to recycling under the Sustainability Policy. The Environmental Trust Policy This initiative was adopted in the late 1990s by the university Transportation and Safety Management Committee (“TASMI”). Referred to as an “environmental trust”, this policy created a “self-funded environmental program” to help create a “greener and safer campus”. TASMI received a portion of funds collected from pay parking on the Nanaimo campus to meet commitments to a greener environment. For example, funds were used to purchase bicycle lockers for the Nanaimo campus, and for employees to research other sustainability initiatives like alternate transportation. In 2007, however, the university divested itself of control over pay parking. This was turned over to a private corporation which now collects and retains parking revenues. The TASMI committee was dissolved soon thereafter, and the environmental trust policy was discontinued. TASMI was subsequently reconstituted as the Campus Sustainability Advisory 62 Committee (commonly referred to as the Sustainability Committee), though the environmental trust initiative has not been revived. The TASMI document is important because it was one of the first to endorse development of a “greener” more environmentally focused campus on a self-funded basis. Interestingly, however, it was referred to only by faculty members during interview sessions, not by administrators or students. The University Sustainability Policy The Sustainability Policy was drafted by the Sustainability Committee at Vancouver Island University, and approved by the Board and Senate in 2009. In this fairly short, general policy the university commits to becoming a “sustainability leader” in “operations, teaching, research, and community engagement”. This includes adoption of “policies and practices that advance sustainability of the general global environment”. The commitment is quite comprehensive, applying “to all activities under the governance of Vancouver Island University”. As indicated earlier, the policy adopts the definition of “sustainable development” referred to in the Brundtland Report and Earth Charter, and affirms the need to manage resources for the benefit of future generations. As a policy document, it provides general direction to members of the university community. Indeed, it provides the foundation for all sustainability activities at Vancouver Island University. The Sustainability Policy was referred to specifically by administrators during the course of interviews. While faculty members and students referred to “sustainability” policies in their interviews, they did so in general terms and did not refer specifically to this policy. 63 The Sustainability Policy in the Nanaimo Campus Master Plan The Sustainability Policy in the Nanaimo campus Master Plan was created in 2010 by administrators, faculty members and students in association with resource planning groups, architects, engineers and land use planners. It is a more detailed document than the general Sustainability Policy, and gives specific direction about the kind of sustainability initiatives to be pursued on campus. The document explains that sustainable development depends on an interaction of physical processes, economic activity and social dynamics. This interaction promotes “environmental responsibility, economic health, social equity, and cultural vitality”. Five components of sustainability are identified including institutional, social, fiscal, operational, and environmental sustainability. The document consists of eleven policy items. The first three are meant to promote a “sustainability-conscious lifestyle” on campus and in the surrounding community. The next two encourage sustainability education in academic and applied programs, and state that “academic planning will ensure that sustainability concepts and applications are integrated into formal programs”. Four other items call for preservation of cultural “values” of sustainability for future generations such as consuming fewer resources, conserving energy, and recycling waste products. The final two items emphasize environmental conservation and preservation. The document refers specifically to the environment and states “The University intends to . . . establish itself [as] a leading advocate for environmental responsibility”. It further states as follows: Design and operation of the campus will endeavor to provide…environments of consistent quality, and the university acknowledges that factors promoting human health and well-being must be considered in the design and operation of the local campus 64 environment, and in the effect that campus operation has on the larger environment (http://www.viu.ca/masterplan/, pp. 2-4). The policy refers to the importance of leadership. It states that “in recognition of Vancouver Island’s role as an innovator and social leader, [the Sustainability] Policy of the Plan pays special attention to the cultural dimension of sustainability”, though the latter is not specifically defined. The Talloires Declaration and the Earth Charter are also referred to in the “Policy Statements” section of the Master Plan document (pp. 4-10). The campus Master Plan is important because it refers to future development on campus, and suggests that sustainability theory must be put into practice. Interview subjects also made reference to the campus Master Plan, though they generally did not refer to specific policy statements within the Plan. The Response to the Nanaimo Campus Master Plan This document forms part of the Nanaimo campus Master Plan. It was prepared by university administrative staff as a follow-up to the 11 policy items set out in the Sustainability Policy contained in the Master Plan, and is best described as an extension of that Sustainability Policy. The intent of the document is to “provide an opportunity to introduce physical changes that will have long-term effects on the institution’s ecological and cultural footprint”. The Response document contains thirty three sections. The first of these describes how development, operations, and maintenance on campus are to support sustainability among “students, faculty and staff”. The second section indicates the Master Plan is to be “an ambitious multi-faceted demonstration project in sustainable theory and application” which is to “demonstrate environmentally innovative solutions”. This section goes on to recommend establishment of a “Central Vancouver Island Sustainability Coalition” which would be a “multi-65 institutional think tank” led by the university to establish central Vancouver Island as a model for “sustainable resource management”, and to introduce environmentally innovative solutions. Three other sections deal with university lands. These describe campus lands as a “primary campus resource”, and states they must be used “efficiently and intensively”. In this regard, the document states it is important to preserve the “view and the character of the hill town development” and “restore and enhance the indigenous forest on the upper slopes, the wetland, and the stream” on university lands. The remaining sections deal with building and infrastructure development on campus. They share a common theme that sustainable development is an important objective of building construction and design at Vancouver Island University. The Response document is significant because like the campus Master Plan itself, it had its origins in discussions and debate about sustainability issues among different groups and individuals on campus. It seemed to have broad support when it was prepared in 2010. Interestingly, however, respondents did not refer to it specifically during the course of interviews for this study. The Academic Plan of Vancouver Island University The current university Academic Plan was completed in 2010 by administrators and faculty members. Sustainability is identified as one of the “core values” of the university community, and creation of a “culture of sustainability at Vancouver Island University” is listed as one of the six goals of the Plan. Its vision statement indicates that members of the university community should “support a healthy sustainable environment through progressive operational practices and promotion of environmental awareness”. Another section refers to community 66 engagement, and emphasizes the importance of leadership at the university to “sustain collaborative relationships with communities and educational partners to ensure optimal responses to regional, cultural, economic, environmental and social needs” (p. 9, 11). The Plan includes a commitment to education and cross-disciplinary studies in sustainability “to address issues important to society and to the region” (p. 22). Clearly, the document supports sustainability initiatives in teaching and research at Vancouver Island University. While it was referred to by administrators during interview sessions, the Plan was not addressed in detail by faculty members or students. The 2010 Carbon Neutral Report of Vancouver Island University British Columbia was the first jurisdiction in North America to require provincial and municipal institutions to set targets for achieving “carbon neutrality” in the course of facility operations. As a result, colleges and universities have had to complete “Carbon Neutral Reports” since 2009 as required under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act and regulations pursuant to the Act. In its Carbon Neutral Reports, Vancouver Island University, like other institutions, relies on methods developed by agencies like the Greenhouse Gas Management Institute, a nonprofit government organization, to calculate the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted by activities on campus during the year. This “carbon dioxide equivalent” is measured in metric tons, and includes vehicle emissions, heating and air conditioning by-products, and other effluent generated by operation of the physical plant. Different activities at the university can be used to “offset” carbon dioxide equivalents. The “offset” amount is subtracted from total carbon dioxide emissions. Eligible offset practices include paper recycling and energy conservation such as turning off lights and computers when 67 not in use. In addition to estimating carbon dioxide equivalents, the university is required to estimate biomass emissions in its Carbon Neutral Reports. Biomass emissions refer to by-products of wood combustion which factor into calculations of carbon neutrality. Some of these are considered to be “carbon neutral” emissions. If the carbon dioxide equivalent exceeds the amount of offsets, the university has to remit cash to “buy” carbon dioxide “equivalent offsets”. Until 2013 such purchases were made through the “Pacific Carbon Trust”. This was a provincial crown corporation that invested in equivalent offset programs like recycling and green building design. The campus Carbon Neutral Report for 2010 indicates the university paid $76,113.50 to purchase equivalent offsets that year from the Pacific Carbon Trust. In late 2013, the provincial government wound down the Pacific Carbon Trust, and folded its operations into an arm of government known as the Climate Action Secretariat. This was to save on administrative costs and was intended to streamline acquisition of carbon offsets in coming years. The government also suggested it might consider exemptions for educational institutions in acquiring equivalent offsets in future, but whether this will extend to post-secondary institutions is unclear. The 2010 Carbon Neutral Report for the university confirms “sustainability” is a foundation of the campus Master Plan. It also identifies education and community involvement as important initiatives, including education of faculty, staff and students about energy conservation and other “sustainability activities”. It goes on to approve endorsement of the Talloires Declaration in 2008 as an “an action taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”. It points out the Declaration stated that emission of greenhouse gases “threaten the survival of 68 humans and thousands of other living species, the integrity of the earth and its biodiversity, the security of nations, and the heritage of future generations”. The document goes on to detail actions undertaken to reduce energy consumption and emissions across campus. The level of work is impressive. Technical commentary is provided on reductions in mobile fuel combustion, stationary fuel combustion in buildings, use of campus supplies, and travel. Steps are outlined to ensure ongoing reductions in future years. Other sustainability initiatives are also discussed including sustainability awareness campaigns, and provisions for monitoring indoor air quality, water conservation and waste management. The university Carbon Neutral reports are of value because they assess sustainability initiatives on campus in detail. As interview results will show, however, they do not appear to be widely read or widely understood by many in the university community. The Energy Management Policy This was put in place in 2009 following recommendations of the Sustainability Committee and adoption of the Sustainability Policy and development of the Nanaimo campus Master Plan. The purpose of the policy is to define goals and objectives for reducing energy consumption on campus. Goals include reducing waste and emissions, transitioning to “environmentally neutral” sources of heating and cooling, reducing pollution, and encouraging energy conservation. Other objectives include helping the university community better understand energy consumption through “prudent” use of resources, ensuring compliance with government requirements for “sustainability and carbon neutrality”, and promoting a “greener environment”. 69 The policy led to the creation of a draft “energy management plan” in 2010 consisting of three sustainability initiatives. These included a schedule of energy savings projects, a communications strategy to encourage a “culture” of energy conservation on campus, and a system for monitoring, targeting and reporting on energy conservation measures. Current energy savings projects include lighting improvements through replacement of older technology lamps and ballasts with energy efficient equipment, reducing heat loss in buildings by improving envelope insulation and applying solar film to windows, increasing heat recovery by reducing the volume of heated air exhausted to building exteriors, and improving mechanical systems in various facilities. Communication strategies include using the university website and campus email to communicate information about initiatives like recycling, composting and disposal of waste, encouraging sustainability research activity, and supporting professional development through environmental and sustainability workshops. A Sustainability Website was also created in 2009 to assist with communication of energy management initiatives. The Sustainability Website The Sustainability Website is maintained by the department of Facilities Services and Campus Development. The Sustainability home page states the university is “committed to providing vision and leadership” as it develops as “a sustainable community”. It refers specifically to the Sustainability Policy of the Nanaimo campus Master Plan, and indicates this is the principal “mechanism” through which sustainability policies and practices will be introduced on campus. The website provides users with access to documents like Carbon Neutral Reports for the university, the Energy Management Policy, and information about the Sustainability Committee 70 and the Deep Bay research facility constructed in 2010. All these are currently downloadable without charge. A link is also provided to the “Office of Environment and Sustainability”, otherwise known as the “Sustainability Office”, which was created in 2010. The purpose of the Sustainability Office is to identify environmental and sustainability issues of relevance to the university, and recommend policies and practices to develop these at the direction of the Sustainability Committee. The website lists successful sustainability initiatives the university has undertaken. These include becoming a member of AASHE, signing the University and College Presidents Climate Change Statement of Action for Canada, and preparing “Transportation Demand Management Reports” in 2005 and 2008. These assessed the need for better public transportation to and from the Nanaimo campus, and recommended improvements that could be made in cooperation with the city and the Regional District of Nanaimo. In sum, the website provides a useful resource for accessing documents and exploring the nature of sustainability policy and practice at the university. Overview of research findings - documents International declarations and reports have had an important impact on sustainability policy and practice at Vancouver Island University. Provisions in the Talloires Declaration, the Brundtland Report and the Earth Charter have not only been adopted in university policy documents, but have influenced initiatives like energy conservation, recycling and other programs. Course work in the new Global Studies program also refers to the importance of such declarations in building international support and leadership on sustainability issues. 71 Other documents such as the Public Sector Energy Conservation Agreement, and the University and College Presidents Climate Change Statement of Action for Canada have influenced sustainability policy in a number of ways from climate change research, to energy reduction, and educational outreach programs within the local community. A similar influence is apparent from internal policy documents. The university Sustainability Policy and policy statements in the Nanaimo campus Master Plan focus on the importance of leadership on sustainability initiatives within the university community. Those documents suggest the university has a responsibility to engage other partners in government, industry and education to pursue sustainability initiatives in a local and global context. Leadership concerns are also addressed in the university Academic Plan along with educational and research concerns that support an increased emphasis on cross disciplinary studies in sustainability. Environmental concerns are the principal focus of the campus Recycling Policy, the Environmental Trust Policy, the Energy Management Policy, and Carbon Neutral Reports of the university. Creation of a greener campus through conservation of resources and reduction of carbon emissions are emphasized in these documents, and the importance of education and leadership on sustainability issues is referred to as well. Finally, the Sustainability Website provides a useful resource for accessing both internal and external documents pertaining to sustainability issues. In summary, there is a strong documentary foundation for implementing policies and practices at Vancouver Island University that focus on environmental, leadership, and educational concerns about sustainability. 72 Chapter 5: Research Findings from Interviews Introduction During the course of this study a series of interviews were undertaken with different groups on campus to obtain information about development of sustainability policy and practice. Interview questions were intended first to explore the conceptual understanding of respondents about the meaning of sustainability and sustainable development on campus. A second set of questions inquired about involvement with sustainability initiatives and what motivated respondents to become involved in policy making or hands on activities like recycling, composting and waste management. A third focus of questioning was on roles respondents undertook to advance sustainability initiatives on campus. Fourth were questions about contributions made to sustainability initiatives on campus, and the characteristics of those who made effective contributions. Fifth was a set of questions that sought information about significant challenges and accomplishments in sustainability. A final group of questions inquired about factors respondents believed assisted in promoting sustainability on campus, and factors that impeded adoption of sustainability initiatives. Like the data derived from documents in this study, interview results suggest that sustainability policy and practice has been developed at Vancouver Island University within a context of environmental, educational and leadership concerns. 73 Interview participants Seventeen respondents were interviewed for this study in 2011. They were drawn from three groups involved in varying degrees with sustainability initiatives on and off campus, and included six administrators, six faculty members and five students. Members of all groups ranged in age from twenty to sixty years, and their education levels varied from high school to doctoral degree completion. Occupations included university and facilities management, teaching and research, and enrolment as a student. Across all three groups, educational backgrounds were diverse. These included architecture, biology, business administration, chemistry, English, First Nations studies, general arts programs, geography, geology, leadership studies, tourism management, and trades and technology. The length of time participants were associated with Vancouver Island University ranged from a few months to more than thirty years. Face to face interviews were conducted with each participant and answers to questions were recorded and transcribed electronically. Research findings from these interviews are set out as follows. The meaning of sustainability Sustainability meant different things to different groups on campus. Senior and mid-level administrators, for example, tended to connect the term with maintaining the natural environment. This generally meant conservation of natural resources. One mid-level administrator noted as follows: …what’s really important is maintaining unique environmental systems of various areas like Buttertubs Marsh… and Somenos Marsh. These riparian areas adjacent to the Nanaimo and Cowichan campus are part of a larger wildlife corridor we’ve kind of sliced through with the campus (Inter 16 Para 20). 74 Senior and mid-level administrators also linked education to sustainability. One stated that “sustainability” required taking a broad approach to programming within the institution (Inter 9 Para 6). A mid-level administrator suggested it meant “…educating our students to go out into the world and operate from a different paradigm and the current paradigm that exists in society” (Inter 8 Para 17). For some administrators, sustainability meant adopting a leadership role at the university. One senior administrator commented “it’s trying to, in everything we do, be seen as leaders in sustainability” (Inter 9 Para 6). Another mid-level administrator said “If we’re not demonstrating better practices, then who is it in the community that has that responsibility?” (Inter 14 Para 14). Transportation issues were connected to sustainability as well. One senior administrator suggested the issue of public transportation on campus was a means of driving a sustainability agenda (Inter 9 Para 6). Sustainability was also connected to waste management. As another administrator noted “it’s environmental sustainability in regards to the environment, the physical earth that we live on, the resources that we use, the waste that we generate, if we can reduce that” (Inter 5 Para 6). Like administrators, faculty members referred to environmental conservation when describing sustainability. Land usage and conservation of natural lands was a focus of some comment by an English department member: In the context of a place that’s already had a dramatic impact on its environment like VIU, I mean this hillside, I remember this hillside when it was still wild land…For me the term “sustainability” now talks about making sure… we have progressively less impact on the environment that we’ve had in the past (Inter 2 Para 6). Other faculty also connected the impact of human activity with sustainability. A chemistry professor stated sustainability was related to “our interaction with the environment and the planet” while a mathematics instructor said sustainability meant “people are looking for 75 something that is going to have a lower environmental impact than what we’ve had before” (Inter 7 Para 24, Inter 13 Para 12). Educational issues were linked to sustainability as well. A geology professor suggested sustainability attitudes and behaviors were something that could be taught and “we have a huge need to do that for our students so that they come out of here with attitudes that are positive in terms of sustainability…” (Inter 6 Para 28). A chemistry instructor stated sustainability included teaching and research on conservation issues (Inter 13 Para 12). Sustainability was also identified with leadership concerns. A geology faculty member remarked that sustainability involved being an “example” to the community (Inter 6 Para 26), while a chemistry instructor indicated faculty members could play a leadership role in developing initiatives such as recycling and waste management (Inter 13 Para 34). With respect to transportation, faculty identified travel to and from the university as a significant sustainability issue. One professor noted “ . . . the U-Pass thing which we’ve tried to encourage to happen for a decade hasn’t happened here in Nanaimo… many of our students drive and they could be taking the bus” (Inter 6 Para 26). A trades and technology instructor pointed out that while bus service to the campus had improved in recent years, it was still not widely used (Inter 3 Para 24). Like other groups, students linked environmental concerns to the meaning of sustainability. A chemistry student stated sustainability meant “being smart about the resources we use” while a tourism management student connected it to “lowering energy consumption (Inter 1 Para 4, Inter 17 Para 23). A biology student said “sustainability means… we leave a smaller footprint in our community” (Inter 17 Para 23). 76 Students also addressed educational concerns. Some suggested sustainability studies should be a feature of their degree programs and a focus of their academic relationships with faculty and other members of the university community. A geography student said sustainability should “affect both the way that we run our classes, how we learn within those classes, who teaches our classes and how the university is run” (Inter 10 Para 10). Leadership issues were important as well. A geography student emphasized a need for student leaders to promote campus sustainability. A biology student described leadership as “basically making sure that we have, we create a cleaner environment for people to be around at the university or in the community” (Inter 10 Para 15, Inter 17 Para 23). In summary, then, it appeared the meaning of “sustainability” was linked to various concerns about the environment, education, and leadership among members of the university community. All groups associated sustainability with the environment. Administrators suggested sustainability meant conservation of natural ecosystems, and faculty explained environmental sustainability was tied to the impact of human activity on natural ecosystems. Students linked sustainability to a clean environment at the university. All groups connected sustainability with education. Administrators suggested sustainability policies and practices should prepare students to confront environmental problems in future. Faculty explained that sustainability practices could be taught by exposing students to research and instruction in the area. Students believed sustainability studies should to be a part of all post-secondary education. Respondents linked sustainability to leadership concerns as well. Administrators, faculty and students believed sustainability initiatives should be modelled at the university and in the 77 community at large. Administrators tended to see themselves as leaders already, while faculty and students saw a need for more leaders from their own groups. Finally, sustainability was associated with specific activities, including transportation and waste management. All groups connected the term with better public transportation to reduce reliance on personal automobiles and with alternatives like bicycling and carpooling. Administrators and faculty members identified recycling of waste as an important “sustainability” practice, while students connected the term to energy conservation measures. The meaning of sustainable development “Sustainable development” was primarily associated by administrators with building construction and design, and with the architectural landscape at Vancouver Island University. One senior administrator commented that “if we don’t get our built environment right…we can’t get sustainable development right” (Inter 9 Para 8). A mid-level administrator said of sustainable development that “it’s really important to develop buildings that have the least amount of impact on the environment” (Inter 16 Para 22). Examples of sustainable development were buildings on campus that conformed to the “Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design” certification process known as “LEED” and developed by the United States Green Building Council in the late 1990s. One mid-level administrator suggested sustainable development referred to building construction that reflected measurable “green” or environmentally friendly design, and stated “…we follow LEED’s gold practice in designing and operating our facilities. . .where we have natural sunlight, to reusing rainwater, green roofs, computerized energy management systems, [and] low maintenance landscaping that uses native plantings” (Inter 5 Para 19). Most administrators also linked 78 sustainable development to educational programs. A mid-level policy administrator indicated the concept had “an academic side” in which sustainability would be broadly embedded in curriculum (Inter 5 Para 8). Another remarked that sustainable development meant teaching students sustainable behaviors to prepare them for what they might encounter in future (Inter 14 Para 16). Still another suggested sustainable development meant “. . . doing things now that indeed we’ll be able to recognize as important to our sustainability in the future” (Inter 4 Para 22). Like administrators, faculty members connected sustainable development with building design and construction. A geology instructor described the term as follows: … to me it really refers to how [and] what kind of buildings we build, where we build them. So it’s building low energy buildings and using materials that haven’t or don’t have to be shipped a long way and those kind of things. Buildings that work for people and don’t waste resources or that could be better managed (Inter 6 Para 28). Some faculty members believed development did not proceed in a sustainable manner on campus, and should be better managed. An English professor commented as follows: I do know that the area where they put that building [the shellfish research station] was wild land immediately associated with a bay on the East Coast of Vancouver Island, and you could pretty nicely fit into your back pocket, all the wild land associated with bay environments and Vancouver Island (Inter 2 Para 8). A trades and technology instructor stated as follows: Well, I mean I look at some of the buildings that have been built on this campus and other campuses, Cowichan and buildings that have been built as green buildings and LEED buildings, etc., etc. and my experience is that most of these, most of these buildings in the end, really aren’t, aren’t really what they’re chalked up about …especially their heating and cooling systems (Inter 3 Para 24). Despite such comments, faculty agreed sustainability initiatives were relatively new on campus. As the trade and technology faculty member noted, its real promise lay in the future: 79 I think as we plan the future of VIU and how it’s going to grow, or change, I think that…always has to be in the back of our minds that we are working toward more or better sustainability (Inter 3 Para 28). Faculty members also connected sustainable development with learning and education at Vancouver Island University. A mathematics instructor suggested that “you could argue sustainable development is making sure that our students are coming out of here with an attitude of sustainability”. The meaning of “attitude”, however, was not defined (Inter 7 Para 28). A First Nations faculty member indicated there was a need for different training in different educational programs because “sustainable development could have different applications in different domains such as forestry and designing sub-divisions” (Inter 11 Para 26). As with other groups, students identified sustainable development with building and facilities construction. One chemistry student observed that “sustainable development means…we’re not using some kind of dwindling resource that the Province is stressed for, or stressed to find, and we’re building buildings that have low water consumption and low carbon emissions” (Inter 1 Para 8). A tourism management student defined the term to mean “making the right choices . . . with new buildings and to make sure that they’re LEED certified and are meeting those industry standards to be as sustainable as possible” (Inter 15 Para 24). For a biology student, sustainable development meant environmentally friendly or responsible facilities and “for me that means any new buildings or structures that are put up or developed as the university is growing” (Inter 17 Para 25). Students also connected sustainable development with leadership concerns. A biology student stated “it means taking actions and expanding the territory of awareness…it means setting an example, really” (Inter 12 Para 26). A geography student remarked that: 80 