Ijshe 04 2015 0071

International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education
Assessment tools’ indicators for sustainability in universities: an analytical

overview
Naif Alghamdi, Alexandra den Heijer, Hans de Jonge,
Article information:
Downloaded by University of Technology Mauritius, Amit Ramroop At 06:09 02 November 2018 (PT)
To cite this document:

Naif Alghamdi, Alexandra den Heijer, Hans de Jonge, (2017) "Assessment tools’ indicators for
sustainability in universities: an analytical overview", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, Vol. 18 Issue: 1, pp.84-115, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-04-2015-0071
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-04-2015-0071
Downloaded on: 02 November 2018, At: 06:09 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 52 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1026 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2011),"The state of sustainability reporting in universities", International Journal
of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 12 Iss 1 pp. 67-78 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/14676371111098311">https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371111098311</a>
(2015),"Quest for a sustainable university: a review", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, Vol. 16 Iss 2 pp. 155-172 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-02-2013-0017">https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-02-2013-0017</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:450321 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1467-6370.htm
IJSHE
18,1
Assessment tools’ indicators for
sustainability in universities:
an analytical overview
84 Naif Alghamdi
Department of Architecture and Building Science,
Received 21 April 2015 King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and
Revised 8 December 2015
3 February 2016
Accepted 5 February 2016
Alexandra den Heijer and Hans de Jonge
Department of Management in the Built Environment,
Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyse 12 assessment tools of sustainability in universities and
develop the structure and the contents of these tools to be more intelligible. The configuration of the tools
reviewed highlight indicators that clearly communicate only the essential information. This paper explores
how the theoretical concept of a sustainable university is translated into more measurable variables to support
practitioners and academics in assessing sustainability in universities.
Design/methodology/approach – The main method for this paper was a desk study approach, which
incorporated reviewing research papers, graduate theses, academic books, network platforms and websites.
Findings – The tools reviewed share similar traits in terms of criteria, sub-criteria and indicators. Five
benchmarks are essential for a holistic framework: management; academia; environment; engagement and
innovation.
Practical implications – This research can not only be used to improve existing assessment tools but
also as a means to develop new tools tailored for universities that face a variety of challenges and lack the
ability to measure their sustainability policies.
Social implications – Making higher education more sustainable through all the criteria mentioned
influences students, as well as staff, to maintain a culture of sustainability.
Originality/value – This study contributes to the literature by simplifying and detailing the structure and
contents of the tools in a way which indicators are shown, giving a full picture of these tools to enable
universities to be more aware of the sustainability issues that affect them.
Keywords University, Sustainability, Higher education institutions, Indicators, Assessment tools,
Sustainable campus
Paper type General review
1. Introduction
Sustainability is a powerful concept which is generally accessible and broadly agreed upon.
Its foundations rest upon notions of current maintenance and preservation for future
generations. What is built on top of these foundations are common ideas of care for one’s
environment, appreciating the value of society and acting responsibly and accountably.
Concern for the environment and sustainability within higher education institutions has
International Journal of grown since the early of 1970s (Finlay and Massey, 2012). The concept has received more
Sustainability in Higher Education
Vol. 18 No. 1, 2017
attention in universities across the globe. This attention has been translated into actions such
pp. 84-115
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1467-6370
The authors would like to thank Dr Rodrigo Lozano – from Copernicus Institute of Sustainable
DOI 10.1108/IJSHE-04-2015-0071 Development, Utrecht University, The Netherlands – for his input in developing this paper.
as declarations, frameworks, tools and systems to assess sustainability in higher education Assessment
institutions (Shriberg, 2002). Progress towards sustainable development has been made tools’
(Caeiro et al., 2013). Development can be seen in a wide range of areas, including greening the
curriculum (Roorda, 2002; Lidgren et al., 2006; Lozano, 2009), managing sustainability on
indicators
campus by implementing environmental management systems such as ISO 14001 Standard
and the EMAS Regulation (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar, 2008; Disterheft et al., 2012;
Amaral et al., 2015), assessing and reporting sustainability (Shriberg, 2002; Cole, 2003;
Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar, 2008; Lozano, 2011; Kamal and Asmuss, 2013; Gómez et al.,
85
2014), holding specialised conferences annually to address sustainability in universities and
discuss the latest developments in the field (e.g. the Association for the Advancement of
Sustainability in Higher Education [AASHE], International Sustainable Campus Network;
and Environmental Management for Sustainability in Universities), offering assessment
tools (e.g. SAQ; SUM; BIQ-AUA; USAT; and AMAS) and proposing ranking systems (e.g.
Green Matric; Green League; and STARS).
With this in mind, scholars have recognised these developments and have documented
them. Declarations for sustainability in universities have been reported in a number of
publications (Calder and Clugston, 2003; Wright, 2004; Lozano et al., 2013; Disterheft et al.,