Sustainable development seems to mean the process in which sustainable, or and actually any, of the procedures that have to be followed for a university to run… and ensuring that they take into account the economic side of things as well as the environmental effects (Inter 10 Para 14). To summarize, “sustainable development” was connected primarily to facilities construction and design, as well as leadership and educational concerns on campus. Most respondents linked the term to building design. Administrators referred specifically to LEED certified construction, while faculty and students were skeptical of this, questioning how removal of native vegetation and disruption of local ecosystems constituted “sustainable” development. With respect to education, administrators, faculty and students agreed that principles of sustainable development should be taught across a wide range of curricula. Faculty noted, however, that the concept could have different meanings in different disciplines. Leadership concerns were also important. All groups suggested universities had a responsibility to pursue sustainable development and they encouraged local communities to do so as well for the sake of future generations. Students indicated responsible leadership meant that environmental concerns were just as important as economic concerns in sustainable development. Interestingly, there was little if any reference to the classical definition of “sustainable development” as that which meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the needs of future generations. Types of involvement in sustainability policy and practice Most members of the university community professed some involvement in sustainability policy and practice. Administrators, for example, engaged in policy development at the executive level through Board and Senate representation, and believed this was an important work responsibility. Senior and mid-level administrators pointed to annual completion of carbon 81 neutral reports and activities like recycling and promoting use of bus transportation as examples of sustainability practices in which they were regularly engaged (Inter 9 Para 2, Inter 16 Para 16). One mid-level administrator professed involvement in “how… publicly funded institutions support local and regional food systems by participating in purchasing locally grown products” (Inter 14 Para 10). Other administrators reported participating in “Biosphere Conversations” in 2011. This involved meetings and e-mail exchanges between campus administrators and faculty members to engage the Vancouver Island community in dialogue about sustainability issues in higher education. This provided useful ideas for community forums and public meetings to discuss sustainability issues on and off campus. Other administrators attended luncheon meetings to review sustainability policies and practices, and became involved with initiatives to reduce energy consumption and office waste on campus. Faculty members were involved in a range of activities as well. Though they were less engaged in policy making than administrators, one English instructor suggested “I’m one…that gets involved when policy gets passed by the institution and therefore the policy falls to me to either live within, or cope with, depending on how I feel about it” (Inter 2 Para 2). Getting involved in this case meant being “aware” of policy proposals, and following up on sustainability policy that might impact on instructional duties. Faculty worked with students to develop sustainability awareness groups including “Solutions: A Sustainability Network” and ACER, “Awareness of Climate Change Education and Research”. Both are volunteer groups. One chemistry professor associated with ACER remarked as follows: A number of faculty members have joined forces and we do a variety of things that include talking to high school teachers and high school students as well as professional 82 associations, groups here on campus as well as groups in the community (Inter 13 Para 8). Other faculty members reported involvement in sustainability research programs, campus recycling and waste management programs. Students were involved in a wide range of sustainability activities on campus. These included membership in the Solutions group and ACER. The Solutions group promoted activities like energy conservation, green building design and re-cycling, while ACER assisted faculty with research on climate change issues. Students were also involved in “hands on” activities like “bike to work week”, and maintaining a community garden on campus. They indicated their course work provided opportunities for field trips to ecologically sensitive areas, group projects on recycling, and green chemistry practices. They also participated in environmental and sustainability conferences. One tourism management student stated: “We went to TRU [Thompson Rivers University] for a conference to represent VIU and our green practices, and do a presentation on how we are involved in becoming more green” (Inter 17 Para 17). In summary, research confirmed there was broad involvement with sustainability policy and practice on campus. Administrators tended to pursue policy development more than other groups because they were more involved in policy and governance issues at the university. At the same time, they were also engaged in sustainability activities like investigating alternative transportation strategies, energy conservation, and the Biosphere Conversation series. Faculty members were more involved with instructional and research programs on campus. However, they were also more likely to volunteer time assisting with activities like the Solutions Group and ACER, and participate in recycling and waste management initiatives. Students were involved in a number of sustainability activities such as the Solutions Group and ACER as well 83 as recycling and “bike to work” week activities. Through their coursework, they were exposed to sustainability research such as green chemistry and climatology studies, and attended conferences on sustainability topics. Overall, they reported they were more involved with environmental and sustainability issues than students in previous years. Motivation for involvement in sustainability policy and practice Senior and mid-level administrators became involved in sustainability policy implementation for a number of reasons. One senior official saw it as a professional responsibility and noted “. . . it’s very important for a post-secondary education institution that provides leadership in the community . . . to support the principles and, indeed, act on the principles of sustainability” (Inter 4 Para 22). Others became involved for personal reasons. Another senior administrator said it was “because I think…sustainability needs to be a central activity on campus and a central activity of our lives”. A mid-level administrator stated it was “. . . [because] I was looking for a new challenge”, while still another said they were passionate about sustainability as a personal matter (Inter 5 Para 2, Interview 8 Para 19, Interview 9 Para 2). Faculty members also became involved in sustainability activities for different reasons. Like some administrators, one English instructor saw it as a professional responsibility and indicated “…for me, it’s mostly a matter of responding to policy change institutionally . . . we’re seeing more and more policy that’s related to the creation of sustainability practices” (Inter 2 Para 4). Personal reasons were important as well. One chemistry instructor stated they were concerned about issues of environmental sustainability regionally, nationally and at a global level (Inter 13 Para 10). A trades and technology instructor stated simply it was “important” to 84 become involved, and a mathematics professor said “there are small things that the individual could do that would make a difference” (Inter 3 Para 20, Inter 7 Para 20). Students provided similar responses in their interviews. One geography student stated they became involved with sustainability initiatives because they were concerned about the lack of activity going on. A chemistry student joined a sustainability group because “it’s good to be involved with these activities”, and a general arts student explained “this is your world and what you do to it really is [what] you do to yourself . . . I believe in taking actions that actually effect change” (Inter 1 Para 4, Inter 10 Para 12, Inter 12 Para 22). Students also reported they became involved through course work on campus. A geography student stated sustainability studies had been a major focus for the past four years and it was “something that I've studied in my courses and that I tailor all my projects to”. A biology student remarked that “it's very important for not just the university setting but in general for people in a community to start becoming more sustainable and greener because fossil fuels aren't going to be …around forever” (Inter 15 Para 20, Inter 17 Para 19). In summary, interview findings suggest members of all groups engaged in sustainability initiatives because of work and school responsibilities and for personal reasons. Administrators tended to pursue policy initiatives, and faculty tended to pursue instructional and research activities because these were connected to their occupational endeavors. Students were more likely to engage in hands on activities like composting and recycling food waste. At the same time, members of all three groups shared similar personal reasons for engaging in sustainability initiatives. These included a commitment to the environment and to the community at large, and a concern about the future and how little was being done to address problems of environmental decline. 85 Roles in creating a sustainable campus Members of the university community pursued a number of educational and leadership roles in trying to promoting a sustainable campus. Administrators pursued policy objectives and introduced the campus Sustainability Policy in 2009, and the campus Master Plan to guide development of infrastructure until the year 2059. Facets of the Plan are contingent upon partnering with the Regional District of Nanaimo, and administrators believed it was important to show leadership with all community partners. In reference to the campus Master Plan, one senior administrator stated the university should be “an advocate for sustainability in the region” (Inter 4 Para 28). Working with local governments like the Regional District of Nanaimo was particularly important in matters of transportation and waste management: So the regional district, in terms of certainly public transit, and how that can be promoted … [is] important . . . We've got, we have a … what is it called, it's a waste disposal system we have here that we're actually engaged in now (Inter 9 Para 14). For another administrator it was important to stay informed about trends and theories of sustainability and continue “being an advocate for sustainable buildings” (Inter 8 Para 26). Still others believed it was important to lead by example and “model, motivate and educate sustainable behaviors” within the community (Inter 5 Para 10, Inter 9 Para 14, Inter 16 Para 26). Campus wide communication about sustainability was also important. One administrator highlighted a need to find space and time for “sustainability conversations” on campus (Inter 14 Para 18). Another believed it was important to “provide support through staffing that allows people to engage in sustainability initiatives” (Inter 4 Para 28). Faculty members believed they had an important role to play educating students about sustainability. A geology professor suggested it was important to include sustainability topics in course work and discuss sustainability with students (Inter 6 Para 37). Education meant 86 communicating about how the media treats sustainability issues. As one First Nations faculty member noted “The role of faculty in the classroom is to cultivate students who will question and challenge media representations, media hype and corporate propaganda…” (Inter 11 Para 28). A chemistry instructor reported that involving students in research activities was helpful, including work on climate change research (Inter 13 Para 34). Faculty also believed they had a role to play communicating with administrators about sustainability issues. This was accomplished through participation on institutional committees, and by attending meetings of the university Board of Governors and Senate. Initiatives were more likely to be successful if there was good communication between stakeholders (Inter 3 Para 30, Inter 6 Para 37, and Inter 7 Para 34). Faculty pointed out there could be problems in certain departments when dealing with sustainability issues. An English instructor suggested that connecting sustainability activities with certain curricula could be problematic, and it was hard to maintain a consistent educational role with students: Am I constantly willing to invest the time and effort to keep sustainability at the forefront of my thoughts in terms of how to make this the best educational experience for the students in a complete way? I think the honest answer there is often no (Inter 2 Para 14). Faculty members also suggested there should be more discussion with administrators about the role both should play in creating a sustainable campus (Inter 2 Para 14, Inter 3 Para 30). A chemistry professor stated faculty members had a leadership role, or at the very least a supportive role to play. Examples of activities in which faculty already took a leading role included sustainability research, as well as “recycling, printers now being switched over to . . . reduce the waste of paper, and composting initiatives” (Inter 13 Para 34). With respect to students, a biology undergraduate believed there was a role for them to connect course work to “sustainability activities and projects” at Vancouver Island University 87 (Inter 15 Para 28). A chemistry student suggested it was important to talk with other students and faculty about sustainability initiatives during class time (Inter 1 Para 15). A geography student stated it was advisable to stay aware of what was happening on campus and “bring students together to take action toward making the campus sustainable” (Inter 10 Para 28). Students believed they should assume a leadership role through sustainability groups and committees on campus. One arts student said “students should take a leading role in sustainability, as what we choose to do today everyone else will follow”. Two students believed their role was to “stay optimistic” and bring a sense of humor to the sustainability debate. They referred to “jaded” and “entrenched” attitudes, and “people prone to taking themselves too seriously” as reasons for injecting optimism and humor in sustainability meetings (Inter 10 Para 28, Inter 12 Para 28). Finally, a biology student stated university administrators were ultimately responsible for promoting campus sustainability, and that creating a sustainable campus should not be “on their [student] shoulders alone” (Inter 17 Para 27). In summary, administrators believed their role was to motivate others by implementing sustainability policy at the university. They saw themselves working with community partners and with others on campus in support of issues like sustainability education and green building design, and creating conditions necessary for sustainability behavior to flourish. Faculty saw themselves as educators on sustainability issues. Yet they believed they should also assume a greater leadership role on institutional committees to assist with implementation of sustainability policy. Faculty believed administrators should help identify roles for them to assist in policy development, and administrators should keep in mind that different departments held different views about sustainability issues. 88 Students suggested their role was to learn about sustainability initiatives, to communicate with faculty and administrators about these, and connect their course work more directly to sustainability practices. They also believed they should take on a greater leadership role in creating a sustainable campus through involvement with initiatives like the Solutions Group and the Sustainability Committee. Contributions to sustainability on campus Interview data suggested those who contributed time during and school, or who pursued innovative policy and practices made the most important contributions to sustainability on campus. Administrators identified colleagues and certain faculty members who drafted sustainability policy, attended committee meetings, and created sustainability reports as making important contributions to sustainability activities. Two mid-level administrators suggested involvement in such activities “invited you to think about new ways of being” and fostered “whole community engagement” (Inter 8 Para 28, Inter 14 Para 20). Senior and mid-level administrators described a colleague who donated their own time as one who shows leadership, “walks the talk”, and is “passionate [about sustainability] issues” (Inter 4 Para 30, Inter 5 Para 12, and Inter 9 Para 18). One mid-level administrator identified colleagues and faculty members who helped establish the Sustainability Office as making an important contribution (Inter 16 Para 28). The purpose of the office was to identify environmental and sustainability issues on campus, and recommend policies and procedures to deal with these. Its recommendations on green building technology have been addressed in the campus Master Plan. Administrators praised faculty who addressed sustainability issues in their course work, and identified those involved with activities outside the classroom as important contributors. A 89 senior administrator described these individuals as “supportive” and “strong advocate[s] for sustainability” (Inter 4 Para 30, Inter 16 Para 28). Two mid-level administrators identified ACER and the “Solutions” group as important ways in which students contributed to sustainability activities on campus. Praise was reserved in particular for students who were good at working collaboratively and for those who had “respect for the roles and the institution that was here” (Inter 8 Para 28, Inter 16 Para 28). Faculty members identified support for sustainable transportation, reduction of chemical waste in chemistry programs, and soliciting scholarships and donations from industry as important contributions by faculty members (Inter 2 Para 19, Inter 3 Para 43, and Inter 6 Para 39). Two science professors spoke highly of faculty who involved students in climate change studies, and who encouraged students to make “people aware” of sustainability issues in the surrounding community (Inter 6 Para 39, Inter 13 Para 36). A mathematics instructor praised students for making important contributions through involvement in the Solutions Group and activities like recycling and resisting sales of plastic water bottles on campus (Inter 7 Para 36). Besides working with students, faculty members stated it was important to work with colleagues to stress the importance of sustainable energy use, and get people involved with sustainability activities (Inter 6 Para 39, Inter 11 Para 32). Those who did so, and who fostered better communication with administrators, made important contributions on campus. One chemistry faculty member stated both groups needed to work together to send a “consistent message” that was supportive of sustainability (Inter 13 Para 36). In general, faculty participants approved of sustainability activities their colleagues were engaged in rather than those of administrators or students. One faculty member, however, was unable to point to anyone who contributed significantly to sustainability activities at Vancouver Island University. 90 Students identified working with faculty to reduce chemical waste, and working with others in the ACER and Sustainability Groups as examples of important contributions made by students (Inter 1 Para 14, Inter 10 Para 40, and Inter 12 Para 30). A geography student stated that “banning bottled water” would be an important accomplishment, while a general arts student indicated students, faculty and administrators had to work together to achieve important initiatives such as getting “the ball moving in terms of transportation alternatives” (Inter 10 Para 40, Inter 12 Para 30). A biology student stated designing the Shellfish Research Station at Deep Bay to be green and sustainable was an important contribution to campus sustainability. Some reservations were expressed about the Sustainability Office, however. One student remarked that “the Office of Sustainability is trying to make an impact but who knows about that office” (Inter 17 Para 30). Other students either offered no comment about the Sustainability Office, or were unable to explain what its mandate may have been. In summary, the data suggests those who pursued initiatives on their own in addition to work or school responsibilities were regarded as making the most important contributions to sustainability on campus. Administrators, faculty and students were also impressed with those who worked on policy or otherwise contributed to important projects like the Sustainability Office, the Deep Bay Research Station, and the Solutions Group and ACER. Other contributions were acknowledged apart from such high profile initiatives. These included an ongoing commitment to sustainability policy by administrators, attempts by faculty to foster better communication on sustainability issues, encouragement of greater community involvement on the part of all groups on campus, and support for specific initiatives like green chemistry programs and alternative transportation strategies. 91 Members of each group tended to identify accomplishments of their own colleagues as more praiseworthy than others. Students, however, appeared to be the only ones who emphasized that their members should work cooperatively with others to insure important contributions were made to campus sustainability. Characteristics of those making effective contributions to sustainability Findings indicate a number of characteristics were associated with those who made effective contributions to sustainability policy and practice. Administrators identified one of these as an ability to be “authentic” and show good communication skills. Good communication meant “an ability to engage very well with colleagues as well as students” (Inter 4 Para 32). One senior administrator described authenticity as “. . . a personal commitment to sustainability and confidence in sustainability initiatives” and “living and breathing what one believes” (Inter 5 Para 14). Non-confrontational communication was important. Another administrator described it as a way to encourage “…people to challenge their own behaviors and to change them without actually affronting them with that challenge” (Inter 14 Para 30). An ability to engage the public, articulate key issues that need to be addressed, and get others to “buy in” was also deemed important by other administrators (Inter 8 Para 36, Inter 9 Para 24). Equally helpful was a willingness to respect the roles of the institution, though “sticking out your neck” and “going to bat with the Board” could be effective at times in advancing sustainability issues (Inter 8 Para 36, Inter 16 Para 30). Faculty members also identified being authentic and a good communicator as characteristic of those engaged effectively in sustainability activities (Inter 13 Para 38). One English professor suggested good communication involved “a simple clear vision repeated over 92 again…You just keep singing the same song…until somebody listens” (Inter 2 Para 21). A geology instructor suggested good communication consisted of an ability “. . . to motivate people to get involved to take a stand on issues and get out there to do things” (Inter 6 Para 41). Along with motivating others, a mathematics instructor believed it was important to have a good understanding of financial costs, and stated “anything that can look good without costing too much is probably a good place to work right now” (Inter 7 Para 32). A First Nations faculty member suggested it was particularly important to be aware of energy consumption on campus. One of the more effective ways of promoting sustainability was raising awareness about levels of energy use among members of the university community (Inter 11 Para 38). Like administrators and faculty members, students believed good communication skills were important for those engaged in sustainability activities. (Inter 13 Para 38). A tourism management student suggested good “student to student communication” was the “the biggest key” for insuring successful involvement by students (Inter 15 Para 34). Another student thought being able to question beliefs in a positive way was an effective skill in sustainability meetings and activities. Listening to others was also important, and this student suggested administrators and faculty members should listen more to what students had to say about sustainability issues. Working cooperatively with groups on campus who were committed to sustainability initiatives and “who are passionate about sustainability” was more effective than “having an authority figure tell you what to do” (Inter 10 Para 58). Other characteristics of effective involvement were “hard working” and “caring” attitudes (Inter 12 Para 32). A geography student thought sustainability activities that were “lighthearted and fun” attracted more campus support (Inter 10 Para 60). Moreover, those who showed they 93 were “considerate of the environment” were more likely to have influence over others than those who did not (Inter 17 Para 33). In sum, a number of characteristics made for effective contribution to sustainability initiatives on campus. Most important was good communication. Administrators defined this as authentic, non-confrontational communication that reflected a genuine commitment to sustainability policy and practice, but was not intimidating or abrasive to others. A good understanding of university operations, along with an ability to engage the public and articulate key ideas was also important. Faculty members agreed that authentic communication was important in contributing effectively to sustainability initiatives. This entailed a capacity to raise awareness among members of the university community and the public at large about sustainability issues. It included an ability to articulate sustainability goals in a clear and simple manner, and alert stakeholders to financial and other costs of implementing certain initiatives. Students also identified good communication as key to dealing effectively with sustainability issues. This included listening to others, working cooperatively, and questioning in a positive way. Working hard, displaying a caring attitude toward the environment, and maintaining a light hearted attitude were also important characteristics. Challenges in creating a sustainable campus Data suggests the biggest challenges in creating a sustainable campus are financial costs, conceptualizing goals and objectives, and encouraging others to commit to sustainability initiatives. The biggest challenge identified by administrators was financial costs. As one senior administrator put it, “I hate to say it - money” in reference to carbon offset costs paid to the 94 province in recent years to meet sustainable emissions targets. Another senior administrator pointed to limited resources to upgrade or replace an aging infrastructure (Inter 4 Para 34). Sustainable building maintenance was very expensive. One mid-level administrator suggested there should be an ongoing funding stream for this and noted “it's absolutely amazing how much it costs” to maintain a university campus (Inter 5, Para 16). Another administrator commented that “the Province really hasn't got its full act together” about the cost of implementing carbon neutrality and other initiatives in higher education (Inter 9 Para 26). A second challenge was how to conceptualize sustainability and sustainability goals. One senior administrator noted that “One [challenge] is the public education portion and making sure there’s enough communication and understanding and encouraging people to engage in sustainable practices” (Inter 4, Para 34). Two others noted that “changing ways people think” and peoples’ attitudes were a particular challenge because “…there isn’t an understood commitment about what it means to say you’re a sustainable campus…” (Inter 5 Para 16, Inter 8 Para 38). Another mid-level administrator pointed to composting on campus as a practical challenge to overcome. While a good system existed in food services, other areas needed composting but “if senior administration isn't doing, isn't buying in and leading and motivating, it's very difficult” to accomplish this (Inter 16 Para 32). Like administrators, faculty members identified costs as a major challenge in creating a sustainable campus. Adopting measures to conserve energy and decrease greenhouse gas emissions was important, but to be really effective this could mean cutbacks in campus activities and hours of operation. One geology professor noted making more efficient use of buildings through timetabling and room scheduling changes might reduce costs but could result in less program availability or diversity (Inter 6 Para 43). A chemistry instructor suggested that 95 “reducing our energy footprint or our carbon footprint often needs to be thought of in terms of amortization”. Investing in sustainable technology might mean high capital expenditures at the outset, but could result in lower operating costs in future (Inter 13 Para 40). Faculty members identified competing objectives on and off campus as another challenge to sustainability. One First Nations faculty member touched on this in questioning the meaning of “a culture of sustainability” in relation to aquaculture research on campus: Well, when you break that down, what does that actually mean to me? A culture of sustainability? When VIU supports, say the marine, the marine research and I'm not exactly sure what role the research plays in promoting or supporting the fish farm industry. I don't think that would be, that's not my concept of a culture of sustainability because of the destruction that the fish farm industry has had on our wild river stocks… I would question that (Inter 11 Para 40). Similarly, communication between the university and local governments like the city of Nanaimo was affected because both had different priorities. One English instructor suggested the resource based economy of the area affected how Nanaimo residents viewed sustainability and stated “…it is a really difficult mind shift starting in a place like Nanaimo which has its whole history based on coal mining and sawmilling and running a pulp mill and fishing until the fish are all gone” (Inter 2 Para 23). Partnering with local governments, businesses and community groups could assist with sustainability initiatives, but as one trades and technology instructor noted, “I think until we sit down and …have a discussion, a frank discussion within the community, I think it’s going to be … a hard sell (Inter 3 Para 47). A geology faculty member suggested it was a challenge convincing their own colleagues on campus to engage in sustainability initiatives. During talks with student union representatives in recent years, for example, faculty members tried to get them “on board with the UPass” to 96 support public transportation on campus. This did not succeed because the student union believed the cost of the UPass was too high, and communications were interrupted by a faculty strike in 2011 (Inter 6 Para 33). Communicating with the public about issues like alternate transportation was seen as one way of building support for sustainability issues on and off campus. Introducing sustainability practices in classrooms, laboratories and shops was also important, and one instructor noted “we’ve . . . had to start telling our students, you just can’t throw this stuff in the garbage, it’s got to go into recycling bins or whatever” (Inter 3 Para 47). Like administrators and faculty members, students identified costs as a significant challenge in creating a sustainable campus. Budgeting decisions, for example, were needed to address the physical condition of campus buildings to make them “greener” and more sustainable. As one chemistry student remarked: “they’re old buildings that were built before codes of practice were put into place” and they produce a lot of waste and require a lot of energy to run (Inter 1 Para 20). While they realized other budgetary concerns could take precedence, students thought it made sense to invest in sustainability practices now rather than later. One biology student observed that “…it costs more to implement . . . sustainable practices but in the long run it ends up being cheaper compared to non-sustainable practices” (Inter 17 Para 39). Despite this, other students believed there would always be a problem accessing funds to implement sustainable practices on campus (Inter 15 Para 42). A geography student commented as follows: Why we can’t put a policy further forward? . . . and to say we don’t have enough money to actually implement a sustainability program …is incorrect…I feel like it’s been created as a larger barrier than it actually is (Inter 10 Para 64). Students reported that conceptualizing sustainability issues and making others aware of them was a challenge on campus. One general arts student stated that “taking responsibility” and 97 “changing peoples’ thinking” was “the hardest thing and the most important thing” to do. (Inter 12 Para 34). Another said about sustainability that “many people don't necessarily see it intuitively to be a part of what they do or how it could affect what they do, that's a big one” (Inter 10 Para 64). Other students referred to a lack of awareness of issues on campus “especially sustainability and environmental awareness” (Inter 12 Para 34, Inter 15 Para 42). A tourism management student pointed out that “getting people involved” on campus was difficult because at Vancouver Island University “…we're a largely commuter community” (Inter 15 Para 42). In sum, financial costs and issues conceptualizing goals and engaging others in sustainability initiatives were the biggest challenges reported in developing a sustainable campus. Administrators, faculty and students agreed the cost of retrofitting or replacing an aging infrastructure was very high, as was the cost of implementing carbon neutrality. Indeed, this might slow the entire process of sustainable development on campus. Administrators in particular were unsure the province was aware of the costs involved. Competing objectives were also a challenge to sustainability initiatives. Community partners such as local municipalities might have different views on matters of public transportation, disposal of waste, and development of resources. Competing interests on campus could be a problem as well. While some departments might favour energy reduction strategies, others might resist, fearing cutbacks in employment and hours of operation. Research on campus funded by private interests could be opposed by those who fear it would be applied to unsustainable business practices. These kinds of tensions made it challenging to envisage a campus wide culture of sustainability. 98 Perhaps the biggest challenge lay in convincing others to engage in sustainability practices. Administrators, students, and faculty all reported difficulty confronting the attitudes of those who did not support or were indifferent to implementation of sustainability initiatives on campus. Accomplishments toward creating a sustainable campus A number of sustainability accomplishments have been completed at Vancouver Island University in recent years. These include formation of a Sustainability Committee, pursuit of green building design, and adoption of specific initiatives including recycling, composting, energy conservation, pay parking initiatives, and community gardens. Administrators suggested two important accomplishments were adopting the Sustainability Policy at the university, and formulating a campus Master Plan. As one explained: …developing the Sustainability Policy…has been very important and very good for the institution. The other one is our major Campus Plan that was approved through the whole institution, and finally by the Board. That is a 50 year plan for the campus that is focused fundamentally on sustainability principles (Inter 4 Para 36). These assisted in “raising awareness of sustainability” and in creating a Sustainability Committee to promote objectives set out in the campus Master Plan (Inter 5 Para 18, Inter 8 Para 44). Two faculty administrators pointed to the accomplishments of certain departments on campus: “trades historically, through money saving, has often been leading in terms of sustainability” and “aquaculture programs have brought some general awareness [of sustainability] to aquatic systems with Deep Bay and with sturgeon studies” (Inter 14 Para 30, Inter 16 Para 34). Another administrator spoke about construction of buildings conforming to LEED certified guidelines. One of these, the shellfish research station at Deep Bay, north of Nanaimo, has applied for “platinum” certification, the highest level under the LEED program. This 99 requires low energy consumption, “clean” air and water distribution, and minimal waste disposal. It would represent the first platinum building at a Canadian university once recognized as such. The second building, completed in 2011, houses the Cowichan branch of the campus in Duncan, British Columbia which is also seeking LEED certification (Inter 4 Para 36). Another administrator confirmed that building maintenance had “changed our light systems” so less energy was being used in most buildings on campus (Inter 16 Para 34). Like administrators, faculty members identified LEED certified building construction as an important accomplishment. In referring to the buildings at Deep Bay and in Duncan, a trades and technology instructor stated that: . . . our notable accomplishments are some of our recent buildings which are variously lead, bronze, silver, gold, and platinum [certified] which are I think a really significant example to the community about what can be done with buildings (Inter 6 Para 47). Two other instructors pointed to energy conservation on campus as a significant accomplishment. They characterized a “turn off your lights and use daylight” campaign introduced several years ago as a successful practice (Inter 2 Para 29, Inter 7 Para 52). Faculty members also mentioned recycling, composting, and food waste management in the university Culinary Arts program as important accomplishments. One instructor noted in particular that “. . . the catering department and Culinary Arts have mounted a very intense recycling of their food waste ...” (Inter 3 Para 57). A chemistry professor suggested these programs have increased awareness on campus because “people are talking about sustainability in a way that it really wasn’t discussed five years ago” (Inter 13 Para 42). Still another accomplishment was the initiative to eliminate sales of plastic water bottles on campus. While faculty members indicated this had attracted a lot of support, particularly 100 among students, one mathematics instructor noted the university would not end sales until current contracts had expired with suppliers (Inter 7 Para 52). A geology professor identified introduction of “pay parking” throughout the Nanaimo campus as an important accomplishment and stated “it’s made people think a little bit more about driving. So it’s kind of put some restrictions on how easy it is for people to drive” (Inter 6 Para 47). An English faculty member thought that “encouraging bicycle use and alternate modes of transportation” was an important benefit of pay parking initiatives. Raising parking fees alone, however, was not seen as a means of successfully promoting alternate transportation strategies on campus (Inter 2 Para 29). Students were particularly proud of sustainability initiatives they had organized such as trying to get rid of bottled water and starting campus community gardens (Inter 10 Para 66, Inter 12 Para 36). However, they also identified LEED certified building construction as significant. A biology student noted that “ . . . newer buildings that have gone up since I've been here have been built in a sustainable or more sustainable way compared to older buildings that have been here” (Inter 15 Para 58, Inter 17 Para 41). Students referred to energy conservation and related measures as accomplishments. One chemistry student noted that “they’re starting to put sustainable practices into place in . . . newer buildings they’re making” and a “lot more rooms and buildings have automatic lights” (Inter 1 Para 22). Another student described automatic toilets and sinks that were more efficient and used less water as interesting accomplishments (Inter 17 Para 41). Students focused on other initiatives as well. A biology student believed it was important “the university has worked towards promoting the bus system” instead of driving personal vehicles to campus (Inter 17 Para 101 41). A chemistry student suggested more courses had been put into place to educate students and increase the amount of knowledge they had about sustainability issues (Inter 1 Para 22). In summary, research confirms there have been a number of accomplishments in sustainability policy and practice at Vancouver Island University. Administrators pointed to policy initiatives in 2009 like the campus Sustainability Policy and campus Master Plan, as well as construction of LEED certified buildings in Deep Bay and North Cowichan. They also acknowledged the Trades and Technology department for saving money by introducing energy efficiencies in building maintenance procedure. Faculty members agreed LEED certified building construction was an important accomplishment, as were energy conservation programs like the “turn off the lights” initiative introduced in 2010. They went on to identify food waste recycling in Culinary Arts, pay parking initiatives, bicycling, car-pooling, and composting on campus as significant accomplishments. Students for their part referred to LEED certified buildings as an important achievement. They also identified installation of automatic light shut offs to conserve energy and low flush toilets to conserve water as important. Factors enabling efforts to create a sustainable campus Administrators identified a range of factors that promoted sustainability on campus. One of these was good campus wide communication. One senior administrator described this as necessary to engage people “though the challenge may be, over time, to keep that going" (Inter 4 Para 50). Another administrator stated “I think we need ‘buy in’ from everybody…from administration and down and from students up” (Inter 16 Para 36). A second factor was managing change. One faculty administrator noted “people have to have an attitude of being willing to change, and there are people who will find change very challenging” (Inter 5 Para 20). 102 Another administrator said sustainability commitments “. . . can’t represent a substantial increase in work for the individual to participate”, and when changes are made “It’s got to be made really clean, very simple and very easy to take it up…” (Inter 14 Para 32). Guiding change through planning was also important. One mid-level administrator suggested an ongoing “sustainability plan is something we should be doing with our integrated planning process” (Inter 9 Para 36). Sustainability initiatives referred to in the campus Master Plan could be followed up with more detailed planning. Two other administrators thought this would be useful because “the university has to have a common understanding of what it means and what we’re trying to achieve” with respect to sustainability (Inter 8 Para 48, Inter 9 Para 36). Another administrator believed timing was important, and that it had to be “a politically good decision” to fund sustainability initiatives on campus. For example, much of the communication about transportation alternatives to and from the university was “thrown out the window when the strike happened” in 2011. This did away with a lot of good will among stakeholders which could have assisted with a new initiative (Inter 8 Para 48). Along with good management, there needed to be more consistency between messages about sustainability and actions undertaken to achieve it. As one administrator noted, it was important to “make sure there is a consistency between . . . what VIU does and . . . [having] staff and lots of students engaging in those kind[s]of behaviors” (Inter 16 Para 36). Faculty members believed it was important to create awareness about sustainability issues, though they suggested the level of awareness on campus was higher than a lot of other places (Inter 2 Para 25, Inter 6 Para 51). Getting “people talking about . . . and working on” sustainability was how a geology faculty member would encourage awareness. A chemistry instructor suggested “we don’t have to convince everybody that it’s important to make changes” 103 because many would already like to make a difference (Inter 6 Para 51, Inter 13 Para 50). Some faculty members believed there was a need to improve awareness. A trades and technology instructor stated that “until we sit down and have a good discussion on where we want to go and what we can do and what the institution expects of us…” it would be difficult to promote sustainability at Vancouver Island University (Inter 3 Para 59). A mathematics professor pointed out, however, that “if you get people thinking a certain way, then . . . more and more people want to start to contribute” (Inter 7 Para 66). A First Nations instructor suggested using media to promote awareness and stated: So I would say visibility of the messenger and the message via our VIU website, our cafeteria poster, our bulletin boards, our, [sic]the bus, the transit system, let me see, the radio, make use of [inaudible] radio, the cable, the Shaw cable local cable. You know the little banners that stream across the bottom. For, you know, for various initiatives of the culture of sustainability (Inter 11 Para 78). Faculty members also identified costs as an important factor affecting sustainability efforts. Spending decisions affected whether the university would retrofit old buildings or construct new ones, for example. As one chemistry faculty member noted “It doesn’t make a lot of sense to retrofit old buildings in some cases . . . there are some things that can be done that improve sustainability that require some upfront capitalization” (Inter 13 Para 50). An English professor pointed out that even if sustainable buildings were constructed, this came with an environmental cost. “They cut down wilderness to put up a new building. It’s a gorgeous new building but there’s a cost” (Inter 2 Para 25). Faculty admitted not fully understanding how carbon offset costs were calculated to meet sustainability goals. One instructor remarked that “. . . my big question was when we started talking about carbon footprint was who’s going to pay for it” (Inter 3 Para 59). Commenting on 104 operating costs as a whole, a mathematics instructor found it unclear how expenses were to be saved through the carbon offset program (Inter 7 Para 66). Like administrators and faculty members, students identified a number of factors that helped contribute to a sustainable campus. One of these was having administrators endorse green based initiatives. A tourism management student remarked that “…it would be fantastic if we had the president of the university or the deans of the faculties come together and say this is a very important thing” (Inter 15 Para 60). A general arts student observed that “It’s all about the people . . . and it’s the people [that] have the power to create or destroy and, who have the greatest influence on sustainability” (Inter 12 Para 46). Another student suggested that if university leaders wanted to implement sustainable practices, they had to “relay to whatever audience they need to . . . that it is an important factor of campus life” (Inter 17 Para 43). A geography student indicated Vancouver Island University needed more opportunities and “open public spaces” for promoting sustainability discourse “among administrators, faculty members and students” (Inter 10 Para 72). Students believed their own education contributed to sustainability efforts on campus. Committee work, research and course work in sustainability studies was empowering. One chemistry student suggested that “getting involved in this and trying to get students to become more environmentally conscientious” helped promote a sustainable campus (Inter 1 Para 24). Another student believed that recognizing contributions to sustainability was important, and it was a responsibility of the university to make sure there were funds to assist with this (Inter 17 Para 43). Scholarships and awards designed to recognize contributions to sustainability initiatives were recommended (Inter 12 Para 46). In this regard, a geography student felt that 105 recognition was linked to succession, and “passing the torch” from one group to another would advance the cause of sustainability on campus (Inter 10 Para 72). In summary, the university community identified a number of factors that helped contribute to a sustainable campus. These included good communication and careful planning, sound financial decisions, promotion of education and research, and increased awareness about sustainability issues. Administrators focused specifically on the importance of campus wide communication in addressing policy proposals. Managing change through careful planning was important to increase support for sustainability initiatives. Oversight of projects was critical to insure they did not proceed too slow or too fast. Timing of initiatives was a factor that could help them get adopted, as was consistency between “messages” and “actions”, or between proposals and details of specific initiatives. Faculty suggested increasing awareness about sustainability initiatives was important in creating a sustainable campus. Greater awareness could help clarify issues like the carbon offset program and secure greater support for such initiatives. Insuring that financial resources were in place to fund initiatives was also important. It helped projects go ahead even if there was controversy about them such as clearing forest lands to construct new buildings on campus. Students indicated open communication about sustainability goals helped create a sustainable campus. They also wanted sustainability contributions recognized through academic awards and scholarships. Endorsement of green initiatives by university decision makers was another important item. Perhaps most significant was the influence of sustainability education and research. It engaged members of all groups on campus and helped keep sustainability issues at the core of university life. As such, it contributed much toward development of a sustainable campus. 106 Factors blocking efforts to create a sustainable campus Research suggests a variety of factors could impede development of a sustainable campus at Vancouver Island University. Administrators indicated governance and organizational issues could be a problem. One senior administrator described how difficult it was to move forward with a sustainability agenda if the Board of Governors did not support it (Inter 4 Para 42). Costs were always subject to review, and if there was little support from the Senate and Board of Governors this impeded adoption of initiatives (Inter 5 Para 22). Other administrators believed the organizational structure of the university was an impeding factor. One stated that “…universities are split up into administration, faculty and different departments and half of them don’t really talk to each other” (Inter 8 Para 50). Another stated there “was a lack of role models for developing sustainability initiatives among different departments at the university” (Inter 4 Para 42). Resistance to change could also obstruct sustainability initiatives. One mid-level administrator noted some people did not like change. Another remarked that “regardless of how difficult it is, there are those who will never take the time to recycle or to open their mind” to new practices (Inter 14 Para 34). Still another administrator suggested a general lack of awareness about sustainability issues meant some people did not even consider they might have to change (Inter 16 Para 48). Attitude was important as well. One mid-level administrator stated “attitude is a factor that one can use to impede sustainability, and move . . . forward with sustainability” (Inter 5 Para 22). With respect to attitude and behavior, another stated it was important to motivate students to participate and challenge all members of the university community to move forward (Inter 4 Para 42). 107 Like administrators, faculty members identified resistance to change as a significant factor blocking efforts to create a sustainable campus. A mathematics instructor suggested “people don’t want to give up their conveniences to be more environmental . . .” A geology professor pointed out that “although many people understand the science or at least partly understand it, they’re not making the connection between that and what they need to do to change” (Inter 6 Para 53, Inter 7 Para 68). Some faculty suggested certain initiatives created their own problems, and pointed to sustainable building construction. On the one hand, retrofitting campus buildings could be costly and time consuming. On the other hand, constructing new buildings meant destroying natural ecosystems. An English professor suggested retrofitting was unpopular because “people don’t want to see disruption” and because they were unwilling “to undertake the really difficult task of trying to retrofit or refit some of our bigger buildings” (Inter 2 Para 31). A chemistry instructor stated “it doesn’t make a lot of sense to retrofit old buildings in some cases”. Greater savings might be realized over time if old buildings were taken down, and more energy efficient ones constructed in their place (Inter 13 Para 50). Faculty identified private interests as another factor that could impede sustainable development. One First Nations instructor suggested the university community supported community developers and other entrepreneurs carrying “banners for ecofriendly management of the environment” and “believed they were coming from a good place”. It was important to look behind this however, and “ . . . ask what are the vested interests that may serve to either thwart or advance . . . efforts to create a sustainable campus” (Inter 11 Para 80). Other faculty members believed energy related issues created impediments to sustainable development. One suggested that “geothermal heating of the [university] gymnasium” was “cheap and renewable energy” but 108 “trying to sell that to ‘people in Victoria’ who don’t live over top of a disused [sic] coalmine is difficult” (Inter 2 Para 31). A mathematics instructor questioned the value of carbon offsets under government programs for reducing greenhouse gases. It was suggested that the university become “. . . involved in one of those environmental issues and get our own carbon tax back where students are doing something innovative . . . .to create new systems” (Inter 7 Para 68). A lack of understanding of sustainability issues could be a problem. One instructor stated “When you say sustainable, I’ve got to say to myself, what does that mean; I mean what do we mean by being sustainable?” (Inter 3 Para 61). Another suggested more education and research was needed before there was broad support for sustainability initiatives on campus (Inter 11 Para 90). Students agreed a lack of institutional support was a factor that could block or impede efforts to create a sustainable campus. One suggested that what was most important was “getting our presidents and deans together” to support sustainability initiatives but this did not always happen (Inter 15 Para 64). A biology student indicated that “. . . the biggest factor that would block or impede development of a more sustainable campus would be people that are not supportive of it” (Inter 17 Para 45). A geography student said “a repeated no has been difficult” when certain initiatives like roof gardens and alternative transportation strategies have been put forward. The “answer that we’ve gotten . . . is because it’s too busy. Their people are too busy and that’s not a priority for them”. Some students reported they felt discouraged from participating in sustainability activities because they had little influence. One pointed out the maximum number of student representatives on the Sustainability Committee is one (Inter 10 Para 76). Lack of student participation was also an impediment to sustainability. One chemistry student noted “there are plenty of students who are not interested in going to these events that the 109 VIU sustainability club would put on or the coordinators put on” (Inter 1 Para 26). Another student explained that “everybody’s focused on their studies and what they are going to get out of it, and how they are going to make money…” (Inter 12 Para 48). A tourism and management student believed there was no common vision, and it was difficult to get people together in support of sustainability initiatives (Inter 15 Para 64). Still another student linked student participation to knowledge about sustainability issues, and suggested if students were not pursuing a science degree or involved in a program dealing with environmental sustainability, they likely had little interest in such issues (Inter 1 Para 26). Students agreed the cost of erecting new buildings and restructuring old ones was a factor limiting sustainability efforts on campus. A chemistry student explained “…there’s not enough money from administration or the government to develop our buildings into high efficiency buildings for students” (Inter 1 Para 26). Finally, as one biology student remarked, the main problem with sustainability initiatives on campus was simply not having enough money (Inter 17 Para 45). In sum, various factors could block or impede sustainability initiatives on campus. Administrators suggested the governance structure of the university could be an obstacle. They noted that sustainability initiatives could not be adopted without support of the Senate and Board of Governors, and this was not always forthcoming. In addition, members of those bodies were not always well informed or knowledgeable about sustainability issues. Communication between different groups and departments on campus was not always good and could hamper support for new initiatives. In addition, the cost of sustainability projects was significant and could prevent or delay approval, particularly if there was competition for funds from other programs. 110 Faculty members and administrators identified resistance to change and indifferent attitudes as factors impeding the growth of sustainability. This could be explained in part by a lack of awareness about sustainability issues, but it seemed to persist in spite of attempts to educate and inform. Faculty suggested the influence of private interests could hinder adoption of sustainability initiatives. Endowments and grants by business influenced research on campus which did not necessarily reflect sustainability goals. Like administrators and faculty, students identified costs and a lack of institutional support as factors limiting adoption of sustainability initiatives. Students also believed they had little influence in matters of university governance which further hampered efforts to create a sustainable campus. Finally, all groups pointed to a lack of a common vision about policy and objectives as factors impeding development of sustainability on campus. Overview of research findings - interviews Interviews conducted for this study provided insights about the meaning of sustainability and sustainable development on campus, the nature of involvement in sustainability initiatives, why people became involved, and roles undertaken to create a sustainable campus. They also provided information about contributions to sustainability and the characteristics of contributors, about significant challenges and accomplishments, and about factors enabling and impeding creation of sustainability on campus. Information about these issues, like the data derived from documents in this study, reflected concerns about the environment, about questions of leadership on sustainability issues, and about sustainability education. 111 With respect to sustainability and sustainable development, most interview respondents linked sustainability to preserving the environment. Sustainable development, by contrast, was connected to specific activities like green building design, reduced energy consumption and waste management practices. Some used the terms interchangeably, yet there was little if any reference to sustainable development as that which meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations. Administrators tended to link the terms to matters of leadership. They suggested it was important for the university to model sustainability initiatives both on and off campus. Faculty indicated questions of sustainability and sustainable development should be taught more on campus and subject to greater research funding. This was supported by students who wanted their course work to reflect sustainability concerns. Types of involvement in sustainability activities included leadership initiatives on the part of administrators, committee work on the part of faculty, and engagement by students in volunteer groups. Educational concerns were important as well. Faculty members participated in instructional and research programs, as did students. Administrators were committed to supporting educational initiatives, including cross-disciplinary studies and research at the Deep Bay Research Station. In addition, all respondents reported some involvement with environmental initiatives like recycling, composting, energy management and so on. In identifying why they became involved in sustainability activities, many respondents indicated they did so out of personal concern for the environment. Administrators also confirmed it was a matter of occupational responsibility, as did certain faculty members. Students, for their part, suggested they became involved because of educational concerns and course work responsibilities. 112 In defining their role in creating a sustainable campus, administrators referred to leadership initiatives like policy making, assisting in campus wide communication strategies, and leading by example. Faculty focused on their role as educators and researchers, while students believed they needed to learn about sustainability issues and take on a greater leadership role through volunteer activities in the Solutions Group and ACER. In addressing who made the most important contributions to sustainability and the characteristics of those who did so, all three groups pointed to individuals who donated time to sustainability projects. They were praised for having strong leadership skills, planning and communication abilities, and a talent for encouraging others to “buy in” to sustainability initiatives. Faculty members were mentioned for successfully infusing sustainability studies into certain university curricula and engaging in sustainability research. Contributions by students to specific programs like food waste recycling, composting, and energy management were also noted. Challenges in creating a sustainable campus included the cost of implementing policy initiatives, problems conceptualizing goals and objectives, and difficulties engaging others in sustainability activities. Findings confirm there have been significant sustainability accomplishments at Vancouver Island University. Many respondents pointed to LEED certified building construction and energy conservation as among the most significant. These initiatives were environmental in nature though cooperative leadership was required to implement them. Other accomplishments included food waste recycling, composting, and community gardens, all which were primarily environmental... At the same time, administrators pointed to the success of policy documents such as the campus Sustainability Policy and the Energy Management Policy which were important leadership initiatives. Educational achievements were also noteworthy. 113 These included research projects at the Shellfish Research Station, and course work initiatives like the Global Studies program in social sciences. In addressing the most important factors enabling creation of a sustainable campus, administrators referred to good communication skills and guidance through periods of change. Faculty focused on awareness about sustainability policies and practices. Students pointed to a need for more environmentally friendly initiatives, and for greater involvement in sustainability activities. Leadership, environmental and educational concerns also lay at the heart of factors blocking sustainability initiatives. Administrators confirmed the governance structure at Vancouver Island University could be an obstacle at times. If not managed properly, it could hamper cooperation in achieving sustainability goals. Faculty pointed to leadership problems associated with competing interests in matters of funding and research. Students saw difficulties conceptualizing sustainability issues and a perceived lack of support for environmental concerns. All respondents pointed to a lack of common vision about sustainability on campus and difficulties engaging others in sustainability initiatives. In sum, environmental, leadership and educational concerns have been a principal focus of sustainability policy and practice at Vancouver Island University. Tailoring initiatives to address such concerns could assist with successful implementation of sustainability policy in future. 114 Chapter 6: Discussion Introduction Research findings suggest sustainability issues are developed within a context of environmental, educational and leadership concerns at Vancouver Island University. Environmental concerns were reflected in policy documents like the Energy Management Policy and Environmental Trust Policy. They were referred to in interviews by students, faculty and administrators when discussing initiatives like green building design, composting, and energy reduction strategies. Educational concerns were addressed in documents like the university Academic Plan, and in interview responses about the need for sustainability research and instruction, and greater involvement with community partners on and off campus. The need for institutional leadership was referred to in documents like the campus Sustainability Policy and campus Master Plan. It was also a feature of interview discussions about roles undertaken by administrators, faculty and students to promote sustainability initiatives, and about factors contributing to development of sustainability on campus. These issues will be explored further through discussion of research questions posed at the beginning of this study. The research questions are intended to focus on five different concerns; first, on the meaning of sustainability and sustainable development within the university community; second, on how sustainability policy is transformed into practice; third, on what factors influence adoption of sustainability initiatives on campus; fourth, on how power and leadership are exercised through implementation of sustainability initiatives; and fifth, on how the work of Pierre Bourdieu contributes to an understanding of sustainability in a post-secondary environment. 