2013). Meanwhile, other publications have reviewed the advancement of sustainability
assessment tools in higher education institutions (Shriberg, 2002; Cole, 2003; Alshuwaikhat
and Abubakar, 2008; Kamal and Asmuss, 2013; Gómez et al., 2014). Additional publications
such as Ramos et al. (2004), Lozano (2006a), Velazquez et al. (2005), Boer (2013), Roorda (2013)
and Amaral et al. (2015) have also given us insightful commentaries on ways to develop a
new framework for assessing sustainability efforts in universities to review existing
frameworks and to report the development of best practices in university campuses around
the world.
Measuring sustainability remains a complex and challenging process for higher
education institutions, especially institutions that are at the early stage of their sustainable
development programmes (Gómez et al., 2014). Looking back at some of these published
works – which reviewed a myriad of assessment tools each such as Shriberg (2002) reviewed
11 tools, Cole (2003) reviewed 12 tools, Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar (2008) reviewed 3 tools,
Kamal and Asmuss (2013) reviewed 4 tools and Gómez et al. (2014) reviewed 8 tools –
enhances our knowledge of how to measure sustainable university in a variety of ways.
For measuring and analysing sustainability in universities, three main approaches were
developed: accounts assessment, narrative assessment and indicator-based assessment.
Accounts are constructions of raw data, converted to a common unit (such as money, area or
energy). Most cover highly important but limited aspects of sustainability. Additionally,
accounts do not clearly reveal the main constituents of a sustainable institution. Therefore,
this limits the usefulness of accounts for strategy development (Dalal-Clayton and Bass 2002,
p. 133). Narrative assessments, on the other hand, combine text, maps, graphics and tabular
data. They may use indicators, but are not built around them. Their strength is their
familiarity and flexibility. However, this flexibility has pitfalls. Unsystematic choice of
topics coupled with uneven treatment can mask gaps in coverage and obscure priorities.
Limited transparency and consistency reduce the usefulness of these assessments for
decision-making, particularly for strategy development and monitoring. To facilitate the
measurement of sustainability in universities, many assessment tools are indicator-based.
Like narrative assessments, indicator-based assessments may include text, maps, graphical
and tabular data, but unlike them, they are organised around indicators (Dalal-Clayton and
Bass, 2002, p. 135). Indicator-based assessments are thought to be one of the most used
approaches in measuring sustainability. Ramos (2009, p. 1101) believes that “Despite the
IJSHE diversity of methods and tools for measuring sustainability, indicators almost always play a
18,1 fundamental role”. The indicator-based assessment approach, compared to accounts
assessment approach and narrative assessment approach, is comprehensive and
representative (Dalal-Clayton and Bass, 2002). It is easily measurable and comparable
(Lozano, 2006b). The indicator-based assessment approach can ‘convey value added
messages in a simplified and useful manner to different types of target audiences, including
86 policy and decision-makers and general public’ (Ramos and Pires, 2013, p. 82). A brief
comparison between the three main approaches for measuring and analysing sustainability
in universities is shown below in Table I.
As far as this research is concerned, these published works – namely Shriberg (2002), Cole
(2003), Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar (2008), Kamal and Asmuss (2013), and Gómez et al.
(2014) – have reviewed a number of tools giving background information and showing the
strengths and weaknesses of each tool. The main disadvantage is that very little is known
about the indicators through which sustainability in universities can be assessed. Neither the
structure of the assessment tools nor the type and number of indicators are shown.
For this reason, this present research aims to go a step beyond analysing 12 assessment
tools of sustainability in universities by ensuring that the structure and the contents of these
tools are more intelligible, primarily through highlighting indicators, so that they clearly
communicate only the essential information. In doing so, this research identifies five criteria
that can be grouped into a holistic framework, comprising aspects of management;
academia; environment; engagement and innovation. Therefore, its contribution to existing
knowledge is a simplification and detailing of the structure and contents of the tools,
enabling universities to recognise issues and ultimately improve their sustainability policies.
There are several important areas where this study makes much needed contributions.
Scientifically, this research can be used to improve existing sustainability assessment tools.
Additionally, it can help to develop new tailored tools, as each university is facing different
challenges to advance their progress and measure their efforts towards sustainability.
Socially, applying these assessment tools through not only education and research but also
operation and engagement creates a culture of sustainability at universities and beyond.
This study was exploratory and interpretative in nature. The main method for this paper
was a desk study reviewing literature including research papers, graduate theses, academic
books, network platforms and websites. Five published works – Shriberg (2002), Cole (2003),
Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar (2008), Kamal and Asmuss (2013), and Gómez et al. (2014) –
which reviewed assessment tools will be analysed.
The overall structure of the paper takes the form of five sections. Section 2 begins by
laying out the importance of sustainability in universities, emphasising on the steps taken to
consider sustainability in higher education institutions. Section 3 presents the findings of the
research focusing on the declarations for sustainability in higher education. Section 4
highlights the approach of this research and also the assessment tools reviewed, underlining
the indicators in each tool. Section 5 analyses the benchmarking tools, outlines the lessons
Approaches Accounts Narrative assessments Indicator-based assessments
Table I. Potential for transparency Low Medium High