115 The first research question was explored initially in interviews. The terms “sustainability” and “sustainable development” appear quite often in policy documents, and were referred to regularly by interview respondents. The purpose of this question is to compare differences in meaning between the terms, and suggest how this relates to sustainability policy and practice at Vancouver Island University. The second question addresses how sustainability policy is transformed into practice. The purpose is to investigate links between policy and practice, discuss what practices have emerged from which policies, and determine who among the university community has been responsible for this. The third research question explores factors that have influenced development of sustainability policy and practice at Vancouver Island University. Documents and interview data are examined to identify factors on and off campus that have impacted on sustainability initiatives, and assess whether the influence has been positive or not. The fourth research question addresses how institutional power and leadership are exercised in development of sustainability policy and practice. The university decision making process is examined, including the exercise of administrative power to introduce sustainability initiatives on campus, and how and when this occurs. The fifth research question explores to what extent the work of Pierre Bourdieu may be relevant to understanding sustainability policy and practice in an institutional environment like Vancouver Island University. In particular, it will be argued that Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus, field, and capital can help explain why certain policies and practices at the university have been more successful than others, and how sustainability issues might be more appropriately framed and addressed in future. 116 What do the terms “sustainability” and “sustainable development” mean to different groups on campus at Vancouver Island University? Documents and interview data confirm that administrators, faculty and students ascribed different meanings to “sustainability and “sustainable development”. Interestingly, only one respondent among all groups, a senior administrator, and only three documents, the university Sustainability Policy, the campus Master Plan, and the Sustainability Website referred to “sustainable development” as development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Most respondents did not address this theme which was first set out in the Brundtland Report in1987. Instead, they tended to connect “sustainable development” to particular activities on campus like green building design. By contrast, “sustainability” was treated as a broader concept. It represented conservation of resources for its own sake, not linked to development of any kind or to the impact of development on future generations. Administrators tended to connect the term to a range of environmental concerns, while faculty members focused on conservation of land. Students spoke of “sustainability” as a means of protecting the environment through conservation and lowering the carbon footprint of the university. All three groups believed the university had a role to play educating the community about sustainability and providing leadership on sustainability activities. Activities associated with sustainable development included green building design, energy conservation measures, and disposal of waste. Members of all three groups identified LEED certified building construction as an example of sustainable development. Increased use of public transportation to and from campus was referred to as an example of sustainability as well as sustainable development. The same was true for recycling, 117 composting and development of community gardens. Administrators specifically connected waste management to “sustainability” in their interviews, and believed it was important to establish waste management programs with community partners like the City of Nanaimo. Faculty members and students identified waste disposal and pay parking schemes as “sustainability” initiatives. All three groups connected sustainability with educational concerns. Administrators believed sustainability studies should be an essential part of what was taught at university. Faculty agreed sustainability issues should be taught in certain courses, and students suggested they needed to be more involved with sustainability research. Students described “sustainability” as something that should be integrated with day to day management of the institution, and they wanted faculty hired who were interested in sustainability research. They also believed it important to acquire an understanding of sustainability issues through coursework, and agreed it was important for the university to demonstrate sustainability initiatives on an ongoing basis. Documents and interview data confirmed that a number of programs at Vancouver Island University featured sustainability studies as part of the curriculum. These included aquaculture, chemistry, geology and trades and technology. Policy documents like the campus Master Plan and Academic Plan also stressed the importance of sustainability education. The meaning of sustainability and sustainable development was connected by all groups to different leadership activities. Administrators and faculty members described sustainable development as something to “model” in the community. Setting examples through sustainability practices on campus was quite important. Students connected sustainability with student leadership activities such as joining ACER or the Solutions group. Leadership issues 118 were connected to finance and budgeting concerns as well. Administrators described the cost of creating a “sustainable” campus as significant, and stressed that limited resources constrained ability to implement change. They suggested the provincial government was unaware or unsympathetic to the cost of implementing sustainability at the university, including the cost of imposing a carbon neutral mandate. Faculty were concerned about budgeting matters for different reasons. They believed policy makers did not accept that a high initial cost of implementing sustainability initiatives would be offset over time by lower operating costs. They also questioned decisions about retrofitting old buildings to make them more sustainable, and wondered how the university intended to pay for carbon neutral programs. Students believed it was the responsibility of university leaders to pursue adequate funding for sustainability initiatives. They believed government revenues were not sufficient to provide for sustainable buildings on campus or retrofit older ones. Some students suggested budgeting concerns were used to thwart or discourage adoption of sustainability initiatives. All groups believed strong leadership was needed to encourage sustainability initiatives on and off campus like transportation, recycling and waste management programs. Administrators and faculty suggested there should be better communication on such issues. Students wanted administrators and faculty to listen to their ideas about sustainability, and wanted more student to student communication about the need for a sustainable campus. Summary and conclusion “Sustainability” represented a broader concept than “sustainable development”. Research findings suggest “sustainability” referred to environmental conservation and was not 119 tied specifically to development or the impact of development on natural ecosystems. “Sustainable development”, by contrast, contemplated development, though it meant development that minimized impact on natural ecosystems. Both terms were associated with particular activities on campus. Activities differed as the experience of groups differed. Administrators were more involved with policy decisions and attending Board and committee meetings. Accordingly, they identified “sustainability” with policy and leadership concerns more often than faculty or students. Faculty members were more involved in teaching and research than other groups, and tended to connect educational programs and instruction with “sustainability” initiatives. Students, for their part, were more involved with hands on activities like composting, recycling and working in volunteer groups. They tended to link environmental concerns to “sustainability” and “sustainable development”. Students were younger than faculty or administrators. They did not experience the environmental movement of the 1960s and 1970s and were unfamiliar with its emphasis on air and water pollution, land conservation, and protection of ecosystems. Students identified “sustainability” with “energy reduction”, “carbon footprinting”, and “green” building design which are terms that have become part of the sustainability dialogue in recent years. Administrators and faculty members referred to this terminology as well, but unlike students they identified activities like conservation of land and preservation of wildlife as important features of sustainability. While the data suggested there were differences between “sustainability” and “sustainable development”, people tended to use the terms interchangeably, and differences in meaning did not seem to affect sustainability policy and practice at the university. Educational, 120 leadership and environmental concerns were connected to both terms, and this was reflected in policy documents and sustainability practices on campus. How is sustainability policy transformed into practice at Vancouver Island University? Documents and interview data suggest sustainability policy is transformed into practice in a number of ways. Some of this is led by administrators while faculty members are responsible in other cases, and students have also taken action on their own. In some instances, all three groups acted together putting policy into practice. Administrator led sustainability practices Administrators put policy into practice by balancing institutional objectives with budgetary concerns. A good example is realization of environmental goals in the campus Master Plan through authorization of LEED certified building construction. What had been an administrative emphasis on creating an environmentally friendly campus was achieved in part through construction of eco-friendly buildings in the last number of years. These include the Shellfish Research center in Deep Bay, the “Shq’apthut Gathering Place” at the Nanaimo campus, and the new campus building in the Cowichan valley. Administrators also established the Sustainability Office in Nanaimo to help create policy objectives for a sustainable campus. The Sustainability Office now regularly reviews policy and helps coordinate activities like recycling, energy conservation and waste management at the university. Faculty led sustainability practices Faculty members have transformed policy into practice by adopting sustainability as a feature of their instructional and research programs. Composting food waste in university cafeterias was introduced in the 1990s by faculty members in the Culinary Arts Program as an 121 adjunct to the Recycling Policy. The program continues to operate successfully, but not much beyond cafeteria areas. Composting bins have been located in other parts of the university, but do not seem to be widely used. Sustainability concerns have been a focus of other research and training programs which has led to some innovative undertakings. For example, trades faculty have implemented recycling of oil on campus, and participate in carbon neutral programs. Chemistry instructors are introducing green laboratory practices on campus to reduce the volume of hazardous waste generated during laboratory exercises. Student led sustainability practices Students have also initiated activities that have transformed sustainability policy into practice. Support for bicycling as an alternate form of transportation and increased funding for bicycle stands and locks has been primarily a student initiative. An ongoing movement to ban sales of plastic bottled water has been managed through the Student Union. To date, this has resulted in a number of campus buildings being retrofitted with drinking fountains and filling stations where water containers can be refilled. It appears sales of bottled water are being phased out at Vancouver Island University largely because of this initiative. Students have also created a community peace garden on campus, and have taken full responsibility for planting and maintaining it. Each of these initiatives reflects policy concerns about creating a greener campus. Shared sustainability practices Administrators, faculty and students have worked together to transform sustainability policy into practice. For example, faculty members were instrumental in helping students create ACER and the Solutions group on campus to promote awareness of sustainability issues. These 122 groups have flourished because faculty members continue to volunteer their time and efforts, as have members of the Sustainability Office and a number of senior administrators. Other examples of collaborative effort include acquisition of funds for research on climate change, and support from organizations like the Meal Exchange and Sierra Youth Coalition for promoting sustainable purchasing practices at the university. Still other initiatives include the Vancouver Island Water Resource Vulnerability Mapping Project to track water resources on the Island, the creation of a “Propass” to encourage use of public transportation by university employees, development of a “Biosphere Conversation Series” retreat, and introduction of a graduate program in Sustainable Leisure Management. All of these were introduced at Vancouver Island University within the last ten years. They were dependent on the combined efforts of faculty, students and administrators to help bring them about. Summary and conclusion Sustainability policy has been transformed into practice in a number of ways at Vancouver Island University. Some of this was administrator driven while faculty members were responsible in other cases, and students also took action on their own. In several cases, all three groups acted together. Certain objectives in the Sustainability Policy and campus Master Plan were put into practice through administrative decisions. These included green building construction, and creation of the Sustainability Committee and Sustainability Office in 2010. An energy management plan was also put into place by administrators pursuant to the Energy Management Policy. Sustainability curricula were implemented by faculty in response to policy concerns in the Sustainability Policy and university Academic Plan. Science and business courses now deal with topics like sustainability of coastal fisheries and shellfish populations, eco-tourism, and 123 global climate change. Initiatives for reducing hazardous waste have been undertaken by chemistry instructors. Students have organized programs to convert to a greener campus through composting, increased use of bicycles, and planting of community gardens. These have the support of Student Union representatives and represent a transformation of policy articulated in the Nanaimo campus Master Plan and university Sustainability Policy. Perhaps most notable are initiatives undertaken by members from all three groups. These include formation of ACER and the Solutions group, energy resource awareness programs, and support for increased public transportation to and from the university. Much of this depends on volunteer activity, and follows from recommendations set out in the original Environmental Trust Policy, the campus Sustainability Policy and Carbon Neutral Reports of the university. In all these activities, members of different groups were able to transform policy into practice, sometimes with funding assistance from the university and sometimes not. For those who became involved, it represented a strong personal commitment to sustainability initiatives on campus. What factors affect development of sustainability policy and practice at Vancouver Island University? A variety of factors have impacted on development of sustainability policy and practice at the university. Some of these originated outside the university campus, and are referred to as “external” factors. Others have a source within the university, and are referred to as “internal” factors. 124 External factors International documents like the Brundtland Report, the Talloires Declaration, and the Earth Charter have had a significant influence on sustainability initiatives at Vancouver Island University. As noted earlier, references to those documents appear in the campus Sustainability Policy, the campus Master Plan and in the Academic Plan. As a signatory to the Talloires Declaration, the university joined other institutions worldwide in asserting a commitment to sustainability initiatives. This has contributed to a growing culture of sustainability on campus, and helps encourage a leadership role for the institution. Provincial government influence is another factor impacting on sustainability issues. Government funding, of course, is important to all post-secondary institutions. Increases and decreases in grant monies affect a wide range of programs and operating budgets at the university, including initiatives like LEED certified building design and alternate transportation strategies. Funding decisions make a difference as to whether such projects go ahead or not. The impact of provincial legislation is also important. Introduction of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Act in 2008 required institutions to commit to carbon emission reductions and achieve “carbon neutrality” within a specific time period. This had a significant impact on the need for energy conservation measures and other sustainability practices at post-secondary institutions, including Vancouver Island University. Relationships with local governments and other institutions like school districts and business organizations have also been important. Administrators have dealt with the Regional District of Nanaimo, the City of Nanaimo and the commercial sector on public transportation and waste management issues. Faculty and students have prepared climate change presentations for local schools and non-profit organizations, and the university has hosted sustainability 125 workshops and symposiums for the general public. Indeed, community engagement has been identified as an important feature of sustainability policy by all groups at Vancouver Island University. External sources of funding like endowments, research grants, and private donations have contributed to development of sustainability initiatives. Marine research on climate change, declining fish stocks and salmon farming has been undertaken with the assistance of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Private donations from groups like the Sierra Youth Coalition, the Meal Exchange and Rotary International have helped with initiatives like biosphere retreats and sustainable purchasing on campus by Facilities Management and other departments. Research at other institutions has also influenced sustainability policy and practice. International climatology studies, for example, have impacted work at the Deep Bay research station. Sustainability studies in higher education by researchers like Sharpe, Clarke, Moore, McKenzie and Wright have influenced other works, including the present study. It does seem sustainability is emerging as its own field of research. New books and periodicals related to the topic have appeared in recent years including Sustainability: Science, Policy and Practice, as well as the Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, and the Journal of Cleaner Production. These materials are likely to influence researchers and policy makers at Vancouver Island University for some time to come. Gender based issues can also impact on sustainability initiatives at the university. Sustainability programs at post-secondary institutions tend to be managed more by men than by women, and by men who have backgrounds in facilities or operations management. Women, by contrast, tend to do more research and committee work on sustainability issues. This imbalance is not necessarily a bad thing. However, it can complicate matters should conflict arise between 126 an academic vision of perceived outcomes, and a management process grounded in daily operational needs of an institution. Sustainability initiatives can be undermined in such situations. Administrators at Vancouver Island University need to be aware of this and be in a position to mediate difficulties if they arise. Men and women should feel comfortable that they can participate in a work environment where opportunities are available for all, and their contributions and expertise are equally valued. The popular media has an impact on sustainability initiatives as well. For example, the construction and official opening of the Cowichan Valley campus building in 2011 was widely covered by print and electronic media. Newspapers, local radio and social media websites commented on the state of the art green building design including solar panels, earthen roof areas and natural lighting. The building was lauded as an example of innovative architecture that was likely to influence future construction both on and off campus. Internal factors The process of creating and updating policy at the university has been a major factor contributing to sustainability initiatives. The university Sustainability Policy and policy statements in the campus Master Plan provide leadership and direction to those who put policy into practice. Those policies are also quite new. Following its charter in 2007, the university undertook a review of all policies and ensured these were pertinent and up to date. Internal documents, then, are probably among the most current of any post-secondary institution. Budget decisions obviously have an impact on sustainability initiatives. Funds are earmarked for wide range of expenses including employee salaries and benefits, operations and communication costs, contract obligations, classroom and office equipment, and capital expenditures for buildings and other infrastructure. In a competition for scarce resources, 127 sustainability initiatives are sometimes overlooked, postponed or done away with altogether. Still, there appears to be an ongoing commitment to pursue such initiatives including recycling, composting, energy conservation and green building design. In the long run, these kinds of programs should save money for the institution. The success of sustainability programs has also influenced new initiatives. The old Recycling Policy, for example, was in effect for many years, and helped give rise to composting of food waste in cafeteria areas, and “small scale” chemistry experiments in some laboratories. Design guidelines used in constructing the “Shq’apthut: Gathering Place” in Nanaimo and the new Cowichan campus building will likely be applied to other buildings in future. The creation of a Sustainability Committee and a Sustainability Office has also been important. The Sustainability Committee reports to the Board of Governors and can influence adoption of sustainability policy and practices. The Sustainability Office reports on the progress of existing programs, and can investigate and recommend new initiatives. However, it does not seem to be widely known on campus, and its physical location is not easily accessible. The Sustainability Office is meant to function as a gateway for management of sustainability activities and it tries to carry out that function. Other universities have similar bodies but at least one researcher is critical of them. Sharpe (2002), who created one of the first sustainability offices at Harvard University, has remarked that “while this approach enables a good degree of control and accountability up the chain of command, it also ensures that the whole system is rarely considered when decisions are made” (p. 138). Some interview subjects had mixed feelings about the Sustainability Office, and were not sure what it does or what it was intended to do. Their comments, however, seem to reflect uncertainty about the role of the office more than 128 criticism about its decision making authority. The office continues to have input into decisions affecting sustainability issues at the university. Teaching and educational concerns are another important factor. A number of disciplines deal increasingly with sustainability issues. Courses in chemistry, geography, and applied technology touch on waste management, climate change, and energy conservation and recycling issues. The social science faculty has introduced a “global studies” program which focuses on environmental and sustainability issues, and provides for multi-disciplinary instruction in a variety of courses including anthropology, economics and political science. The data suggests there are an increasing number of courses in which sustainability issues are being addressed, and more students would be exposed to this than in the past. Research on campus and at the Deep Bay Research Station also focuses on sustainability issues. In recent years, faculty and students have worked on projects touching on coastal resource management, shellfish conservation and production, climate analysis, and preservation of marine ecosystems. This kind of work reflects provisions of the Sustainability Policy and the Academic Plan which call for more sustainability studies. The location of the university within a unique coastal biosphere contributes to an appreciation of sustainability issues on campus. Those who attend the university are more exposed to environmental concerns than those who attend institutions in other locations. A willingness to volunteer is another factor contributing to sustainability initiatives. Administrators and faculty members contributed their own time to forming ACER and the Solutions Group on campus, and faculty members still donate time to assist with presentations on and off campus. Students volunteer to work with such groups, and assist with initiatives like banning sales of plastic water bottles on campus. In these endeavors, they have been actively supported by the Student Union. Without volunteer efforts, sustainability initiatives might not be 129 particularly successful. They have helped counter what some have referred to as resistance to change and an unwillingness to engage in sustainability activities on campus. Even if only a small number of individuals are involved, volunteer efforts can have a significant impact on sustainability policy, as writers like Sharpe (2002) and Moore (2005) have pointed out. Still, it seems clear there is an indifference toward sustainability initiatives among some members of the university community and the public at large. Ethical considerations also impact on sustainability. Administrators, faculty and students acknowledge that local and global communities face growing environmental challenges, and they suggest institutions like Vancouver Island University have a role to play in confronting this that is grounded in ethical or moral concerns. During interviews, respondents pointed out that communities needed leadership to address sustainability issues, and indicated institutions of higher learning should be providing this. Interestingly, faculty are professionally bound by ethical considerations pertaining to sustainability. Chemists and chemistry instructors, for example, are bound by a professional code which states, among other things, that in the course of their work they must “do no harm” to the environment. Summary and conclusion Factors internal and external to the university have impacted on sustainability policy and practice. External factors include international reports and declarations on sustainability issues, legislative and funding decisions by governments, private funding from external sources, research initiatives at other institutions, and engagement with community partners and the media. Internal factors have also been important. These include the process of policy development itself, the impact of budget decisions on sustainability initiatives, decisions by the Sustainability 130 Committee and Sustainability Office, teaching and research interests of faculty members, volunteer activities, and ethical and gender considerations on campus. All of these can have positive as well as negative effects on adoption of sustainability initiatives. Certain factors seemed to interfere with sustainability initiatives more than others. These included a perceived lack of institutional support, and problems working within a large organizational structure. There was also uncertainty about the role of the Sustainability Office and the Sustainability Committee in advancing sustainability objectives. Students reported a lack of involvement by others and a reluctance on the part of administrators to fund certain initiatives. Faculty members noted that competition between departments over funding and research was a particular challenge. Administrators and faculty identified resistance to change as a significant obstacle and pointed to a lack of personal commitment” among members of the university community. Students and faculty reported that “conceptualizing” issues about sustainability was a major challenge, and indicated they had dealt with groups and individuals who did not support sustainability initiatives on campus. In sum, while a number of factors influenced sustainability policy and practice, there seemed to be problems attracting widespread support from the university community, difficulty achieving certain objectives, and uncertainty about ways and means of dealing with this. How is institutional power and leadership exercised in the development of sustainability policy and practice, and what examples are there? Power and leadership issues have had a significant impact on sustainability policy practice at Vancouver Island University. Understanding the dynamics of this helps explain why policy development is critical to development of sustainability initiatives on campus. 131 Institutional power and leadership The concepts of power and institutional power have been subject to much discussion in social and political theory. Bullock and Tremblay (2000) define power as “the ability of its holders to obtain compliance or obedience” from others (pp. 677- 678). Scholars like Nyberg (1981) and Stahl (2011) conceive of power as a “means” or “capacity” rather than a “commodity” possessed by individuals or institutions (p. 41; p. 352). This echoes the work of Arendt (1972) who suggested power was not the “property” of one person or any social or political structure, but a relationship between individuals interacting with one other and in different groups (pp. 200-204). These scholars suggest power is exercised in institutional settings by means of “authority”. As Stahl (2011) observes, “authority” refers to an attribute of social organization where power lies in recognizing a greater “competence” or “status” lodged in a certain person or office (pp. 355-358). An important component of authority is “legitimacy”. This denotes a “rightful” exercise of power based on “consent” through institutional rules that are collectively recognized and accepted. Without it there can be no effective exercise of power. As Nyberg (1981) points out, the role of those who give consent, and are subject to authority, is just as important to maintaining institutional power as the role of those who exercise authority (pp. 45-58). The dynamics of institutional power informs the work of Brunner (2002) who has found “a high fidelity exists between conceptions of power and the enactment of power”. Her research suggests there is consent to authority in post-secondary institutions based on a collective acceptance of “power over” relationships and “power with and to” relationships (p. 703). Brunner (2002) explains that “power over” relationships are characterized by “dominance, authority, control, influence, or power over other things” while “power with and to” relationships 132 are characterized by “coactive”, “collective”, “cocreative”, “collaborative” and “caring” strategies. A third category involves a mixture of the two (pp. 696-700). It is suggested there is evidence for all three relationships in development of sustainability policy at Vancouver Island University. It is also suggested that in any of these relationships, leadership attributes are shown by those who exercise authority and by those who consent to it. Institutional power and sustainability at Vancouver Island University “Power over” relationships appear to be quite common at post-secondary institutions, including Vancouver Island University. They are arguably a natural function of any organization that possesses a hierarchical structure. The university Senate and Board of Governors, for example, are at the apex of a decision making structure in which administrative staff, faculty and students occupy subordinate positions. The Board and Senate are ultimately responsible for policy based decisions at the university. Without their approval, initiatives like the Sustainability Policy, the TASMI Environmental Trust Policy and adoption of sustainability goals in the Academic Plan would not have been possible. At the same time, the Board and Senate have power to delay or suspend initiatives, or not adopt them at all. Without their approval, alternate transportation strategies, food waste disposal procedures, and even prohibition of plastic bottled water on campus cannot be fully implemented. Authority in such matters represents a “power over” relationship with the rest of the university community. It is probably exercised most often in budget and financial decisions in which allocations are made to fund certain programs but not others. As Brunner (2002) and Nyberg (2011) suggest, large institutions like colleges and universities could not function well in the absence of “power over” relationships. They are necessary for a timely and decisive exercise of institutional authority. 