The three main Potential for consistency High Low High
approaches to Potential for participation Low High Medium
measuring and Usefulness for decision-making Medium Medium High
analysing
sustainability Source: Adopted from Dalal-Clayton and Bass (2002, p. 134)
learnt from the tools reviewed and illustrates the proposed framework for universities to Assessment
improve sustainability aspects in their campuses and beyond. tools’
indicators
2. Universities and sustainability
There is no equipment manufacturer that sells a sustainability meter.
Christopher uhl
87
Professor of Biology, Pennsylvania State University
The old proverb that says “What gets measured, gets managed” can, generally speaking, be
very much applicable in the case of measuring sustainability. In our case, universities need
suitable ways or methods for not only guiding or assessing but also comparing and reporting
and hence making sure that higher education institutions are heading in the right direction.
With this in mind, assessment tools are significantly important to manage sustainability
in universities. Monteith and Sabbatini (1997, p. 56) find out that “people were supportive of
the sustainability mantra, but when the implications become more clearly defined,
disparities in approach and implementation become apparent”. This explicitly indicates that
there is a need for additional guidance, which should accompany existing methods to
operationalise sustainability in universities.
It is known that there were two main important steps taken to help operationalise the
concept of sustainability in higher education institutions (Shriberg, 2002). The steps that will
be explored in the following sections are: first, a series of initiatives such as charters,
declarations and other policy statements about sustainability in universities are introduced
as a means of understanding sustainability. Second, an overview of frameworks, tools and
systems that were designed to assess sustainability in universities are presented.
3. Declarations for sustainability in higher education

The main aim of these declarations, charters and partnerships was to inculcate
environmental, social, economic and educational sustainability in colleges and universities.
Disterheft et al. (2013, p. 13) believe that “these declarations can be seen as landmarks, and if
properly implemented they can contribute to facilitating change and integrating sustainable
development into the universities” landscape. Declarations seem to be principally founded
upon a moral obligation towards promoting and contributing to sustainability within higher
education institutions (Wright, 2002). Table II, which was updated to the present by
conducting further research, represents major declarations in the higher education field.
These declarations were designed to encourage and support sustainable development in
higher education institutions (Lozano et al., 2013). Therefore, a large number of universities
across the world have signed these declarations, showing how important the latter have
become.
Yet, the number of universities that signed these declarations “is small compared to the
total number of universities in the world”, says Lozano et al. (2013, p. 11). Reasons tend to be
because of the lack of awareness, over-crowded curricula, lack of support, lack of
accountability, resistance to change and lack of resources (Davis et al., 2003; Velazques et al.,
2006; Chau, 2007; Bekessy et al., 2007), to name but a few. Roorda (2002, p. 6) claims that:
[…] although these documents contain important guidelines for education, none of them offers
concrete prescriptions on an operational level for what higher education should do exactly in order
to contribute maximally to sustainable development.
It was because of this reason, among others, that the movement of sustainability in
universities went a step further to operationalise the concept of sustainability. The
IJSHE Event/Declaration Year
18,1
The Stockholm Declaration on The Human Environment 1972
Tbilisi Declaration 1977
The Magna Charta of European Universities 1988
University Presidents for a Sustainable Future: The Talloires Declaration 1990
88 Halifax Declaration, Conference on University Action for Sustainable Development,
Canada 1991
Agenda 21 Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 1992
Ninth International Association of Universities Round Table: The Kyoto Declaration 1993
Swansea Declaration, Association of Commonwealth Universities’ Fifteenth Quinquennial
Conference, Wales 1993
COPERNICUS University Charter, Conference of European Rectors (CRE) 1993
Ball State University Greening of the Campus conferences were in 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003,
2005, 2007, and 2009 1996
International Conference on Environment and Society – Education and Public Awareness
for Sustainability: Declaration of Thessaloniki 1997
World Declaration on Higher Education for the twenty-first century: Vision and Action 1998
Earth Charter (directed to all education areas, not higher education-specific) 2000
Global Higher Education for Sustainability Partnership (GHESP) 2000
Lüneburg Declaration on Higher Education for Sustainable Development, Germany 2001
Ubuntu Declaration 2002
Declaration of Barcelona 2004
The UN Decade Education for Sustainable Development 2005-2014 2005
Graz Declaration on Committing Universities to Sustainable Development 2005
Declaration on the Responsibility of Higher Education for a Democratic Culture –
Citizenship, Human Rights and Sustainability 2006
G8 University Summit Sapporo Sustainability Declaration 2008
Abuja Declaration on Sustainable Development in Africa: The role of higher education in
SD, Nigeria 2009
Tokyo Declaration of HOPE (directed to all education areas, not higher education specific) 2009
Torino (Turin) Declaration on Education and Research for Sustainable and Responsible
Development, Italy 2009
World Conference on Higher Education 2009
The ISCN-GULF Sustainable Campus Charter developed by the International Sustainable
Campus Network and GULF Schools, Global University Leaders Forum convened by the
World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland 2010
Table II. G8 University Summit: Statement of Action 2010
A summary of Copernicus Charta 2.0 2011
declarations in higher People’s Sustainability Treaty on Higher Education 2012
education to support UN Higher Education Sustainability Initiative within Rio ⫹ 20 2012
sustainable
development Source: Adapted and expanded from Lozano et al. (2013) and Disterheft et al. (2013)
development of assessment tools, which was the second important step, made a noticeable
contribution into operationalising sustainability in higher education institutions. This will
be discussed in detail in the following section.
4. Assessment tools for sustainability in universities:

Now, we are aware of the fact that declarations, charters and partnerships were helpful as a
first step, but have not been useful enough to operationalise sustainability in universities.
Therefore, there was a need for another step; a step that pushes the boundaries by clarifying
a way in which sustainability can be measured, evaluated and thus controlled. Assessment
tools then were regarded to be the second, and perhaps most important, development in Assessment
operationalising sustainability in universities. Shriberg (2002, p. 255) points out that tools’
“Assessment tools can help through identification of best practices and focusing campus
efforts on continual improvement”. He adds that:
indicators
These tools also facilitate communication of progress within and across institutions, which is key to
mutual success in moving toward the ambitious and amorphous target of sustainability in higher
education. 89
This illustrates the importance of assessment tools for universities in their efforts towards a
sustainable future.
A multitude of assessment tools have been developing for almost two decades now. There
are a relatively large number of tools available to help universities to measure their
sustainability. Yet, many are still being improved, and this is evidenced by a recent release of
some of these tools. But what determines the quality of these assessment tools? This question
was addressed through five attributes by Shriberg (2002, p. 256), who believes that, in
general, ideal cross-institutional sustainability assessments:
• identify important issues;
• are calculable and comparable;
• move beyond eco-efficiency;
• measure process and motivations; and
• stress on comprehensibility.
It seems very challenging to create an assessment tool that matches all five attributes
aforementioned. Ultimately, therefore, “no tool – and certainly no individual indicator – will
capture all these attributes” (Shriberg, 2002, p. 257).
Another angle to look at the assessment tools is their approach. Lozano (2006b) has
categorised the assessment tools based on their approaches into three parts:
• accounts assessment;
• narrative assessment; and
• indicator-based assessment.
Each and every approach has its own strengths and weaknesses. Lozano states clearly that:
[…] indicator-based assessments have an overall higher performance and are more easily
measurable and comparable then the other two approaches because they [the accounts and narrative
assessments] tend to be more objective (Lozano, 2006b, p. 964).
He adds that “indicator-based assessments offer higher levels of transparency, consistency
and usefulness for decision-making” (Lozano, 2006b, p. 971). Dalal-Clayton and Bass (2002,
p. 135) point that:
Indicators enable assessments to be comprehensive yet selective: because they can be selective, they
are better equipped than accounts to cover the wide array of issues necessary for an adequate
portrayal of human and environmental conditions.
They add that “An indicator is fully representative if:
• it covers the most important parts of the component concerned; and
• it shows trends over time and differences between places and groups of people”
(Dalal-Clayton and Bass, 2002, p. 159).
IJSHE Furthermore, for an indicator to be reliable, Dalal-Clayton and Bass stipulate that it has to be
18,1 accurate, measured in a standardised way with sound and consistent sampling procedures,
well-founded and directly reflects the objective of the element or sub-element concerned
(Dalal-Clayton and Bass, 2002, p. 159). These advantages of indicator-based assessments
make it clear what option to go with in this study and what assessment approach should be
selected.
90 It is essential to highlight the reasons behind the evolution of the newly proposed
assessment tools. Authors who reviewed a number of assessment tools have concluded
saying that these tools vary in “purpose, scope, function and state of development” (Shriberg,
2002, p. 266). Assessment tools vary also in “Impact of weighing methods, flexibility and
access to information” (Gómez, 2013, p. 14). Additionally, assessment tools vary in focus of
“the realms of campus life – education, research, operations, governance and community
engagement” (Kamal and Asmuss, 2013, p. 460).
To do so, an overview of some of the well-known assessment tools is required. Therefore,
a literature review has been carried out. As mentioned earlier, there are many tools to assess
sustainability in higher education institutions and yet more to come. However, the main
reasons or criteria for selecting and reviewing the 12 frameworks are:
• These tools have been mentioned quite often in the literature.
• They are still widely used for assessing, comparing and benchmarking, thus
addressing most of the specific needs of universities, as these tools were developed to
be used within universities.
• They are, to a larger extent, accessible, and much more information is available in
English.
• They cover basic sustainability dimensions and equally emphasised them all.
• They are, to a large degree, indicator-based assessment tools, which means that they
are more easily measurable and comparable.
Any tool that does not meet these criteria has been excluded. In Table III, the reviewed 12
frameworks are represented in a chronological order. The order is based on the latest version
released of the tools, given the fact that some tools have been updated recently.
To give a brief idea about these tools, every tool will be explained succinctly in terms of
its background, purpose, criteria and indicators, design approach, potential use and the tool
structure. Each tool will be represented in a simplified tree-like graph showing the levels of
No. Tool Abbreviation Year
1 Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire SAQ 2001