133 Members of the university community can propose policy alternatives to the Board and Senate. Brunner (2002) might conceive of this as a “power with and to” relationship, but it is a limited one. Senior administrators, for example, can recommend on policy alternatives, and would have more influence than others on campus. While this might help with implementation of policy, the ultimate authority for adopting sustainability initiatives still rests with governing bodies at the university. Decisions by governing bodies and administrators who carry out those decisions represent a “power over” relationship with other members of the university community, including students and faculty. The location of new buildings, for example, or staffing needs for recycling, energy conservation or waste management programs may call for faculty or student input, but they are largely dealt with by administrators. “Power over” relationships are also engaged in by faculty. As at most universities, they retain significant if not complete authority over teaching methods, curriculum design and their own research projects. While there may be some input from governing bodies and administrators, this would be on a limited “with and to” basis. Accordingly, faculty have been largely responsible for introducing sustainability studies into university course work, and for initiatives like small scale chemistry and recycling oil products on campus. Students may not exercise power over other groups in a post-secondary environment very often. Yet their influence can be surprising if they perceive their interests are affected by educational or political concerns. At Vancouver Island University, they have exercised some decision making power by maintaining sustainability gardens, promoting use of bicycles as an alternate form of transportation, and by initiating the movement to ban sales of plastic bottled water on campus. These practices affect the entire university community and could be interpreted as an exercise of “power over” other groups. 134 Power “with and to” relationships exist on campus, though they are less common. One of the best examples was formation of the Solutions Group in 2006. Students, professors, and administrators volunteered time and assisted one another in establishing a group whose primary purpose was to promote sustainability initiatives on campus. Power seems to be shared in the Solutions Group, and there is a recognition among members that they share a common status. To date, the group has initiated a campus wide composting program, encouraged energy reduction and alternate transportation policies, and has arranged with the Sustainability Office to carry forward certain sustainability initiatives to university Board meetings. Other “with and to” relationships are apparent in ACER group projects, and in work at the Deep Bay research facility. In both cases institutional power seems to be shared by students, faculty and administrative staff who have agreed on common research goals, and recognize the importance of cooperative action in implementing sustainability objectives. Mixed power relationships exist on campus as well. As indicated, there appears to be a “with and to” element in various “power over” relationships, including policy adoption at the governing level, implementation of policy by administrators, and curriculum and research design by faculty. In addition, the work of the campus Sustainability Committee and Sustainability Office seems to reflect mixed relationships. These bodies were conceived of as administrative structures for implementing sustainability policy on campus. As such, they represented an exercise of institutional power over the rest of the university community. In practice, however, both bodies have sought input from students and faculty on a number of initiatives. These include alternate transportation and pay parking strategies, as well as energy conservation programs and green building design. A value, then, has been placed on “with and to” relationships both by the Sustainability Committee and the Sustainability Office. 135 Power, leadership and consent on sustainability issues It seems clear that administrators, faculty and students have engaged in power “over” and power “with and to” relationships to advance sustainability initiatives at Vancouver Island University. Consent to engage in power over relationships, then, has been balanced by a reciprocal consent to more collaborative, coactive relationships. This might reinforce what Stahl (2011), Nyberg (1971) and others have referred to as the “legitimacy” of institutional power among groups, making it effective for developing sustainability policy and practice among a diverse university community. Leadership on sustainability issues is perhaps best achieved through acknowledgment of institutional authority and balanced consent to such authority. Without this, it might be difficult to achieve effective leadership in any institutional setting. Members of different groups on campus seem to do both by engaging in dominant as well as collaborative relationships with one other. Those relationships help foster leadership. For example, administrators and members of governing bodies have provided leadership on implementing sustainable policies and practices with respect to green building design. Faculty members have done so with respect to research and instruction. Students have shown leadership by joining sustainability groups and promoting initiatives like alternate transportation and composting on campus. All of this is supported by an institutional structure in which different power relationships are played out to encourage contributions from different groups to achieve desired outcomes, including successful sustainability policies and practices. 136 Other influences on institutional power and sustainability Institutional authority is affected by influences outside the university as well. For example, this study has documented the influence of international charters and declarations on development of sustainability policy. Words and phrases such as “sustainable development” in the Brundtland Report and the Talloires Declaration are found in campus policies and in the university Academic Plan. They have also influenced the operating agenda of the Sustainability Committee, the Solutions Group and ACER. In these ways, the university has responded to a “power over” dynamic beyond its own borders. Similarly, business and other private interests have influenced sustainability initiatives at the university. Forestry and energy companies, for example, have provided grants for a number of purposes including sustainability research, student financial assistance, and even funding of university staff. Private firms contract with the university for garbage and waste removal which is to be accomplished in a “sustainable” manner pursuant to the campus Master Plan. Private interests do not necessarily endorse sustainability practices or support research that promotes it. They are in a position, however, to influence university policy through corporate services and corporate donations. In these situations, university decision makers confront a difficult balance between sustainability policy and the expectations of private interests which is often exercised through “power over” relationships. Finally, government influence represents a significant “power over” relationship with the university. Provincial legislation and funding decisions impact strongly on sustainability policy and practice. One of the more notable examples of this are the carbon neutral reports of the university since 2008. Not only must these contain information on steps taken to reduce emissions, but they must calculate funds payable to government to offset credits if targets are not 137 met. Hazardous waste regulations connected with the Environmental Management Act also impact on sustainability policy and practice. All laboratories and other waste, apart from e-waste and food and dissection material, must be collected and transported for incineration, then deposited in special landfill sites. There is little discretion in such matters on the part of university officials. Policy and practice, then, are determined almost exclusively by an outside source. Local governments like the City of Nanaimo exert influence over sustainability policy and practice, but this often plays out in a framework of “with and to” relationships. Transportation issues like changes in bus service, special passes for students, and problems with off campus parking require input from local governments and community groups as well as the university officials. Resolution of such issues usually depends on working together in a collaborative manner. The more nuanced and distanced interaction that may take place between university officials and provincial authorities in Victoria is not something that works necessarily well in local communities. Summary and conclusion Administrators, faculty and students have engaged in dominant as well as collaborative behaviors with one another during policy making processes, and when implementing sustainability initiatives. More particularly, they have engaged in power “over” strategies, and power “with and to” relationships to achieve desired outcomes. This was evident at all levels of decision making. Dominant or “power over” relationships seemed most common on campus, and were exercised in budgeting and governance decisions, for example. There were also evidence of power “with and to” relationships such as 138 those involved in creating the Solutions Group on campus. A third category involved a mixture of the two, which seemed to be played out in matters like curriculum design and instruction. These relationships are exercised within an authority structure where consent to engage in “power over” dynamics is balanced by support for more collaborative efforts. This encourages contributions from different groups, including those who exercise less power than others. Without such a balance, sustainability initiatives might not be adopted, or might be poorly implemented thereafter. The interplay of power relationships impacts on leadership. Administrators, for example, received considerable support from students and faculty when adopting the Sustainability Policy and campus Master Plan. They were also supported in pursuing of green building design and energy reduction strategies on campus. For their part, students and administrators supported faculty members in efforts to include sustainability studies in academic and trades programs. Students were encouraged by administrators and faculty to take on leadership roles in sustainability groups like ACER, and in promoting initiatives like alternate transportation and community gardens. Where “power over” relationships were exclusively dominant, however, there could be difficulties. For example, students and faculty reported disappointment with a governance structure that seemed unresponsive to their ideas including more shared decision making in respect to policy, or more funding for sustainability initiatives. Outside influences from business and government have also impacted on sustainability policy and practice. Generally, this appears to have been exercised through “power over” relationships connected to funding and endowment programs at the university. In some cases, however, such as local government involvement in transportation issues, it seemed to be played out more through “with and to” 139 relationships. The result of all this has been a diverse interaction of power relationships that continues to affect development of sustainability policy and practice across the whole campus. How can the work of Pierre Bourdieu provide insight into development of sustainability policy and practice at Vancouver Island University? It is apparent a variety of factors have impacted on sustainability policy and practice at Vancouver Island University. These include international declarations on sustainability policy, government funding decisions, volunteerism, the impact of teaching and research, ethical concerns, media influences, and the physical location of the campus. The interplay of power relationships has also been significant, as have efforts by administrators, faculty and students to transform sustainability policy into practice. Without these influences, accomplishments like LEED certified building design, composting and recycling programs, formation of the Solutions Groups and ACER, and sustainability research on campus might not have been successful. A formal Sustainability Policy might not have been adopted, or might have been less ambitious in scope. Despite these successes, there have been difficulties implementing sustainability policies and practices. In matters of alternate transportation, environmental conservation, and disposal of waste, for example, interview responses indicate there is a need for better communication and more involvement by the university community. Administrators in particular have pointed to funding limitations at the university as well as “resistance to change” and difficulties “conceptualizing” sustainability as impediments to creating a sustainable campus. Faculty members suggested other priorities have side-tracked sustainability initiatives, including “competing” interests of business, government and the local community. Students pointed to a 140 lack of “involvement” on and off campus, and a lack of “institutional support” for sustainability initiatives as additional obstacles. Similar difficulties have been identified at other institutions. As noted earlier, Moore, Pagani, Van Wynsberghe et al. (2005) identified problems implementing sustainability initiatives at the University of British Columbia. These included a “lack of institutional commitment” a “diffuse power structure”, a lack of “strategic vision” and difficulties “among participants” (p. 72). McGonigle and Starke (2006) found difficulties bringing together “multiple systems of power” in developing sustainability policy at the University of Victoria (p. 85). Walker (2009) and Clarke (2002) warned about conflict between different interest groups on sustainability matters. In addition, Sharpe (2002) explained that students often perceived they had “little influence” on decision making, and faculty members struggled “placing themselves” in the sustainability debate (pp. 10-12). Velasquez, Munguia and Sanchez (2005) have suggested universities and colleges tend to be “deeply conservative” institutions (p. 385). As a result, their focus remains principally on revenue and minimizing costs, and they may be reluctant to promote new initiatives or a new “culture” of sustainability. They suggest “lip service” might be paid to sustainability policy and practice, but funding problems, lack of commitment, communication difficulties and “poorly designed” policy frameworks can hamper sustainability initiatives on campus (pp. 385-386). It seems, then, that sustainability policy and practice is successful in some cases and unsuccessful in others both at Vancouver Island University and other institutions. To better understand this and explore ways of dealing with such challenges, the work of Pierre Bourdieu may be of assistance. It offers a theoretical perspective that can help explain change, or lack of change, within a variety of social, economic and political systems including post-secondary institutions. 141 Bourdieu and the application of field, habitus and capital Students, faculty and administrators at Vancouver Island University may be thought of as actors within a “field” or “sub-field” of higher education in which they are engaged in pursuit of different “resources”, as Bourdieu (2001) describes it (pp. 28- 34). Resources consist of things like academic knowledge and credentials, research publications, and positions of power in the institutional hierarchy such as decision making authority over disbursement of funds. Resources are associated with different forms of “capital”. In addition to economic or financial capital, Bourdieu (1986) refers to “cultural”, “social” and “symbolic capital” (pp. 35-125). “Cultural capital” consists of knowledge, skills and information within a particular field. In respect of sustainability concerns at post-secondary institutions this might consist of academic reports on energy reduction and carbon neutrality, for example, or degree programs in environmental design. Knowledge about recycling, composting and waste management programs on campus would also represent forms of cultural capital. “Social capital” denotes the benefits of group membership such as peer group alliances and support networks. Here, contacts between administrators and other decision makers on the Sustainability Committee or Board of Governors would represent forms of social capital, as would relationships forged between students, faculty and administrators through the Sustainability Office, ACER, the Solutions Group and the Student Union. “Symbolic capital” refers to resources like prestige, honour, awards and recognition that flow from activities of groups and individuals within a particular field. This might consist of media attention paid to the work of the Deep Bay research station, or LEED certification of the Cowichan campus building, or announcements about government funding of aquaculture initiatives. 142 Bourdieu (1986) explained that groups and individuals compete with one another for acquisition of cultural, social and symbolic capital in the fields in which they interact, though it is possible to acquire this on a cooperative basis. At Vancouver Island University, it is suggested that acquisition of skills and knowledge associated with LEED certified building construction, for example, or with instruction in aquaculture programs and marine biology, represents a form of “cultural capital” that attracts greater financial resources and greater interest from administrators, faculty and students than other sustainability programs on campus. Arguably, there is less “cultural capital” associated with investigating pay parking policy, or composting cafeteria waste on campus. Accordingly, these may be less likely to attract support, and more likely to be out-competed by other programs for financial resources. Similarly, members of groups or committees that fund or regulate initiatives like green building design, or research at the Deep Bay facility, are likely to acquire more “social capital” than those involved with lesser known programs. In short, they exercise greater power and attract more capital through alliance and association with other committee members on high profile projects. It is also arguable that those who authorize green building design accrue greater “symbolic capital” than others, because this tends to attract more recognition, including media attention, than other programs. The point here is to suggest that sustainability policies and practices at Vancouver Island University are more likely to be successful if they provide for greater accumulation of capital, as Bourdieu describes it. When this does not occur there can be problems such as funding shortfalls, a lack of institutional commitment, and a failure to participate. Members of sustainability groups on campus, for example, are likely to derive more capital from their association with such groups than non-members. Group membership can also offer different 143 forms of capital for individual members to acquire. Students who join the Solutions Group build relationships and networks of influence that encourage involvement in sustainability initiatives and broaden their university experience. They arguably acquire more social capital from membership than students who do not join. They are also likely to acquire more cultural capital in the form of increased skills and knowledge about sustainability issues, and more symbolic capital from recognition of group activities. Acquisition of capital may assist with educational achievement on campus, particularly with respect to sustainability studies, and with employment prospects thereafter. Faculty members who conduct research on sustainability issues in highly popular and highly enrolled programs like aquaculture and marine biology are likely to acquire more social and cultural capital than those who do not. This could assist with funding of such programs, and with accumulation of symbolic capital through publication and recognition of research findings. Administrators who draft sustainability policy and authorize high profile initiatives like LEED certified building construction are also likely to accumulate more capital than those who do not. What this suggests is that certain sustainability initiatives are likely to attract greater competition for capital than others at Vancouver Island University. As a result, they are likely to be better funded and better managed than others. Apart from competition over capital, Bourdieu (1984) suggests members of different groups bring different background experiences to the fields they inhabit. These experiences and perceptions or “dispositions”, as Bourdieu (1984) describes them, form the basis of what he called “habitus”. This is a set of “trained capacities and structured propensities to think, feel and act in determinant ways” (pp. 170-171). While each individual acquires their own habitus, they share features of it with others who have been exposed to the same “structured propensities” of 144 thinking and acting. Those with different experiences or dispositions would share different propensities of thought and action. Students at Vancouver Island University arguably share a similar habitus from their experience as learners within the educational field. It would be distinct from the habitus of administrators derived from their experience as institutional managers, or from that of faculty acquired through their experience as teachers. Cooperation can take place between groups, but the influence of a different habitus can contribute to disagreement or even conflict. As Wacquant (2005) and Maton (2008) suggest, those with a similar habitus are more likely to collaborate with one another than with those of a different habitus. This helps explain why there can be cooperation as well as resistance to policy objectives within a particular field, including higher education. Interview responses appear to support this. For example, administrators, students and faculty referred to campus wide support for “green” building design and energy conservation initiatives like automated lighting as important sustainability accomplishments. At the same time, they pointed to a “lack of institutional support” and problems of a diffuse “organizational structure” as factors blocking sustainability initiatives. Administrators suggested “campus wide communication” about issues was important in creating a sustainable campus, while faculty indicated a shared “awareness” was significant. By contrast, students reported a lack of involvement by others and a reluctance on the part of administrators to “endorse” certain practices as factors blocking sustainability initiatives. Faculty members in particular noted that “competing objectives” between different departments was one of the biggest challenges facing the university in creating a sustainable campus. Clearly, there was evidence of conflict as well as cooperation in development of sustainability policy and practice at the university. 145 Bourdieu (1996) offers a possibility for transformative action to reduce conflict over such initiatives. In assessing the habitus of those who compete for capital in fields they inhabit he suggests it is important to “identify underlying master patterns that represent deep structural patterns that cross-cut and find characteristic forms of expression in cognitive, moral, and corporeal dimensions of action” (p. 109). As Swartz (2002) explains, these underlying patterns represent “master dispositions” that lie at the heart of habitus, and are expressed in the many “dimensions” of action or encounters people have with one another in the fields they inhabit ( pp. 67- 68). With respect to Vancouver Island University, there may be “master patterns” within the habitus of members of the university community that inhibit development of sustainability policy and practice. If so, this could be addressed by initiatives to counteract it, and the result might be less conflict in policy development. Interview responses suggest there is evidence of “underlying patterns” inhibiting development of sustainability policy and practice. Students reported, for example, that the “hardest” and “most important” challenge in creating a sustainable campus was “changing people’s thinking” because they did not regard sustainability as “intuitively to be part of what they do”. This was echoed by administrators who suggested the biggest challenge lay in changing “ways people think” and “people’s attitudes” about sustainability. One administrator noted there was “no understood commitment” among the university community to create a sustainable campus. Faculty also indicated that “conceptualizing” issues about sustainability was a major challenge. Similar comments were made about factors blocking sustainability initiatives on campus. Administrators and faculty members identified “resistance to change” as one of the most significant factors, while students suggested it was groups and individuals across campus who 146 were “not supportive of sustainability goals”. Another observation was the difficulty of having people “buy in” to the need for sustainability practices. Faculty members and administrators pointed to a lack of “personal commitment” among members of the university community to support sustainability initiatives. What this suggests is that despite successes like green building design, implementation of recycling programs, or adoption of campus wide sustainability policies, there may an underlying pattern or habitus of “unsustainability” that can undermine success. M’Gonigle and Starke (2006) appear to have uncovered this in their analysis of sustainability policy at the University of Victoria. Their work suggests that many individuals do not pursue sustainable lifestyles, and while they might profess support for sustainability initiatives, they are unable or unwilling to commit to them. At Vancouver Island University many students do not live on or near campus and rely on their own automobiles to get to school, even if they profess support for public transportation or car-pooling alternatives. In addition, composting facilities are not well used on campus apart from food services locations, though this is encouraged in the Sustainability Policy and the campus Master Plan. While re-cycling of paper products and metal cans has been underway for some time, plastics and other materials do not seem to be well recycled. The real challenge, then, may be in attempting to re-work or restructure the habitus, or more particularly the dispositions, attitudes and perceptions of the university community to create a more authentic culture of sustainability. Similar observations can be found in the work of researchers who have commented on environmental and sustainability issues. In discussing environmental management strategies within a corporate setting, for example, Kolenick (2006) refers to the work of Drengsen in suggesting that a fundamental change in “thinking” may be required so that 147 “post industrial processes” will not “destroy ecosystem resilience and vitality” (pp. 239-240). Sterling (2003) has also suggested that a “change of consciousness” is necessary to create a more ecologically sustainable society (p. 7). Particularly difficult may be what Bourdieu (1990) has termed the “doxa” of social relationships. This is the experience in which deep founded beliefs or dispositions of habitus are taken as “self-evident” truths not to be questioned (pp. 66, 68, 110-111). In this regard, it may be that for many in the university community, as well as society at large, attitudes of consumerism, material gain and minimal regulation of the environment still hold sway as desirable features of modern life. Disrupting the doxa of those perceptions may be necessary to achieve significant progress with sustainability initiatives. Transdisciplinary action may hold the key for some researchers. Wright (2004) has focused on the “inter-disciplinarity” of charters, declarations and reports calling for sustainability initiatives at colleges and universities (pp. 7-19). Moore, Pagani, Van Wynsberghe, et al., (2005) have suggested a transdisciplinary or “collaborative” approach is needed to address sustainability issues in the post-secondary environment (p. 71). Similarly, Lozano, Lukman, Lozano, Huisingh and Lambrechts (2011) have suggested that “transdisciplinary” teaching, research, and “community outreach” are essential for a “societal transformation” to reduce overconsumption of resources, and promote sustainable development. Post-secondary institutions should become leaders in “creating new and discarding old paradigms” and “re-integrating science and the arts in a transdisciplinary way” to assist with sustainability initiatives (pp. 8-9). Exploring new models of consumerism and “green” lifestyle changes through research and education would be a good start. Transdisciplinarity is described by these researchers as a means for crossing over and going beyond traditional boundaries of learning and research to engage in transformative action 148 to achieve sustainability objectives. This entails more than a multidisciplinary approach which draws upon separate disciplines like science, economics, and education to resolve problems, or an interdisciplinary approach that combines or integrates the work of various disciplines but remains within their boundaries. As Basarab (2008) explains, transdisciplinarity envisages solutions that lie between, across, and beyond the boundaries of individual disciplines. Indeed, it is this overarching, transcendent feature of the transdisciplinary approach that may hold the key to resolving sustainability issues in an effective and holistic manner. Other researchers focus on the work of Bourdieu as a source of transformative action. Karol (2004) in particular has suggested the sustainability debate should be framed in terms of habitus, field and capital. He argues that educational institutions at all levels, especially the primary level, should engage in instructional strategies to help alter or restructure the habitus of students, and points out that Bourdieu regards the habitus as capable of being influenced and reshaped (pp. 2-17). Interestingly, he goes on to argue that in reshaping the habitus of students, a related goal should be accumulation of “environmental capital” in addition to social, cultural or symbolic capital. Environmental capital represents the “resources an individual has at their disposal to influence their impact on our environment”. It would consist of skills and knowledge about environmental action such as recycling, green building design and energy conservation, as well as “material” capital like use of bicycles, solar panelling and sustainable community gardens (pp. 10-16). Karol (2004) stresses the importance of educational efforts to counter acquisition of a habitus of unsustainability among the young. Teaching the value of activities that are not fuel dependent, for example, or that do not focus on overconsumption should be fundamental in 149 primary education. The goal is important. In his estimation, schooling needs “to foster environmental capital to ensure the survival of humanity” (p. 16). Committing to such change at the post-secondary level would mean institutions like Vancouver Island University would train teachers, administrators, and others to influence a generation of students in acquiring a habitus of sustainability. In such a scenario, as Bourdieu (2001) suggests, higher education would become a “field of action in which agents endowed with different resources confront one another to conserve and transform the existing power relations to bring about change” (p. 34). Policy and practice, then, would become a tool to influence or reshape the habitus, and contribute to a greater social, cultural and symbolic capital of sustainability both on and off campus. Summary and conclusion While there has been success implementing sustainability initiatives at Vancouver Island University, there have also been problems. It is suggested the work of Pierre Bourdieu can help explain this and offers some possible solutions. Sustainability policies and practices are more likely to be successful if they are connected to a greater accumulation of capital, as Bourdieu describes it. Cultural, social and symbolic capital denote the benefits of knowledge, association, and recognition of achievement which Bourdieu suggests are highly sought after in addition to economic capital. Policies and practices that attract less of this than others in a particular field are more likely to be unpopular, and to encounter problems like funding shortfalls, lack of institutional support, and lack of participation. Even more significant is the influence of habitus. This denotes the background experiences or dispositions to “think, feel and act in determinant ways” which members of 150 different groups bring to “fields” or subfields of human interaction they inhabit, and where they compete with one another over different forms of capital. Students at Vancouver Island University share a similar habitus as learners within a field of education or sub-field of higher education. It is distinct from the habitus of administrators acquired through their experience as managers, and from that of faculty derived from their experience as teachers. Cooperation takes place between groups, but the influence of a different habitus can lead to disagreement and conflict. Those with a similar habitus are more likely to collaborate with one another than with those of a different habitus. This helps explain why there may be cooperation as well as resistance to policies and practices within a particular field, including sustainability in higher education. Analysis of factors impacting on sustainability at Vancouver Island University suggests there has been conflict over adoption of various initiatives. Students, for example, reported problems working within the university governance structure. They also suggested the most difficult challenge on campus was “changing people’s thinking” or their “belief” systems because they did not regard sustainability as “intuitively to be part of what they do”. This was echoed by faculty and administrators who agreed the biggest challenge lay in changing “ways people think” and “people’s attitudes” about sustainability. Bourdieu offers a possibility for transformative action that might reduce conflict over sustainability policy and practice. In assessing habitus, he suggests it is important to address underlying “master patterns” of behavior that may inhibit development of sustainability policy and practice. Strategies may be adopted to counteract these, and the result could be less conflict over policy development. What this study suggests is that despite the success of various initiatives, there may be an underlying “pattern” or habitus of “unsustainability” among members of all groups on campus. 151 This is something that has been acquired over a great deal of time, is common to many fields of endeavor including higher education, and is particularly strong throughout much of western society. The real challenge, then, may lie in re-working or restructuring the habitus, or more particularly the dispositions, attitudes and perceptions of the university community to create a more authentic culture of sustainability. In this context, sustainability policy and practice would become tools to influence or reshape habitus. This could be accomplished through a balanced exercise of power “over” and power “with and to” relationships to contribute to a greater accumulation of social, cultural and symbolic capital of sustainability both on and off campus. 152 Chapter 7: Summary and Recommendations The purpose of this work has been to analyze development of sustainability policy and practice at Vancouver Island University in Nanaimo, British Columbia. A case study was undertaken that was qualitative and exploratory in nature, and which followed from case studies at other post-secondary institutions in recent years. Case study summary Sustainability policy and practice was examined as the unit of analysis within a bounded system of study, a university located within a marine and land based ecosystem. The physical location of the university within a unique biosphere has contributed to an awareness of sustainability issues on campus. Data for the study was gathered from various sources including declarations and reports external to the university, and policy documents produced on campus over the last twenty years. Secondary research on sustainability issues was also considered. In addition, face to face interviews were conducted with different groups including administrators, faculty, and students. Interview questions were open-ended and provided a rich source of data to complement policy documents, all of which were primary units of observation. The data suggests sustainability policies and practices have been developed within a context of leadership, educational and environmental concerns. Documents like the university Sustainability Policy and the Nanaimo campus Master Plan stress the importance of leadership in sustainability activities both on and off campus. Interview data suggest leadership skills like long term planning, facilitating communication between different groups, and encouragement of volunteer activities promote effective policy making. 153 Educational concerns are also important. Sustainability education was originally advocated by the Talloires Declaration, to which the university is a signatory, and the Earth Charter. Both of these influenced adoption of the Sustainability Policy and campus Master Plan. Faculty, students and administrators have emphasized the role of education in promoting awareness about sustainability issues on campus through groups like the Sustainability Committee, the Solutions Group and ACER. Environmental concerns lie at the heart of many policy initiatives on campus. These include the old Recycling Policy, the Environmental Trust Policy, the Energy Management Policy, and Carbon Neutral Reports of the university. They are also fundamental to most if not all sustainability practices on campus such as composting, green building design, disposal of hazardous waste, and reduction of carbon emissions. Administrators, faculty and students engaged in various sustainability activities at the university, but members of each group tended to connect “sustainability” and “sustainable development” with two different things. “Sustainability” was linked to environmentalism or environmental conservation distinct from any concern with commercial or industrial development, while “sustainable development” referred to development that impacted minimally on the environment. This environmental focus was fairly consistent, though administrators linked “sustainability” initiatives to policy concerns about energy management and green building design, and faculty and students connected them more with educational concerns and hands on activities like composting and recycling. While certain policy documents defined “sustainable development” as development that meets the needs of the current generation without compromising the needs of the future, this was not commonly expressed by members of the university community 154 Administrators, faculty and students worked to transform sustainability policy into practice in a number of ways. For example, administrators authorized LEED certified building construction and energy reduction strategies in response to the campus Sustainability Policy and Energy Management Policy. Faculty introduced global studies programs, eco-tourism courses, and marine research projects in response to the Sustainability Policy and the Academic Plan, and students engaged in bike to work programs, composting and recycling activities. All three groups contributed to formation of the Solutions Group to advance sustainability initiatives on campus. Research suggests these kinds of undertakings were adopted through an exercise of power “over” and power “with and to” relationships in response to policy directives. Successful sustainability initiatives appeared to be those that gathered the most support because they resulted from an interplay of collaborative “power with and to” and “power over” decision making strategies. Administrators, faculty and students are more likely to “buy into” such initiatives if they believe they can contribute to them regardless of their position in the institutional power structure. Other factors impact on sustainability initiatives apart from institutional decision making strategies. These include the influence of international declarations and reports, funding decisions by governments and industry, relationships with community partners and the media, volunteer activities, ethical and gender considerations on campus, and teaching and research interests of faculty. All of these have contributed to successful initiatives at Vancouver Island University. Research indicates, however, that there continue to be difficulties attracting support for sustainability on campus and implementing important initiatives like alternative transportation strategies and disposal of plastics and e-waste. 155 This study has suggested the work of Pierre Bourdieu, and in particular the concepts of habitus, field, and capital can assist in explaining why certain policies and practices are more successful than others, and why certain initiatives remain unfulfilled. Sustainability policies and practices are more likely to be successful if they are connected to a greater accumulation of capital, as Bourdieu describes it. Policies and practices that attract less capital than others are more likely to be unpopular, and to encounter problems like funding shortfalls, lack of institutional support, and lack of participation. Secondly, despite the success of various initiatives, it is suggested there may be an underlying “pattern” or habitus of “unsustainability” among members of all groups on campus. The real challenge, then, may lie in re-working the habitus, or more particularly re-structuring the dispositions, attitudes and perceptions of the university community to create a more authentic culture of sustainability. In this regard, sustainability policy and practice would become tools to influence or reshape habitus. This might be accomplished in a number of ways, some of which are discussed in the following recommendations. Recommendations The recommendations which follow are suggested in response to data gathered for this study and conclusions drawn from research findings. They touch again on matters of leadership, education and the environment. Forming a standing committee on sustainability at Vancouver Island University Research indicates that administrators, students and faculty identified a lack of institutional support as one of the more significant impediments to sustainability initiatives on 156 campus. This was connected to a governance structure that seemed unresponsive at times to members of the university community. To help address this, it is suggested that a change in committee structure might be useful. The current Sustainability Committee is a voluntary working committee that provides advice to the Sustainability Office and reports to the university executive and Board of Governors through the Department of Infrastructure and Ancillary Services. It is an ad hoc body that meets periodically, usually once a month. It consists of nine volunteer members and two appointed members, with representation from the Administration and Finance Council, the Provost Council, and the Student Union. Its terms of reference are to recommend an operational sustainability plan, assist in meeting carbon neutral objectives, act as a forum for dialogue about sustainability issues on campus, and promote sustainability commitments of the university. While the Sustainability Committee does important work, its profile could be increased and its power to effect change enhanced if it were restructured as a standing committee. Members would then be elected which would lead to broader representation and greater accountability than can be provided through a volunteer system. As a permanent committee, it would be vested with a continuous, overarching responsibility for sustainability matters on campus, and carry more authority than an ad hoc working committee. It would also report directly to the university executive and Board of Governors. This kind of change would signal a strong commitment to sustainability initiatives, create a higher profile for the committee and attract more support from students, faculty and administrators. It would hopefully stimulate more dialogue about sustainability issues on campus, and encourage multidisciplinary participation. A standing committee could also seek advice directly from the Board of Governors and Senate. The point here is to suggest that the 157 success of sustainability initiatives depends in large measure on responsive decision making and bringing together as many people as possible. Creating a standing committee devoted to sustainability concerns could assist in doing this. Senior administrators would be best able to undertake the process for initiating such a change, but other administrators, faculty members and students could offer their support as well. Increasing the profile of the Sustainability Office The Sustainability Office was created in 2010 to identify environmental and sustainability issues on campus, and recommend on policy and procedure to the university executive at the direction of the Sustainability Committee. Faculty members and students, however, indicated they were uncertain about the role of the Sustainability Office on campus, and how it has been delivering on its mandate. Some reported they were not aware of what it was meant to do, or that it even existed. A few steps could be taken to increase the profile of the Sustainability Office. For example, its page on the Sustainability Website could be updated to provide a description of its purpose, as well as information about its location and hours of operation. Names of staff and contact information could also be included. A brief description of sustainability initiatives that have been discussed and recommended would complement the list of goals that currently appears. These changes would make the web page comparable in design to those of the Office of Aboriginal Education and the Office of University Planning and Design. Consideration might also be given to moving the Sustainability Office from the second floor of the library to a more prominent and accessible location. Of course, this would depend on availability of space and other resources, but it could be a helpful change. Interview findings indicate people found it hard to find and difficult to get to the office in its current location. 158 The Sustainability Office might produce annual or semi-annual reports about sustainability policy and practice, including the progress of specific initiatives on campus. This could include reference to new policy proposals, an overview of faculty research, and a summary of activities undertaken by the Solutions group and ACER. Updates about energy management policy and other issues like alternate transportation could supplement information in campus newsletters and on the Sustainability Website. The emphasis should be transdisciplinary, so the Sustainability Office could become a clearing house for different ideas and concepts, and a resource for assessment of ongoing projects. While university departments provide information about their own initiatives, it might be useful to gather this through a central resource like the Sustainability Office and make it more available to groups and individuals on and off campus. A greater educational role would be important as well. Office staff could undertake instruction on topics like carbon neutrality, e-waste, and energy management, or arrange for those with expertise on campus to do so. Administrators, along with Sustainability Office staff, would again be primarily responsible for initiating these kinds of structural and operational changes in the Sustainability Office. The support of the university governance structure and the Sustainability Committee would be important as well. Enhancing the sustainability website Administrators, faculty members and students suggested a broad, campus-wide communication strategy was an important factor in promoting sustainability initiatives. A diverse campus media can assist with this including printed newsletters by departments and committees, campus newspapers, social media and video links, campus email, and an interactive 159 website. Much of this appears to be in place at Vancouver Island University including a sustainability website. The existing website is a rather well-designed, interactive medium for communicating information about sustainability initiatives, and exploring the nature of sustainability policy and practice at the university. It is currently administered by the department of Facilities Services and Campus Development. Links are provided to a number of important documents like Carbon Neutral Reports for the university, the campus Sustainability Policy, the Nanaimo campus Master Plan, and the Energy Management Policy. There is also information on the home page about the Sustainability Committee, the Sustainability Office and the Deep Bay research facility. Links are provided to internal sites dealing with sustainability initiatives like the Energy Management Program, and to external sites such as the provincial government “LiveSmart” Program, the Suzuki Foundation, and the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE). Despite these strengths, some changes are recommended. For instance, certain webpages could be more informative. This includes the page referring to the Sustainability Office, and the page on transportation issues which remains under construction. Links could also be established to sustainability initiatives at regional campuses of the university such as the Cowichan campus, and to international research centers. The latter might include the Sustainability Research Center at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom, the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability at the University of British Columbia, and the Global Institute for Sustainability at Arizona State University. Links to privately administered facilities would also be useful such as the Institute for Sustainability Infrastructure in the United States, organized by professional engineers. All of these conduct important research on matters of climate change, waste disposal, 160 land desertification and water resources, and investigate programs on green building design and alternative energy solutions for government and industry. They would be helpful resources to connect to on any website. It is also recommended that links be fashioned to research projects, or to an index of research projects, as well as courses of study at Vancouver Island University dealing with sustainability issues. This would require the cooperation of faculty and administration, but useful links could be established through the main campus website and the Research and Scholarly Activity Office at the university. This could be of real value to students, faculty and administrators, as well as researchers and other users of the website. It is also suggested that the website showcase and promote the work of anyone who is engaged in sustainability activities on campus. This would be a useful means of communicating university initiatives to the community at large. Those who currently maintain the website, including administrators and staff with Facilities Services and Campus Development, are best positioned to pursue enhancement strategies. They would be better able to accomplish this, of course, with the support of faculty, and the assistance of information service technology personnel. Encouraging volunteer and interdisciplinary activities Documents and interview data suggest the most successful sustainability initiatives at Vancouver Island University are those in which groups and individuals have shared experiences and volunteered together on various projects. Examples include the old Recycling Policy, the university Sustainability Policy and formation of the Solutions Group and ACER on campus. Facilities Services has also encouraged students, staff and faculty to join groups like the “Power to Change Team” and “Team Power Smart” to reduce energy consumption and engage in 161 activities like recycling, composting, and biking to work. These kinds of initiatives are accomplished largely on a volunteer basis, and it is suggested this be extended to other projects as well. One such project might be to map remaining green spaces at Vancouver Island University by constructing a natural “vegetation” map. The “green print” on such a map would identify trees, shrubs and other plants that are native to the campus. Administrators, faculty and students could participate by identifying green spaces they encounter on a day to day basis. This could be cross referenced and analyzed by students and faculty in biology, geography and computer science. Geophysical or topographical maps could be produced, and resulting green spaces monitored as outdoor “classrooms” and repositories of west coast plant life. Administrators, faculty and students could also work together creating indoor green spaces by introducing “living walls” of vegetation at select locations, and maintaining community gardens on campus. The point here would be to foster am interdisciplinary engagement of different groups and individuals on campus. This might contribute to an emerging culture of sustainability and encourage a broader, more uniform support for sustainability policies and practices. Volunteer activities are something members of all groups can undertake to promote leadership on sustainability issues at Vancouver Island University. It is one area in which administrators, faculty, and students all have an equally important role to play, and where individuals can take initiative on their own to help create a more sustainable campus. Appointing an officer or director of sustainability The study suggests it may be helpful to have common oversight of research and policy development on the one hand, and more technical initiatives like facilities management and energy reduction strategies on the other hand. Faculty reported, for example, that research and 162 instruction were very important and needed better funding and direction. Facility managers suggested operational goals like carbon neutral initiatives and green building design were equally important and deserved as much attention. Administrators and faculty perform most of the policy analysis and research at the university with some oversight through the Sustainability Committee and the Sustainability Office. Energy management projects, carbon neutral programs and upgrading and retrofitting of facilities are dealt with by the Department of Facilities Services and Campus Development. The latter are primarily operational responsibilities, and Facilities Services engages a Manager of Building Systems to oversee matters of facility upgrading as well as energy and carbon neutral programs. Currently, there is no administrative position that formally coordinates or liaises between research and operational activities at the university. Such a position, an Officer or Director of Sustainability, might be useful not only to oversee both sets of activities, but to facilitate community outreach programs as well. Such a position might function on its own or through the Sustainability Office, or as an adjunct to the Sustainability Committee. Its purpose would not be to manage operations, or to manage research or community outreach on a day to day basis. Instead, it would offer direction and facilitate program planning in support of such initiatives on and off campus. The goal would be to bring initiatives together in a coordinated endeavour to minimize unproductive competition over available resources. Such a position could deal with other matters as well. It could compare sustainability performance at other institutions, and provide advice on matters like green purchasing policy and workplace greening initiatives. It might also assist with integrating sustainability studies into teaching and research programs at the university. 163 Senior administrators would be best able to create such a position, though faculty and other administrators could provide input as well. Officers or Directors of Sustainability are common at many universities in Canada including the University of Toronto and the University of Alberta, and at other institutions such as the University of California at Berkley, the University of Oregon, and Oxford University and the University of Edinburgh in the United Kingdom. In each case, the position liaises with university administration and provides important oversight and support to an infrastructure that is responsible for sustainability programs on and off campus. Partnering with Aboriginal groups and local governments Administrators, faculty and students all supported broader community engagement with sustainability initiatives. They suggested sustainability practices could be more successful if there was greater involvement with stakeholder groups outside the university community. In this regard, it is recommended the university continue and even broaden its relationship with aboriginal groups in the mid Island area. Grants in aid from the federal government and from native bands have assisted in the past with fish and wildlife studies in local watersheds, and with research on the health of coastal rainforests. In turn, the university has helped sustain native culture through such projects as an indigenous language revitalization program. Continuing with such projects would assist both parties to achieve sustainability goals. The university also maintains an ongoing relationship with the City of Nanaimo that impacts on sustainability policy and practice. A university representative attends the Nanaimo city Advisory Committee on the Environment, and is involved in a number of common initiatives including public transportation to and from campus and water conservation issues. 164 The Regional District of Nanaimo also engages in public transportation discussions with the City of Nanaimo and the university. Since 2007 it has provided tons of bio-solids to the university from recycled wastewater which has been used by the Forestry Department to fertilize local forest reserves. This diverts material that would otherwise be sent to local landfill sites, brings nutrients to forest lands, and helps decrease run off and erosion. These initiatives underscore the benefits of partnering with different groups and organizations on sustainability issues. Senior administrators have been primarily responsible for building such connections, and it is recommended they continue to pursue these “with and to” relationships for the benefit of the university and the local community. Effecting change in key initiatives including recycling and disposal of waste Research findings suggest certain issues deserve more attention on campus including public transportation concerns, increased sustainability funding, and support for sustainability research and education. Students and faculty pointed in particular to a few initiatives they believed needed specific attention. These included recycling of plastics and disposal of laboratory and electronic waste. Recycling of plastic products, including containers, wrappers, utensils and bottles, could be improved. While plastics can be packaged for pick up by Facilities Services, and some recyclable cutlery has been introduced in cafeterias, many products continue to be disposed of as garbage and continue to end up in landfill sites. The problem is particularly evident in lunchroom areas, classrooms, parts of university cafeterias and other public spaces. Plastic bags, sandwich and other food containers, cups and wrapping materials are regularly mixed in and discarded along with other debris and taken away as garbage. No sorting can take place once plastics are put into containers. Members of all groups on campus seem to contribute to the 165 problem, which is perplexing given the success of initiatives like paper recycling and composting of food waste. Some might argue that plastics contain food and other residues and should be disposed of as garbage. Yet cardboard pizza containers and other items with similar residues are accepted for recycling, and this should extend to plastics. It is suggested recycling bins be located in public areas including cafeterias and classrooms, and that these be clearly marked for plastic products only. This would create another level of recycling, but research suggests people would comply if procedures are clear and simple to follow. The Recycling Policy might be updated to refer to this, and an information campaign undertaken to encourage use of new receptacles. Laboratory and electronic waste is another concern. Animal dissection as a teaching aid in bio-science courses has generated a high volume of fetal pig and other animal waste over the years. It is possible to replace physical dissection with online dissection labs that are quite sophisticated and user friendly. This would significantly reduce the amount of animal waste delivered each year to landfill sites, without compromising the instructional integrity of the laboratory experience. Similarly, small-scale and green chemistry labs that produce smaller amounts of by-product and avoid use of toxic chemicals would reduce the volume of hazardous waste taken for incineration. Faculty have the expertise to implement such strategies, and it is recommended they work with administrators to insure resources are in place to pursue this in future. Disposal of old or non-functional equipment like computers, printers and copiers is also problematic. The Information Technology Policy at the university does not address what happens to such e-waste once it leaves campus. Older, inefficient equipment is replaced by lower powered units so “processing loads” can be transferred from individual work stations to a 166 select number of servers. This creates energy savings and prolongs the life of electronic devices for a number of years. Ultimately, however, equipment has to be replaced. If it is still functional, it often ends up being donated to schools and other organizations, including charities and non-profits. If it is non-functional, it may be subject to some local stripping and re-cycling, but it often ends up being shipped to developing countries for disposal. There it can decay for years, leaching chemicals into soil and groundwater and compromising the health of local populations. To avoid this kind of situation, it is suggested that universities, governments and industry develop better methods for dealing with old and obsolete equipment and the e-waste that is generated. New recycling and disposal strategies are needed to confront the problem. Administrators and faculty would have to undertake primary responsibility for these kinds of changes through more effective policies and procedures. However, all members of the university community could contribute by limiting their use of plastic products and disposing of less waste. Encouraging research on sustainability issues Study results indicate there was broad support among students, faculty and administrators for increased research and instruction on sustainability issues at the university. Significant research has been undertaken in recent years. A major focus of the Deep Bay Research Station, for example, is to support sustainable resource development in ocean, estuary and land based ecosystems. Current research involves shellfish conservation and restoration, and new harvesting technologies. In addition, other researchers are exploring how coastal communities can adapt to declining resources, and how they might respond to new opportunities such as eco-tourism. Canada research chairs have been appointed to oversee work in these areas. Other research has been undertaken on climate change in the departments of chemistry and 167 geography, on small-scale and green chemistry instruction in laboratories, and in business programs where graduate students analyse management policy that advances “sustainability” goals. It is recommended that research remain a principal focus of sustainability policy and practice. Topics might include disposal of hazardous waste and e-waste on campus, comparative studies of carbon neutrality and energy reduction at different campuses, and the effect of ocean acidification on coastal environments. Educational, historical and sociological studies would also be of interest. Research activities could be publicized on and off campus through the sustainability website, the Sustainability Office and other vehicles like newsletters and public presentations. Some of this is done already but more exposure would increase the profile of sustainability issues, underscore the achievements of faculty and students, and encourage greater involvement in sustainability initiatives. It would also address a concern of many that there is not enough communication about sustainability issues on campus. Research activity would enhance the reputation of the university as a centre for sustainability studies, and perhaps lead to publication of a marine research journal or creation of a regional chair in sustainability studies. The point here would be to encourage transdisciplinary involvement across the university community, and contribute to a growing social, cultural and symbolic capital of sustainability on campus. Faculty are perhaps best positioned to increase the profile of sustainability research on campus by pursuing topics of interest with other colleagues, and seeking funding opportunities whenever possible. Administrators could offer their support through policy and funding initiatives that encourage sustainability studies across the university community. 168 Increasing incentives for sustainability studies and sustainability activities Research results suggest students in particular and some faculty members wanted to see more scholarships, bursaries and tuition credits available for those who pursued sustainability studies at the post-secondary level. They believed this would contribute to a more sustainable campus, and would counter perceptions about a lack of institutional commitment or lack of involvement in sustainability initiatives. The university administers a number of private scholarships for undergraduates such as the Dan Macmillan Memorial Award and the Nanaimo Fish and Game Protective Association Award. These provide monetary support to students who pursue course work and other involvement in fisheries sustainability, wildlife conservation and forest preservation. There appear to be no awards for “sustainability studies” in general at the university. This would be something to consider through institutional funding or private donation. Criteria for application and selection, (including amount and number of awards), might be challenging to arrange, particularly if different disciplines are involved, but this could encourage more student enrolment in sustainability course work. Apart from scholarship awards, the university might consider incentives to encourage sustainability practices on campus. For example, pay parking could be reduced for those who car pool to school with others, and meal and bookstore discounts provided to those who volunteer for the Solutions group, ACER or the Sustainability Committee. Academic and vocational credit might also be granted for work on an outreach basis within the local community. The purpose of such incentives, of course, would be to increase interest and involvement in sustainability activities. 