2 Graphical Assessment of Sustainability in University GASU 2006
3 Sustainable University Model SUM 2006
4 University Environmental Management System UEMS 2008
5 Assessment Instrument for Sustainability in Higher Education AISHE 2009
6 Benchmarking Indicators Questions – Alternative University Appraisal BIQ-AUA 2009
7 Unit-based Sustainability Assessment Tool USAT 2009
8 The Green Plan Green Plan 2012
Table III. 9 Sustainable Campus Assessment System SCAS 2014
A summary of the 12 10 Adaptable Model for Assessing Sustainability in Higher Education AMAS 2014
selected benchmarking 11 Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System STARS 2014
tools 12 Green Matric – UI’s GreenMetric University Sustainability Ranking GM 2014
the hierarchy – main criteria, sub-criteria and indicators. In this paper, the terms tool, model, Assessment
system, instrument and framework are used interchangeably. The same goes for the terms tools’
evaluation, assessment, appraisal and audit. The 12 reviewed tools are detailed below.
indicators
4.1 Sustainability assessment questionnaire
4.1.1 Background. The sustainability assessment questionnaire (SAQ) was designed by the
Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future’s (ULSF). This association is the
secretariat for signatories of the Talloires Declaration 1990. According to the ULSF, the SAQ
91
for colleges and universities was developed between 1999 and 2001. Figure 1 shows a
summary of key information about the SAQ.

4.1.2 Purpose. The SAQ is a largely “qualitative teaching tool” aiming to “raise
consciousness and encourage debate about what sustainability means for higher education,
practically and philosophically; provide a snapshot of the state of sustainability on your
campus and finally, promote discussion on the next steps for your institution” (ULSF, 2009).
4.1.3 Criteria and indicators. The survey requires that the campus representatives
provide information about their institution on specific criteria (curriculum; research and
scholarship; operations; faculty and staff development and rewards; outreach and service;
student opportunities; administrative, mission and planning). There are 35 indicators in the
format of a questionnaire. The levels of hierarchy are three, and thus, there are no
sub-criteria.
4.1.4 Design approach. It consists of forming a representative sample of 10-15 individuals
drawn from students, faculty, staff and the university administration; and introducing the
Figure 1.
A summary of the
SAQ
IJSHE purpose, the objectives, the definitions in advance and facilitation of the discussion
18,1 throughout the exercise. Each participant should take 30 min to fill out the questionnaire. It
may take 2-3 h or so (ULSF, 2009).
4.1.5 Potential use. It consists of addressing the idea of sustainability in university
campus by “generating discussion and reporting progress” (Kamal and Asmuss, 2013,
p. 455). The SAQ is a useful tool to frame sustainability on campus along with helping to
92 design more detailed evaluation tools for each campus (Beringer et al., 2008).
4.1.6 Tool structure. Levels of hierarchy: three; main criteria: seven; sub-criteria: zero;
indicators: 35.
4.2 Graphical assessment of sustainability in university

4.2.1 Background. The Graphical assessment of sustainability in university (GASU) was
developed based on the Global Report Initiative (GRI). The GRI model was developed to
assess sustainability in corporations. It has three dimensions of sustainability: social,
environmental and economic (GRI, 2002). The GASU framework modified the GRI by adding
another dimension, the educational, to be applicable for colleges and universities (Lozano,
2006a). Figure 2 illustrates a summary of key information about the GASU.
4.2.2 Purpose. The main aim was to establish a tool that helps measuring and reporting
higher education institution’s sustainability efforts within and among other institutions. It
Figure 2.
A summary of the
GASU
also “facilitates the analysis, longitudinal comparison and benchmarking of universities’ Assessment
sustainability efforts and achievement” (Lozano, 2006a, p. 963). tools’
4.2.3 Criteria and indicators. The GRI (2002) has three criteria and 36 indicators. In the
GASU model (Lozano, 2006a), however, Lozano adds additional criteria, and hence, there
indicators
were 59 indicators in total. The levels of hierarchy are four, and hence, sub-criteria are eight
(direct economic impact; environmental; labour practices and decent work; human rights;
society; product responsibility; curriculum; and research) (Lozano, 2006a).
4.2.4 Design approach. The GASU uses the AMOEBA-type diagram to facilitate 93
comparisons of university’s efforts towards sustainability and its benchmarking against
other universities. The idea is to grade each indicator on a scale of 0-4; 0 indicates lack of
information, whereas 4 indicates that the information given has an excellent performance.
Then, the GASU automatically generates nine charts (general chart; economic chart;
environmental chart; educational chart; and five charts for social dimension). The charts
could then be used to investigate the current situation of the institution to pinpoint the exact
dimensions or criteria which need to be addressed (Lozano, 2006a).
4.2.5 Potential use. The GASU gives the institution a visual illustration of sustainability
dimensions. Therefore, it is easier to compare and contrast the university’s efforts towards
sustainability within and among other universities.
4.2.6 Tool structure. Levels of hierarchy: four; main criteria: four; sub-criteria: eight;
indicators: 59.
4.3 Sustainable university model

4.3.1 Background. The sustainable university model (SUM) model was created by Luis Velazques in
2006. Soon after, it was tested using empirical data from around 80 universities across the world. The
model offers a structured framework for visualising and achieving a sustainable university system.
Figure 3 demonstrates a summary of key information about the SUM.
4.3.2 Purpose. The SUM gives a clear perspective about “how people responsible for
sustainability initiatives achieve their initial momentum to progress to advanced steps in the
process to become a sustainable university” (Velazques et al., 2006, p. 810).
4.3.3 Criteria and indicators. The SUM has four diverse phases (developing a
sustainability vision for the university; the mission; sustainability committee; and
sustainability strategies). The strategies have four criteria (education; research; outreach and
partnership; and sustainability on campus).
4.3.4 Design approach. The SUM represents a clear orientation on exactly how to be a
sustainable university. The systematic analysis designed to assist higher education
institution personnel understands the concept of sustainability through executing the four
steps incrementally:
The implementation of the model must not be a static process for generating particular initiatives.
Therefore, the four phases of the model are a series of iterations that are designed to work
continuously to improve the sustainability of the institution (Velazques et al., 2006, p. 817).
4.3.5 Potential use. It is clear that this model is more likely to be used as an internal impetus through
which the university personnel can advance the institution’s strategies for becoming sustainable.
4.3.6 Tool structure. Levels of hierarchy: four; main criteria: four; sub-criteria: zero;
indicators: 23.
4.4 University environmental management system

4.4.1 Background. In 2008, Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar proposed the university
environmental management system (UEMS) framework to achieve campus sustainability
through overcoming the lack of environmental management practices for higher education
IJSHE
18,1
94
Figure 3.
A summary of the
SUM
institutions. The system ensures more sustainability through the integration of three
strategies: university Environmental management system; public participation and social
responsibility; and promoting sustainability through education and research. Figure 4
exhibits a summary of key information about the UEMS.
4.4.2 Purpose. The reason to propose the UEMS framework is to develop sustainability in
university by directing its efforts in a systematic way in which the three strategies
mentioned above can be accomplished by undertaking a range of initiatives.
4.4.3 Criteria and indicators. The UEMS has three strategies (criteria) and eight
initiatives (sub-criteria), namely, environmental management and improvement; green
campus; public participation; community services; social justice; conferences, seminars or
workshops; courses and curriculum; and research and development. Alshuwaikhat and
Abubakar suggest 27 indicators through which the initiatives can be completed successfully.
4.4.4 Design approach. The UEMS measures sustainability by addressing the main
aspects of sustainability in university campus and beyond. The integrated approach
recommends adopting the three aforementioned strategies. Each strategy has initiatives
which can lead to achieving the sustainability mission of the institution. Moreover, higher
Assessment
tools’
indicators
95
Figure 4.
A summary of the
UEMS
education institution ought to establish an organisational structure, in a format of either a

committee or a department, along with providing the necessary resources to accomplish the
sustainability vision (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar, 2008).
4.4.5 Potential use. The UEMS can be used by colleges and universities to broadly guide
their efforts towards sustainability. This framework can be used internally, meaning that a
university can develop its vision and mission to become sustainable by following the three
strategies and the eight initiatives proposed by this model.
4.4.6 Tool structure. Levels of hierarchy: four; main criteria: three; sub-criteria: eight;
indicators: 27.
4.5 Assessment instrument for sustainability in higher education