169 Students and faculty were most in favour of increased incentives for sustainability studies but it would be up to administrators to introduce them. Allocating financial resources could be challenging, but it is suggested some increase in incentives may be worth considering. It could help attract more talented students and faculty, and enhance the reputation of the university as a place for sustainability research. Infusing sustainability studies into university curricula Research findings confirm that administrators, faculty, and students favoured including sustainability studies as a growing part of curriculum and instruction on campus. Currently, such course work is available. Undergraduate courses address issues of “sustainability”, “sustainable development” and “environmental sustainability” in geography, anthropology, forestry, and business administration. An entire graduate program in Sustainable Leisure Management prepares students for employment in eco-tourism and “sustainable” recreational activities. Science courses in chemistry, geology, and bio-sciences provide instruction in “environmental” and “sustainability” issues. Course work and research opportunities are also available through a new Regional Innovation Chair in “Tourism and Sustainable Development”. Here, the focus is on understanding the role of protected areas as natural amenities to support local communities in diversifying their economies. It is recommended such initiatives be pursued in other disciplines including trades and technology and liberal arts programs. While instructors would be free to introduce sustainability topics into courses they already teach, new program proposals require approval from the Board of Governors and Senate, and are subject to recommendation by the Curriculum Committee and Planning and Priorities Committee. This can be an involved process. Those wishing to 170 introduce new programs in sustainability studies would have to address issues of student demand as well as educational and employment opportunities for graduates. Interestingly, this has already been undertaken in the past few years by social science professors who have successfully instituted the “Global Studies” program at the university. Undergraduate degrees are now offered in multi-disciplinary studies focusing on international development, economic relations, global governance and the “environment, sustainable development and resource management”. Faculty members team teach from a variety of disciplines including economics, geography, sociology and political science. The purpose of the program is to help students acquire a world view of human experience, and develop skills and knowledge to promote ecological and social sustainability. It is suggested such a model could be expanded into trades, education and arts programs as well as science. Instructors from those disciplines along with trades supervisors and facilities managers could share a wealth of practical experience in matters of energy reduction, waste management, green building design, and carbon neutral programs at the university. Detailed planning and course preparation would be necessary, as would the assistance of different faculties and departments on campus, and the cooperation of unions and professional associations. While this might be challenging to undertake, the learning opportunities could be dramatic, and students could benefit greatly from this kind of shared experience. Still another initiative would be to make use of focused “case studies” as a method of instruction in science and arts programs. This has been applied in some undergraduate biology and chemistry courses in adult education. Students are assigned a specific issue to explore touching on environmental or sustainability concerns. They are then asked to perform an analysis of the issue adopting a case study approach in which units of analysis and units of 171 observation are identified, data is gathered, and a specific research question is addressed. The “bounded system” of study is quite narrowly defined or focused, but students report a great deal of interest in completing such studies. Perhaps most importantly, it is suggested a principal goal of teacher training in the Faculty of Education focus on educating the young about sustainability. This is not a novel concept, and courses in curriculum and instruction have touched on the importance of sustainability studies at the elementary and secondary level. For example, teachers can undertake a program of studies in “global education” at Vancouver Island University. This is designed for work preparation in international settings, though it encourages adoption of global perspectives in local schooling, and a “transformational” understanding of world issues among educators. While sustainability and environmental issues may be addressed in such programs, there is no explicit reference to them in descriptions of graduate or undergraduate course work in education. It is suggested faculty consider developing curricula focusing specifically on sustainability studies in public and private school classrooms. This is something already envisaged in articulation guides prepared by the Ministry of Education, and it appears to have the support of many school boards and administrators as a matter of policy. It would be up to educators as experts in their field to develop curricula and training strategies for new teachers, and to assist with in-service training and support for teachers already engaged in sustainability education in the classroom. Indeed, it is recommended that the Faculty of Education consider developing a specialization in sustainability studies in elementary and secondary education. Nothing may be more important than trying to influence the habitus of those who will have to confront the ecological and environmental challenges of the future. In this regard, instructional resources are increasingly available through teacher associations, 172 Faculties of Education at various institutions and the Ministry of Education. The concern seems to be in providing students with skills, knowledge and understanding that were not available to earlier generations, and to assist teachers in imparting this to them. It should be noted that this has become the focus of a number of researchers at other institutions, among them McKenzie and Cunfer at the University of Saskatchewan. McKenzie (2012) in particular has begun to explore “new models” for how “environmental sustainability is taught and practiced in schools, universities and other educational institutions” and what this experience is like “in the classroom” (p. 1). The purpose would be to assist educators and other decision makers in furthering sustainability efforts at all levels of education. It is recommended that Vancouver Island University join in these initiatives. Faculty members and administrators have the resources and experience to help make sustainability studies an important feature of teacher training on campus. It is something they have already undertaken with instructional programs in social science and business education. Pursuing such initiatives in teacher training would show leadership in sustainability education at the post-secondary level both in British Columbia and beyond. Summary and suggestions for further research Sustainability policies and practices first began to appear at Vancouver Island University in the early 1990s following international events like the Talloires Declaration and the Earth Charter. Among the first policies on campus were the Environmental Trust and the Recycling Policy and initial practices included composting and pay parking initiatives. It was not until 2009, however, that a formal Sustainability Policy was adopted at the university. The Sustainability Committee and Sustainability Office followed shortly thereafter to assist in transforming policy into practice. The entire process, then, has been fairly new. There have 173 been quite a few successes, including adoption of an Energy Management Policy, and implementation of important practices like green building design, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and research on sustainability issues. At the same time, there have been problems with a broader implementation of sustainability policy, and attracting support for this from across the university community. To address this, it is suggested the goal of sustainability initiatives should be to transform the habitus of groups and individuals away from one of unsustainability, and provide for an increased social, cultural and symbolic capital of sustainability both on and off campus. Recommendations to accomplish this have focused on issues of leadership, education and the environment. They include changing the structure of the Sustainability Committee and Sustainability Office, focusing on interdisciplinary and volunteer activities, pursuing initiatives like climate change research and disposal of e-waste, encouraging relationships with partners on and off campus, providing incentives for sustainable behaviour, and infusing sustainability studies into university curricula, including teacher training. It is suggested such initiatives are best accomplished through a balanced exercise of “power over” and “power with and to” relationships between administrators, faculty and students, as well as the community at large. This helps ensure sustainability initiatives are adopted in a collaborative manner, on a multi-disciplined basis, and with broad institutional support. The case study approach in this work has focused on sustainability policy and practice as the unit of analysis at one particular institution. It has drawn on data from multiple sources at that institution, and explored research questions that should be of relevance to the university community as a whole. 174 The data should stimulate further research. For example, other studies might examine which factors have been most responsible for adoption of sustainability initiatives in a post-secondary environment, whether it be government funding decisions, volunteer activities, planning and leadership strategies, or other factors. This could assist with allocation of resources to better ensure the outcome of certain initiatives. Studies of green chemistry programs, LEED certified building design, alternative transportation strategies, and disposal of e-waste and plastics could also be undertaken. This might be useful in re-working or refining such programs to make them more successful. Other studies could examine cooperation between the university and local governments, First Nations, and business groups on initiatives like public transportation, disposal of waste, and management of water resources. It would be helpful to know more about such relationships, and about proposed partnerships in these matters. Further research into the carbon neutral program in British Columbia and the response of the university in its Carbon Neutral Reports might be useful as well. The program is a significant undertaking, and one that does not appear to be widely understood by members of the university community. Information about it and what it may hold in future could be of real value. Case studies at other institutions could also draw on data from the current study. Comparison of policy alternatives, implementation strategies, and how these were developed at other universities would be of interest, and provide insight into what works and what does not. As Vaughter, Wright, McKenzie and Lidstone (2013) point out, only a few multi-site studies currently exist which examine sustainability policy and practice in a post-secondary environment. While single case studies can be useful, they suggest there is a need for comparison across “multiple institutions” to better assess the outcome of sustainability initiatives in higher education (p. 2252). 175 In a related context, research might focus on comparisons of sustainability policy and practice at hospitals, school districts and municipal governments. In British Columbia, these institutions are also subject to provincial carbon neutral legislation, and are likely to have sustainability and energy management policies in place. A comparative analysis might provide new data about sustainability initiatives that could be of use to post-secondary institutions. Finally, the work of Bourdieu and its application to sustainability policy and practice could continue to be explored. It has been used here as a tool to help explain why sustainability initiatives may not always be successful, and why broad support for them may be difficult to achieve. Other applications are possible including a deeper examination of capital and its relationship to sustainability initiatives in post-secondary education. That could be a very interesting inquiry. Research opportunities, then, are possible even on the basis of a single case study like the present work. Of course, single case studies have their limitations, as Vaughter (2013) and colleagues suggest. Information collected may not always be relevant to other studies, and they run a risk of being too narrowly focused to be broadly representative. In this study, efforts were made to access a wide range of data so observations about sustainability policy and practice could apply with some validity to the particular university environment at Vancouver Island University. Still, interview participants were limited in number and not everyone invited to participate did so. Those who did provide interviews either attended or worked at the university. While they were representative of a post-secondary community, the responses they gave were particular to that institution. At the same time, the case study is fluid and adaptive, and can provide insight into how sustainability policy and practice might be developed at other institutions. Most universities, for 176 example, have been influenced by documents like the Talloires Declaration and the Brundtland Report. They are also likely to be administered by a governance structure similar to Vancouver Island University, and would contend with similar funding limitations and the influence of public and private interests on sustainability policy. Administrators, faculty and students on most campuses are likely to be affected by issues involving energy consumption, transportation, recycling and disposal of waste. They are also likely to confront a lack of commitment to addressing such issues among members of their own university community. One of the strengths of the case study is that it can be relevant to analysis of similar bounded systems. Perhaps its greatest strength, however, is that it relies on observation and collection of data from a number of different sources before offering conclusions. In this study, the work of Bourdieu, and specifically the concepts of habitus, field, and capital have been tied to conclusions and recommendations about sustainability policy and practice at Vancouver Island University. This represents a particular theoretical perspective that may or may not be relevant to other systems. Underpinning it all, however, is the data that has been collected. Whatever analysis might be applied, and whatever conclusions may be drawn, that data will always be available, and will remain open to further analysis, further explanation, and further speculation. Finally, it should be noted that a principal motivation for this research was to better understand how policy and leadership concerns could influence adoption of sustainability initiatives within a post-secondary environment, including disposal of waste in laboratory settings. Much has been learned, and it seems clear that policy and leadership concerns both on and off campus should lie at the heart of a response to patterns of unsustainability that dominate so much of human activity. The doctoral program in this instance has afforded an opportunity to 177 underscore the significance of policy and leadership in calling for change in the attitudes, beliefs and predispositions, as Bourdieu would have it, of so many in our time. This represents a challenge educational institutions like Vancouver Island University have a capacity to meet. Recommendations put forward in this study can help bring about change in educational policy and practice to create a stronger culture of sustainability on campus and in the community at large. Their purpose is to motivate administrators, faculty and students to improve on their own educational practice to increase the social, cultural and symbolic capital of sustainability at the university. This in turn reflects a major concern of this research and the program that inspired it, which is to inform and improve on educational practice and leadership. 178 References Albrecht, G.A. (2001). The potential of ethics and an ethic of potentiality ecosystem health. Applied Ethics in Human and Ecosystem Health, 7 (4), 243–252. Allen, A. (1999). Institutional change and leadership in greening the campus. In W. L. Filho, (Ed.), Sustainability and University Life (2nd Ed.). New York; Oxford. Arenas, A. (1999). Managing U.S. campuses with an ecological vision. In W. L. Filho, (Ed.), Sustainability and University Life (2nd Ed.). New York; Oxford. Arendt, H. (1972). The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Arendt, H. (2005). The Promise of Politics. New York: Random House. Arrow, K., Bolin, B., Costanza, R., Partha, Dasgupta, Folke, C., Holling, C.S., Jannsson, B-O., Levin, S., Maler, K-G., Perrings, C. and D. Pimentel (1996). Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment. Ecological Applications, Vol. 6, Issue 1, 13-15. Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. Retrieved July 8, 2013 from: http://www.aashe.org/ Atkinson, P. and Hammersley, M. (1994). Ethnography and Participant Observation. In Handbook of qualitative research. California: Sage Publications. Banks, J. (1998). The lives and values of researchers: Implications for educating citizens in a multicultural society. Educational Researcher, 27 (7), 4-17. Barbour, R. (2001). Education and debate: Checklists for improving rigor in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog. British Medical Journal, 322, 1115-1117. Basarab, N. (2008) (Ed). Transdisciplinarity: Theory and Practice. Creskill, New Jersey, Hampton Press. Bassey M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. In Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y., (Eds.), Doing qualitative research in educational settings. Florence, KY: Taylor & Francis. Bookchin, M. (1962) Our Synthetic Environment. The Proceedings of the Conference On "Man Versus Environment," May 5-6, 1958. Retrieved Oct. 30, 2009 from: http://stuff.karmus.dk/pol/Anarkisme/Forfattere/Murray%20Bookchin/Murray%20Bookchin%20-%201962%20-%20Our%20Synthetic%20Environment.pdf Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of Judgment of Taste. London: Routledge. 179 Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. Richardson, (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Publishers. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Stanford California: Stanford University Press. Brown, P. (2008). A Review of the Literature on Case Study Research. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education, Vol. 1, Issue 1, 1 – 13. Brunner, C. (2002). Professing educational administration: Conceptions of power. Journal of School Leadership, 12, 693-720. Brundtland Report (1987). Retrieved July 7, 2007 from: http://conspect.nl/pdf/Our_Common_Future-Brundtland_Report_1987.pdf Bullock, A. and S. Trombley (1999). The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought. Great Britain: Harper Collins Publishers. CBC Quirks and Quarks Radio Broadcast (2009). Retrieved Jan. 16, 2011 from: http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/episode/2009/09/12/oceans-of-trouble/ Campbell, M. (2003). Dorothy Smith and Knowing the World We Live In. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare. Vol. 30, No. 1, 3 – 22. Carbon Neutral Report 2010 of Vancouver Island University. Retrieved July 8, 2013 from: http://www.viu.ca/facilities/Campus_Development/Sustainability/Carbon%20neutral%20action%20report%20Final%20May%2014%2009.pdf Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Clarke, A. (2006). The campus environmental management system cycle in practice: 15years of environmental management, education and research at Dalhousie University. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. Vol. 7, Issue 4, 374 – 389. Clugston, R. and W. Calder (1999). Critical Dimensions of Sustainability in Higher Education. In W. L. Filho, (Ed.), Sustainability and University Life (2nd Ed.). New York; Oxford. Corcoran, P. B., Walker, K. E., & Wals, A. E. J. (2004). Case studies, make-your-case studies and case stories: A critique of case-study methodology in sustainability in higher education. Environmental Education Research. Vol. 10, No. 1, 7-21. Cortese, A. (2003). The Critical Role of Higher Education in Creating a Sustainable Future. Planning for Higher Education. March-May 2003, Vol. 1, 5-22. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches. California: Sage Publications. 180 Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design (2nd Ed). California: Sage Publications. Dawe, G., Vetter, A., and S. Martin (2004). An overview of ecological footprinting and other tools and their application to the development of sustainability process: Audit and methodology at Holme Lacy College, UK. International Journal of Sustainability Vol. 5, Issue 4, 340 – 371. Dawe, G., and K. Ryan (2003). The Faulty Three-Legged-Stool Model of Sustainable Development. Conservation Biology. Vol.17, No 5, 1458-1460. Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. Retrieved April 17, 2012 from: http://www.un-documents.net/a57r254.htm Dillon, J., & Reid, A. (2004). Issues in case-study methodology in investigating environmental and sustainability issues in higher education: Towards a problem-based approach? Environmental Education Research. Vol. 10, No. 1, 23. Drengson, A. (1980). Shifting Paradigms: From the Technocratic to the Person-Planetary Environmental Ethics 3, 221-240 Earth Day History. Retrieved March 18, 2012 from: http://www.earthday.org/earth-day-history- movement Earth Charter (1992). Retrieved July 7, 2013 from: http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_a/img/02_earthcharter.pdf Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 20th Century Business. London: New Society Publishers. Edelman, M. (1988). The Construction and Uses of Social Problems. In Constructing the Political Spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Eyben, R., and Harris, C. (2005). Exploring Power – An Introduction. IDS Bulletin 37 (5). Ferrer-Balas, D., Adachi, J., Banas, S., Davidson, C., Hoshikoshi, A., Mishra, A., Motodoa, Y., Onga, M., and Ostwald, M. (2008). An International Comparative Analysis of Sustainability Transformation Across Seven Universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. Vol. 9, No. 3, 295-316. Fraser, E. D.G., Dougill, A. J., Mabee, W.E., Reed, M., and P. McAlpine (2005). Bottom up and top down: Analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management. Vol. 20, No. 40, 1-14. 181 Filho, W. (1999). Sustainability and University Life: some European Perspectives. In W. L. Filho, (Ed.), Sustainability and University Life (2nd Ed.). New York; Oxford. Fraser, N. (2005). Reframing justice in a globalizing world. New Left Review. Vol. 36, 69-88. Gass, C.L. (2002). Introduction to the Special Feature: Education for Integration and Sustainability. Ecology and Society. Vol. 5, No. 2, Art. 31. Retrieved April 8, 2007 from: http://www.ecology Gudz, N. (2004). Implementing the sustainable development policy at the University of British Columbia An analysis of the implications for organizational learning. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. Vol. 5, No. 2, 156 – 168. Ghana Dumping Ground (2009). Retrieved Feb 8, 2012 from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkpBcFDjk7Y Hamilton, L. and Corbett-Whittier, C. (2012). Using Case Study in Education. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Harker, R. (1990). Education and Cultural Capital. In Harker, R., Mahar, C., and C. Wilkes, (Eds.), An Introduction to the Work of Pierre Bourdieu: The Practice of Theory. London: MacMillan Press. Haverkamp, B. (2005). Ethical Perspectives on Qualitative Research in Applied Psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Vol. 52, No. 2, 146-155. Heine, S., Lehman, D.R., Peng, K. and J. Greenholtz (2002). What’s wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales? The reference group effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 82, No. 6, 903-918. Helferty, A. and Clarke, A. (2009). Student-Led Approaches to Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions at Canadian Colleges and Universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. Vol. 10, No. 3, 287-300. Hite, S. (2001). Reviewing quantitative research to inform educational policy processes. In UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning. Retrieved April 20, 2007 from: www.unesco.org/iiep Huxley, A. (1932). Brave New World. London: Chatto & Windus. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) (2006). Retrieved Nov 25, 2006 from: http://www.iisd.org/ Kaplan, A. (1950). Power and Society. USA: Yale University Press. 182 Karol, J. (2004). Bourdieu and Education for Sustainable Development: An Analysis of an Interview. Retrieved July 7, 2013 from: http://publications.aare.edu.au/06pap/kar06523.pdf King, N. (1994). The Qualitative Research Interview in Qualitative methods in Organizational research; a practical guide, Cassel, C. and Symon, G. (Eds.). London: Sage Publications. Kolenick, P. (2006). An Investigation into Environmental Policy: The Discourse of Environmental Management and its Effect on Educational Practice at the Saskatchewan Power Corporation. Unpublished Ed.D. Dissertation, University of British Columbia. Kumar, R. (2005). Research Methodology – A Step by Step Guide for Beginners (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Kyburz-Graber, R. (2004). Does case-study methodology lack rigour? The need for quality criteria for sound case-study research, as illustrated by a recent case in secondary and higher education. Environmental Education Research. Vol. 10, No. 1, 53-65. LiveSmart BC (2010a).Retrieved June 30, 2010 from: http://www.carbonneutralbritishcolumbia.com/ LiveSmart BC (2010b). Retrieved June 21, 2010 from: http://www.livesmartbc.ca/government/advanced_education.html Lotz-Sisitka, H., & Raven, G. (2004). Learning through cases: adopting a nested approach to case-study work in the gold fields participatory course initiative. Environmental Education Research. Vol. 10, No. 1, 67. Lozano, R., Lukman, R., Lozano, F., Huisingh, D., and Lambrechts, W. (2011). Declarations for Sustainability in Higher Education: Becoming Better Leaders through Addressing the University System. Journal of Cleaner Research. Vol. 30. Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A Radical View. London: MacMillan Publishers. Lundegard, I. And O. Wickman (2007). Conflicts of interest: an indispensable element of education for sustainable development. Environmental Education Research. Vol. 13, No. 1, 1-15. Masterplan of Vancouver Island University (2009). Retrieved July 8, 2013 from: http://www.viu.ca/masterplan/ Maton, K. (2003). Reflexivity, Relationism & Research – Pierre Bourdieu and the Epistemic Conditions of Social Scientific Knowledge. Space & Culture. Vol. 6, No. 1, 52-65. 183 Maton, K. (2008). Habitus. In Grenfell, M. (Ed.), Pierre Bourdieu: Key Concepts. Durham: Acumen Publishing. May, R. (1972). Power and Innocence. London: Norton Press. Meadows, H. D. Meadows, D., Randers, J. and W. Behrens III (1972). The Limits to Growth. A Report to the Club of Rome. Retrieved June 5, 2007 from: http://www.clubofrome.org/docs/limits.rtf McDonald, R. (2006). Sustainable development as Freedom. International Journal of Sustainability Development & World Ecology. Vol. 13, 445-447. Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide To Design and Implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. M’Gonigle, M. and Michelle Starke (2006). Planet U – Sustaining the World, Reinventing The University. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers. Mitchell, K. (2003). Educating the national citizen in neoliberal times: From the multicultural self to the strategic cosmopolitan. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. Vol. 28, No. 4, 387-403. Moore, J. (2005a). Policy, Priorities and Action: A Case Study of the University of British Columbia’s Engagement with Sustainability. Higher Education Policy. Vol. 18, 179 – 197. Moore, J. (2005b). Seven Recommendations for creating sustainability education at the university level. A guide for change agents. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. Vol. 6, No. 4, 326-339. Moore, J. Pagani, F., Quayle, M., Robinson, J., Sawada, B., Spriegelman, G. and R. Van Wynsberghe (2005). Recreating the University from Within - Collaborative reflections on the University of British Columbia’s engagement with sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. Vol. 6, No. 1, 65-80. Moore, R. (2008). Capital. In Grenfell, M. (Ed.), Pierre Bourdieu: Key Concepts. Durham: Acumen Publishing. Navarro, Z. (2006). In Search of Cultural Interpretations of Power. IDS Bulletin. 37(6). Noddings, N. (1993). Caring A Feminist Perspective in Ethics for Professionals. In Strike, K., and L. Ternasky (Eds.), Education. New York: Teachers College Press. 184 Noyes, A. (1946). The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. Vol. 91, No. 1, 133- 134. Nyberg, D. (1972). Power Over Power. Cornell, USA: Cornell University Press. Orr, D. (1999). Transformation or Irrelevance: The Challenge of Academic Planning for Environmental Education in the 21st Century. In W. L. Filho, (Ed.), Sustainability and University Life (2nd Ed.). New York; Oxford. Pelletier, L., Tuson, K., Green-Demers, I., Noels, K. and A. Beaton (1998). Why Are You Doing Things for the Environment? The Motivation Toward the Environment Scale (MTES). Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Vol. 28, No. 5, 437- 468. Polkinghorne, D.E. (2005). Language and Meaning: Data Collection in Qualitative Research. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Vol. 52, No. 2, 137-145. Protocol for Policy and Procedures at Vancouver Island University (2010). Retrieved July 8, 2013 from: http://www.viu.ca/policies/documents/PROTOCOL.pdf Public Sector Energy Agreement (2008). Retrieved July 8, 2013 from: http://www.viu.ca/energymanagement/projects.asp Rein, M. (1983). From Policy to Practice. London: Macmillan. Runhaar, H. Dieperink, C. and P. Driessen (2005). Policy analysis of sustainable development: Complexities and methodological responses. Paper for the Workshop on Complexity and Policy Analysis, Cork, Ireland – 22- 24 June, 2005. Rowley, J. (2002). Using Case Studies in Research. Management Research News, Vol. 25, No. 1, 16 – 27. Russell, B. (1938). Power. London: Norton Press. Schaeffer, N. C. and S Presser (2003). The Science of Asking Questions. Annual Review of Sociology. Vol. 29, 65-88. Schirato, T. and J. Webb (2003). Bourdieu’s Concept of Reflexivity as Metaliteracy. Cultural Studies. Vol. 17, No. 3, 539 – 552. Seguin, C., Pelletier, L. and J Hunsley (1998). Toward a Model of Environmental Activism. Environment and Behavior. Vol. 30, No. 5, 628-652. Sharpe, L. (2002). Green Campuses: The Road from Little Victories to Systemic Transformation. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. Vol. 3, No. 2, 128 – 145. 185 Sharpe, L. (2009). Higher Education: the quest for the sustainable campus. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy Vol. 5, No. , 1 – 8. Smith, G.H. (2000). Protecting and respecting indigenous knowledge. In M. Battiste (Ed.), Reclaiming indigenous voice and vision. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Smith, P. (2010, July 8). Center an asset for business community. Oceanside Star, p. 4. Stahl, T. (2011). Institutional Power, Collective Acceptance and Recognition. In Ikaheimo and Laitenen (Eds.), Recognition and Social Ontology. Leiden: Brill. Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Stake, R. E. (2000). Case Studies. In N.K. Denzin, N. K, and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd Ed). Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications. Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple Case Study Analysis. New York: The Guilford Press. Sterling, S. (2003). Whole Systems Thinking as a Basis for Paradigm Change in Education: Explorations in the Context of Sustainability. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Bath, England. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Sustainability Website at Vancouver Island University. Retrieved July 8, 2013 from: http://www.viu.ca/facilities/CampusDevelopmentSustainability.asp Suzuki, D. (2005). Why Biodiversity Matters in a Changing World. Retrieved July 7, 2013 from: http://www.beatymuseum.ubc.ca/events/bls/suzuki Swartz, David (1997). Habitus: A Cultural Theory of Action in Culture and Power. In The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago, Ill.: Chicago University Press. Swartz, David (2002). The Sociology of Habit: The Perspective of Pierre Bourdieu, Occupational Therapy Journal of Research Winter 2002, Volume 22, Supplement, 61-69 Talloires Declaration (1990). Retrieved July 7, 2013: http://www.iisd.org/educate/declarat/talloire.htm Taylor, S.; Rizvi, F.; Lingard, B. & H. Miriam (1997). What is Policy? In Educational policy and the politics of change. New York: Routledge. Tellis, W. (1997). Introduction to Case Study. The Qualitative Report. Vol. 3, No. 2, 1 – 12. 186 Thomas, G. (2011). A Typology for the Case Study in Social Science Following Review of Definition, Discourse and Structure. Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 17, No. 6, 511 - 521. Thomson, P. (2008). Field. In Grenfell, M. (Ed.), Pierre Bourdieu: Key Concepts. Durham: Acumen Publishing. Timmerman, N. & Metcalfe, A. S. (2009). From policy to pedagogy: The implications of sustainability policy on sustainability pedagogy in higher education. Canadian Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 39, No. 1, 45-60. University and College Presidents Climate Change Statement of Action for Canada (2008). Retrieved July 8, 2013 from: http://secondnaturebos.wordpress.com/tag/university-and-college-presidents-climate-change-statement-of-action/ University of Saskatchewan, News Release, May 28, 2012 respecting research awards in sustainability studies to M. McKenzie and G. Cunfer University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (ULSF) (2001). Retrieved Nov 26, 2006 from http://www.ulsf.org/index.html University World News (2010). Issue No 0126. Retrieved May 31, 2010 from news@universityworldnews.com Vaughter, P., Wright, T., McKenzie, M., and Lidstone, L., (2013) Greening the Ivory Tower: A Review of Educational Research on Sustainability in Post-Secondary Education Sustainability Vol. 5 pp. 2252-2271. Velasquez, L., Munguia, N., and Sanchez, M. (2005). Deterring Sustainability in Higher Education Institutions. International Journal of Sustainability, Vol. 6, No. 4, 383 – 392. VanWynsberghe, R. & Khan, S. (2007) Redefining Case Study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 6 (2). Retrieved July 7, 2013 from http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/6_2/vanwynsberghe.htm Vaughn, R. and T. Buss (2000). Communicating Social Science Research to Policymakers. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage Publications. Wackernagel, M. & Rees, W. (1996). Our Ecological Footprint. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers. Wacquant, L. (2005). Habitus. In Becket and Milan (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Economic Sociology, London, Routledge. Walter, P. (2009) Philosophies of Adult Environmental Education. Adult Education Quarterly Vol. 60, No. 1, 3-25. 187 Wals, A.E.J. and Jickling, B. (2002). “Sustainability” in higher education: from doublethink and newspeak to critical thinking and meaningful learning. Higher Education Policy. Vol. 15, 121-131. Wright, T. (2002) A Review of Definitions and Frameworks for Environmental Sustainability in Higher Education. Higher Education Policy. Vol. 15, No. 2, 1 - 16. Wright, T. (2004). The Evolution of Sustainability Declarations in Higher Education. In Corcoran and Walls (Eds.), Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability: Problematics, Promise and Practice. Dordrecth, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Wright, T. (2006). Giving “Teeth” to an Environmental Policy: A Delphi Study at Dalhousie University. Journal of Cleaner Production. Vol. 14, 761 – 768. Wright, T. (2007). Developing research priorities with a cohort of higher education for sustainability experts. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. Vol. 8, No. 1, 34 - 43. Wright, T. (2010). University presidents’ conceptualizations of sustainability in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. Vol. 11, No. 1, 61 - 73. Wright, T. and Wilton, H. (2012). Facilities management directors’ conceptualizations of sustainability in higher education. Journal of Cleaner Production Vol. 3, 118 – 125. Whyte, R. (1999). Promoting Environmental Citizenship and Sustainability in Regional Campuses: Experiences from a Consortium of 15 Colleges and Universities. In W. L. Filho, (Ed.), Sustainability and University Life (2nd Ed.). New York; Oxford. Yin, R. K (1993). Applications of case study research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing. Yin, R. K. (1989). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd Ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing. Yin, R. K. (Ed.) (2004). The Case Study Anthology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th Ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing. Zucker, D., (2009). How to do Case Study Research. In School of Nursing Faculty Publication Series Paper 2, Chapter 14, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 188 APPENDICES 189 APPENDIX A: The Environmental Recycling Policy of Vancouver Island University Type: D. Institutional Policies (Board) Group: Administration Sub-Group: Facilities Executive Responsibility: Vice-President, Administration & Bursar Administrative Responsibility: Approved by Board: 11/27/1991 Amended by Board: Received by Education Council: Amended by Education Council: Procedure: STATEMENT: Malaspina University-College is committed to establish paper, cardboard and newsprint recycling procedures, on all campuses. 190 APPENDIX B: The Environmental Trust Policy of Vancouver Island University Type: D. Institutional Policies (Board) Group: Administration Sub-Group: Facilities Executive Responsibility: Vice-President, Administration & Bursar Administrative Responsibility: Approved by Board: 6/22/2000 Amended by Board: Received by Education Council: Amended by Education Council: Procedure: STATEMENT: The Transportation and Safety Management Initiative (TASMI) is a self-funded environmental program working toward a greener and safer campus. TASMI is led by the Board of Malaspina University-College and endorsed by all representative groups in the campus community. All revenues and expenditures associated with TASMI are contained within an Environmental Trust and the net proceeds may be carried over from fiscal year to year. Funds in the Environmental Trust may only be used for purposes identified in TASMI. The Environmental Trust may not incur a deficit, and the TASMI Committee will manage its revenues and expenditures accordingly on an annual basis. The TASMI Committee will prepare an action plan which will be subject to joint approval from the University-College Board based on projected net revenues from pay parking which seeks to meet the comprehensive transportation and personal safety objectives of the program. The TASMI Committee and the Board will also undertake to seek external sources of revenue in order to meet its program goals. Responsibility for TASMI is assigned to the Vice-President Administration and Bursar reporting to the Board, and individual operations will be delegated to appropriate administrators. 191 APPENDIX C: The Sustainability Policy of Vancouver Island University Vancouver Island University Policy 44.14 Type: Institutional Last Approved: Jan 22, 2009 Next Review: Jan, 2010 Executive Responsibility: President & Vice-Chancellor Administrative Responsibility: Executive Director, Facilities and Campus Development Procedure: STATEMENT: Vancouver Island University is committed to being a sustainability leader, in our operations, teaching, research and community engagement. This includes: implementing local and regional campus sustainability policies and practices; policies and practice that promote the sustainability of the adjacent community and bioregion; and policies and practices that advance sustainability of the general global environment. This policy applies to all activities under the governance of Vancouver Island University. DEFINITIONS: Sustainable Development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Our Common Future, 1987). Sustainability involves reconciliation of interrelated societal demands across environmental, social, economic and cultural pillars. RELATED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES: Health and Safety Policy 41.09 Prevention of Violence in the Workplace Policy 41.10 Personal Safety on Campus Policy 44.04 Employment Equity Policy 21.04 Investment of Funds Policy 42.02 Purchasing Policy 42.31 Recycling Policy 44.02 Security and Maintenance of University-College Assets Policy 44.04 192 APPENDIX D: The Sustainability Policy of the Nanaimo Campus Master Plan 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 APPENDIX E: Draft Response to the Sustainability Policy of the Nanaimo Campus Master Plan Nanaimo Campus Master Plan CAMPUS PLAN RESPONSE TO SUSTAINABILITY POLICY 1 August 20 Vancouver Island University Nanaimo Campus Plan Campus Plan response: draft Sustainability Policy Draft for discussion only Development of the Campus Plan provides an opportunity to introduce physical changes that will have long-term effects on the institution’s ecological and cultural footprint. Many physical changes will have serious implications for social and community planning, and also for long and short-term financial and operational planning. The Campus Plan concept assumes the following: 1. Ensure that the campus is developed, operated, and maintained so as to enhance and sustain the recruitment and retention of students, faculty and staff, the support of the surrounding community, and the identity of the University as a focal point of the region. 2. The Campus Plan will be an ambitious multi-faceted demonstration project in sustainable theory and application; it should advocate the establishment of a Central Vancouver Island Sustainability Coalition, a multi-institutional think tank lead by the University, the goal of which would be to: • Establish central Vancouver Island as a model of sustainable urban and rural development and sustainable resource management • Promote leading edge dialogue • Raise public awareness • Inform dialogues dealing with public policy • Stimulate cultural change • Demonstrate environmentally innovative solutions • Introduce innovation • Seek support for sustainability projects and programs Some, but not all appropriate members of the Coalition might be: • City of Nanaimo • Nanaimo Regional District • Vancouver Island University • The Island Corridor Foundation • The Mount Arrowsmith Biosphere Reserve • The Qualicum Foundation • Ducks Unlimited • The Nature Conservancy of Canada • The Western Canada Wilderness Committee 205 Nanaimo Campus Master Plan CAMPUS PLAN RESPONSE TO SUSTAINABILITY POLICY 2 3. Establish a focal point destination: optimize physical connections to the immediately adjacent environmental zones, communities and neighborhoods, the City of Nanaimo and the central Vancouver island region region. 4. Establish and promote a clear and direct connection to downtown Nanaimo 5. Plan for the land, the primary campus resource, to be used efficiently and intensively 6. Preserve existing “permanent” structures and enhance their functional suitability 7. Introduce permanent, long lasting, rather than temporary, facilities and infrastructures 8. Introduce elements of symbolic cultural value, including those that acknowledge history and indigenous culture 9. Abandon the practice of as hoc planning in favor of developing and maintaining permanent additions to a cohesive and rationale campus plan 10. Promote complementary village-type developments around an academic core on the campus and in those non-university areas immediately adjacent to the campus 11. Establish the attractiveness, accessibility, and legibility of the campus to ensure that the campus has permanent value to the community 12. Assemble a range of amenities, facilities and services that will lead to the recognition of the campus as a prominent multi-purpose regional destination 13. Preserve the views from and to the campus and the character of the hill town development 14. Introduce infrastructures and access systems that reduce the exposure of campus operations to inclement weather and optimize sustainable operations 15. Ensure vitality by avoiding the ghetto-ization of academic and research programs, administrative services, student services, residential and ancillary activities in favor of a homologous mixed use functional mix 16. Consolidate the academic campus, including the Trades faculty, in the smallest, most tightly knit, practically accessible and efficiently serviced land area 17. Maximize functional cohesion by ensuring that functions have optimal adjacency and that there is a clear and optimally efficient connective infrastructure between functions 206 Nanaimo Campus Master Plan CAMPUS PLAN RESPONSE TO SUSTAINABILITY POLICY 3 18. Restore and enhance the indigenous forest on the upper slopes, the wetland, and the cat stream 19. Begin to build a permanent campus community by changing the proportion of residential and commuter populations 20. Establish a critical mass of residents sufficient to create a daily, weekly, and year round sustainable functioning community 21. Develop an income stream to fund scholarships, new facilities, the maintenance of the campus infrastructure, and sustainability initiatives (but not contribute to operating expenses) 22. Plan for future re-scheduling of operations to optimize daily and year round utilization of all facilities 23. Develop an standard profile and scale for academic and research buildings that incorporates ground level features generally useful to the campus and minimizes long term operating costs 24. Establish and equitably apply spatial and environmental standards that promote health and psycho-social well being in all campus facilities 25. Introduce sustainable building systems as a construction standards 26. Introduce sustainable landscape practices and infrastructure systems 27. Identify sites for future buildings and sustainable performance objectives for those buildings 28. Develop a series of building massing and orientation strategies and design guidelines that optimally address opportunities for passive environmental design, natural heating, ventilation, and lighting, and minimal energy consumption 29. Identify sites for future buildings and sustainable performance objectives for those buildings 30. Create guidelines for the development of permanently valuable images for edge conditions, gateways, open spaces, individual and collective campus facilities 31. Introduce sites and facilities for food production 32. Develop and implement traffic and parking plans aimed at reducing the number of private vehicles on campus, the distribution of peak parking requirements, increasing the use of public transportation, rand diminishing the amount of surface parking spaces required 33. Introduce a combination of public services and amenities that serve to attract surrounding communities to a viable, meaningful, year round destination 207 APPENDIX F: The Vision Statement of the 2010 – 2013 Academic Plan of Vancouver Island University Our Vision Purpose As a leader in providing high‐quality learning, Vancouver Island University supports the well being of the people of Vancouver Island and coastal British Columbia by promoting a high quality of life for their communities through commitment to student success, community engagement and associated scholarship. Core Values Learning: we support student success, access to education, appropriate use of technology, development of literacies, communication and exchange of ideas across disciplines and locations, exploration and application of new thought and pursuit of lifelong learning Discovery: through the pursuit of free enquiry we promote an enduring learning community Engagement: we value ongoing cooperation with our partners in education, with communities in our region and with colleagues throughout the world Achievement: we believe in the potential of our learners and are committed to promoting the excellence and success of our students, faculty, staff and alumni Diversity: we value human diversity in all its dimensions and are committed to maintaining learning and working environments which are equitable, diverse and inclusive Celebration: we celebrate the achievements of our students, faculty, staff, alumni and the communities we serve Sustainability: we support a healthy sustainable environment through progressive operational practices and promotion of environmental awareness Visionary Goal Through the promotion of excellence in learning, we inspire our students and the people of Vancouver Island and coastal British Columbia as a trusted educational partner in the search for sustainable cultural, economic, environmental and social prosperity. 208 APPENDIX G: Letter of invitation for students of the Solutions Group [Name, Address] We are writing to ask for your assistance with research we are conducting on sustainability policy and practice in higher education. The purpose of this research is to explore factors affecting development of sustainability policy and practice within institutions of higher learning. The setting for this research is Vancouver Island University in Nanaimo, British Columbia which has developed sustainability policies and put these into practice. The investigators for this study are Dr Thomas Sork of the Department of Educational Studies and Glenda Hunter, who has worked for Vancouver Island University as a science instructor in the Faculty of Adult and Continuing Education since 1994. Glenda will be completing this study in partial fulfillment for the degree of Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership and Policy. Information resulting from this research study will be kept strictly confidential. Only the researchers will have access to the identity of the research subjects and to the transcripts produced through the interviews. However, this research will be conducted with a relatively small group of people and confidentiality among the participants themselves could be compromised. To help maintain confidentiality, all interviews will be conducted individually. If you agree to an interview, your interview will be scheduled at your convenience and will last approximately one hour. A second interview of no more than one half-hour might be scheduled, upon your approval, to answer specific questions raised throughout the course of this study. At this time we are hoping to recruit six students who are members of the Vancouver Island University Solutions group to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in this study, or have questions, please contact Glenda Hunter or Dr Tom Sork. In case we have not heard from you within one or two weeks, Glenda will contact you to follow-up on any questions you might have and to confirm whether you wish to participate in this study. We look forward to possibly working with you on this project. Yours sincerely, Dr Thomas Sork, PhD, Professor Glenda Hunter, MSc, Graduate Student Department of Educational Studies Department of Educational Studies Department of Educational Studies Faculty of Education 2125 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1Z4 Tel: 604-822-5374 Fax: 604-822-4244 Web: http://www.edst.educ.ubc.ca 209 APPENDIX H: Letter of invitation for administrators and faculty [Name, Address] We are writing to ask for your assistance with research we are conducting on sustainability policy and practice in higher education. The purpose of this research is to explore factors affecting development of sustainability policy and practice within institutions of higher learning. The setting for this research is Vancouver Island University in Nanaimo, British Columbia which has developed sustainability policies and put these into practice. The investigators for this study are Dr Thomas Sork of the Department of Educational Studies and Glenda Hunter, who has worked for Vancouver Island University as a science instructor in the Faculty of Adult and Continuing Education since 1994. Glenda will be completing this study in partial fulfillment for the degree of Doctor of Education in Leadership and Policy. Information resulting from this research study will be kept strictly confidential. Only the researchers will have access to the identity of the research subjects and to the transcripts produced through the interviews. However, this research will be conducted with a relatively small group of people and confidentiality among the participants themselves could be compromised. To help maintain confidentiality, all interviews will be conducted individually. If you agree to an interview, your interview will be scheduled at your convenience and will last approximately one hour. A second interview of no more than one half-hour might be scheduled, upon your approval, to answer specific questions raised throughout the course of this study. If you are interested in participating in this study, or have questions, please contact Glenda Hunter by telephone or by e-mail. In case we have not heard from you within one or two weeks, Glenda will contact you to follow-up on any questions you might have and to confirm whether you wish to participate in this study. We look forward to possibly working with you on this project. Yours sincerely, Dr Thomas Sork PhD, Professor Glenda Hunter MSc, Graduate Student Department of Educational Studies Department of Educational Studies Department of Educational Studies Faculty of Education 2125 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1Z4 Tel: 604-822-5374 Fax: 604-822-4244 Web: http://www.edst.educ.ubc.ca 210 APPENDIX I : Interview consent form [Name, Address] Purpose and Procedures: The purpose of this research is to explore factors affecting development of sustainability policy and practice within institutions of higher learning. In particular, we seek to understand how people conceptualize ‘sustainable development’ and ‘sustainability’ within a post-secondary educational institution. We believe the role individuals and groups play in developing sustainability policy and practice in an educational institution is important. In this study, a select group of individuals at Vancouver Island University with knowledge of the institution’s programs will be interviewed. The in-depth interviews have two purposes: (1) to explore the beliefs and assumptions of participants about what is meant by ‘sustainable development’ and ‘sustainability’; and (2) to identify the factors that influence sustainability policy and practice at Vancouver Island University. The interview will be scheduled at your convenience and will last approximately one hour. A second interview of no more than one half-hour might be scheduled upon your approval, to answer specific questions raised throughout the course of this study. Also, a copy of your interview transcript will be given to you. Confidentiality: Information resulting from this research study will be kept strictly confidential. Only the researchers will have access to the identity of the research participants and to the transcripts produced through the interviews. However, this research will be conducted with a relatively small group of people and confidentiality among the participants themselves could be compromised. To help maintain confidentiality, all interviews will be conducted individually and, all participants in this study will receive a copy of their interview transcript so they can edit out any information they believe might identify them. During transcription of the audio-taped interviews, personal descriptors will be removed and replaced by letter/number codes so your identity will not be known. Coded data will be kept in separate files in a locked cabinet. Any records kept on a computer hard disk will be kept in a secure folder requiring a password for access. In compliance with UBC policy, the data will be stored after the study is completed for 5 years in a confidential study file. At the end of this period, the tapes will be demagnetized and the transcripts shredded. Department of Educational Studies Faculty of Education 2125 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1Z4 Tel: 604-822-5374 Fax: 604-822-4244 Web: http://www.edst.educ.ubc.ca 211 Contact: If you have any questions or desire further information with respect to this study, please contact Glenda Hunter or, Dr Tom Sork. If you have any concerns about your treatment or rights as a research participant, you may contact the Research Information Line in the UBC Office of Research Services. Consent: Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary and you may refuse to participate or withdraw from the study at any time without jeopardy. Your signature indicates that you agree to participate in this study by being interviewed, and that you consent to allowing the interview to be audio-taped. ____________________________________ ________________________ Signature Date _____________________________________ Print Name 212 APPENDIX J: Interview guide of interviewer Time of Interview: Date: Place: Gender: Interviewee: Interviewer: a) How long have you worked (studied) at Vancouver Island University? b) What was (is) your area/field of study? c) What year were you born? d) What is your level of education?213 APPENDIX K: Interview guide for administrators/leaders Interview protocol project: Sustainable Development and Sustainability: A Case Study of Policy and Practice at Vancouver Island University Time of Interview: Date: Place: Interviewee: Interviewer: Position of Interviewee: UBC doctoral graduate student The purpose of this research is to explore factors affecting development of sustainability policy and practice within institutions of higher learning. The setting for this research is Vancouver Island University in Nanaimo, British Columbia which has developed sustainability policies and put these into practice. Sustainable development and sustainability have become important terms subject to policy consideration at Vancouver Island University. Still they may mean different things to different groups on campus including students, administrative staff and faculty. We would like to ask you a few questions regarding these concepts within the context of your involvement with Vancouver Island University Questions: 1) I would like to begin by asking you to describe what involvement, if any, you have had, with VIU’s sustainability activities? 2) Why have you become involved with these activities? 3) Within the context of a regional university setting such as Vancouver Island University, what does the term sustainability mean to you? 4) Within the context of a regional university setting such as Vancouver Island University, what does the term sustainable development mean to you? 5) What do you believe should be the role of administrators in creating a sustainable campus? 6) Can you give an example of how someone associated with VIU has made a particularly important contribution to our sustainability activities? 7) What do you think made that person effective? 8) What do you consider the one or two biggest challenges VIU faces in creating a sustainable campus? 9) What have been VIU’s greatest accomplishments in moving toward greater sustainability? 10) What do you think are the most important factors that enable or promote efforts to create a sustainable campus? 11) What do you think are the most important factors that block or impede efforts to create a sustainable campus? Thank you for your participation in this project! 214 APPENDIX L: Interview guide for faculty members Interview protocol project: Sustainable Development and Sustainability: A Case Study of Policy and Practice at Vancouver Island University Time of Interview: Date: Place: Interviewee: Interviewer: Position of Interviewee: UBC doctoral graduate student The purpose of this research is to explore factors affecting development of sustainability policy and practice within institutions of higher learning. The setting for this research is Vancouver Island University in Nanaimo, British Columbia which has developed sustainability policies and put these into practice. Sustainable development and sustainability have become important terms subject to policy consideration at Vancouver Island University. Still they may mean different things to different groups on campus including students, administrative staff and faculty. We would like to ask you a few questions regarding these concepts within the context of your involvement with Vancouver Island University Questions: 1) I would like to begin by asking you to describe what involvement, if any, you have had, with VIU’s sustainability activities? 2) Why have you become involved with these activities? 3) Within the context of a regional university setting such as Vancouver Island University, what does the term sustainability mean to you? 4) Within the context of a regional university setting such as Vancouver Island University, what does the term sustainable development mean to you? 5) What do you believe should be the role of faculty in creating a sustainable campus? 6) Can you give an example of how someone associated with VIU has made a particularly important contribution to our sustainability activities? 7) What do you think made that person effective? 8) What do you consider the one or two biggest challenges VIU faces in creating a sustainable campus? 9) What have been VIU’s greatest accomplishments in moving toward greater sustainability? 10) What do you think are the most important factors that enable or promote efforts to create a sustainable campus? 11) What do you think are the most important factors that block or impede efforts to create a sustainable campus? Thank you for your participation in this project! 215 APPENDIX M: Interview guide for students Interview protocol project: Sustainable Development and Sustainability: A Case Study of Policy and Practice at Vancouver Island University Time of Interview: Date: Place: Interviewee: Interviewer: Position of Interviewee: UBC doctoral graduate student The purpose of this research is to explore factors affecting development of sustainability policy and practice within institutions of higher learning. The setting for this research is Vancouver Island University in Nanaimo, British Columbia which has developed sustainability policies and put these into practice. Sustainable development and sustainability have become important terms subject to policy consideration at Vancouver Island University. Still they may mean different things to different groups on campus including students, administrative staff and faculty. We would like to ask you a few questions regarding these concepts within the context of your involvement with Vancouver Island University Questions: 1) I would like to begin by asking you to describe what involvement, if any, you have had, with VIU’s sustainability activities? 2) Why have you become involved with these activities? 3) Within the context of a regional university setting such as Vancouver Island University, what does the term sustainability mean to you? 4) Within the context of a regional university setting such as Vancouver Island University, what does the term sustainable development mean to you? 5) What do you believe should be the role of students in creating a sustainable campus? 6) Can you give an example of how someone associated with VIU has made a particularly important contribution to our sustainability activities? 7) What do you think made that person effective? 8) What do you consider the one or two biggest challenges VIU faces in creating a sustainable campus? 9) What have been VIU’s greatest accomplishments in moving toward greater sustainability? 10) What do you think are the most important factors that enable or promote efforts to create a sustainable campus? 11) What do you think are the most important factors that block or impede efforts to create a sustainable campus? Thank you for your participation in this project! 216 APPENDIX N: Interview debriefing letter Interview Debriefing Form [Name, Address] Thank you for participating in the study described as Sustainability in Higher Education: A Case Study of Policy and Practice at Vancouver Island University. The data we received from your interview questions will advance our understanding of sustainability policy and practice in higher education. The purpose of this research is to explore factors affecting development of sustainability policy and practice within institutions of higher learning. The setting for this research is Vancouver Island University in Nanaimo, British Columbia which has developed sustainability policies and put these into practice. That institution has been selected for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is a signatory to the Talloires Declaration. Secondly, it has adopted a policy of sustainability that draws upon the Talloires Declaration, the Earth Charter and similar initiatives for its core principles. Thirdly, the draft academic plan prepared by the university in 2009 has recommended that a Senate subcommittee be established on sustainability. Finally, a principal goal of the academic plan is to “create a culture of sustainability” on campus. It appears the university is committed to principles of sustainability, and is in a strong position to offer leadership on the issue to other institutions and to the public at large. If you have any further questions concerning this research please contact Glenda Hunter or Dr Tom Sork. We have included some references for your future reading and thanks again for your contribution to this study. Yours sincerely, Dr Thomas Sork PhD, Professor Glenda Hunter MSc, Graduate Student Department of Educational Studies Department of Educational Studies Department of Educational Studies Faculty of Education 2125 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1Z4 Tel: 604-822-5374 Fax: 604-822-4244 Web: http://www.edst.educ.ubc.ca
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Educational Leadership and Policy
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Canada
Graduate
Sustainability in higher education : a case study of policy and practice at Vancouver Island University
Text