4.5.1 Background. The assessment instrument for sustainability in higher education
(AISHE) was established by a Dutch group called the Dutch Foundation for Sustainable
Development, led by Niko Roorda. The first version of AISHE was developed and validated
between 2000 and 2001. AISHE 1.0 has been used by many universities across the world to
IJSHE assess sustainability in their institutions. The first version was criticised, as it focused too
18,1 heavily on the educational dimension of sustainability. However, the second version of
AISHE was developed and launched in 2009. The expanded version, AISHE 2.0, covers social
and environmental and educational aspects. In 2012, the AISHE was reviewed by Hobéon, a
consultancy company focusing on Dutch higher education system, to update it and make it
more accessible (Boer, 2013). Figure 5 displays a summary of key information about the
96 AISHE 2.0.
4.5.2 Purpose. The major aims of this tool are to offer a framework that audits
sustainability internally and externally; to measure the accomplishment in campus
implementation of sustainability; and to create a mechanism through which motivations and

experience can be exchanged between higher education institutions (Roorda, 2002).
4.5.3 Criteria and indicators. The expanded AISHE 2.0 consists of five modules (criteria),
namely, operation, education, research, society and identity. Each criterion has six
indicators. The idea of continuous improvement is the core of the AISHE structure. This
process called “Deming Cycle” or “PDCA Cycle” (Deming, 1986). It has four steps: plan, do,
check and act. This means that once the process is completed, it starts again in a
never-ending cycle.
4.5.4 Design approach. The framework was categorised in five distinctive modules
(criteria), reflecting the main aspects of any university. Each can be used and applied
individually. The result of the assessment can be represented through a reporting tool to give
an explicit overall assessment of sustainability efforts. This assessment then can indicate
whether the university, or certain areas, qualifies for certification (Roorda et al., 2009).
4.5.5 Potential use. This framework is appropriately applicable for the whole university,
but it also can be used at a campus, a college, a school, a department or even a single research
or education centre. What adds value to the model is that it is specifically designed to
incorporate only the most significant criteria and not necessarily the whole framework.
4.5.6 Tool structure. Levels of hierarchy: three; main criteria: five; sub-criteria: zero;
indicators: 30.
4.6 Benchmark indicator questions – alternative university appraisal

4.6.1 Background. The alternative university appraisal (AUA) is a project launched in 2009
by an Asia-Pacific academic alliance named ProSPER.Net (promotion of sustainability in
postgraduate education and research network). It is made up of 28 universities, including its
19 founding members from Australia, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Thailand and the UN.
The ambition was to promote education for sustainable development (ESD) under the
sponsorship of the United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies. Figure 6 shows
a summary of key information about the BIQ-AUA (BIQ – benchmark indicator questions).
4.6.2 Purpose. The central aim is to help higher education institutions planning to
introduce or advance ESD activities. It is also aiming to create “a learning community in
which HEIs can identify their own strengths and weaknesses, learn from one another and
share good ESD practices in their own areas of interest” (AUA, 2012, p. 4).
4.6.3 Criteria and indicators. The BIQ has four criteria (governance, education,
research and outreach) and 13 sub-criteria (policies, management, operations, incentive,
monitoring, curriculum, process, resources, patents/awards, global research
benchmarking system, outreach teaching, informal education, outreach research,
outreach services and outreach support). These sub-criteria represent 30 indicators and
50 questions.
4.6.4 Design approach. The ProSPER.Net approach is developing the BIQ model among
others: sustainability assessment questionnaire (SAQ); dialogue; and the BIQ. The BIQ is a
Assessment
tools’
indicators
97
Figure 5.
A summary of the
AISHE 2.0
useful tool to look at, because it is indicator-based. The BIQ is a set of quantitative questions
about the overall maturity of the university’s efforts towards sustainability. The method is to
form a group that represents all users such as administrative staff; faculty staff and
members; academics; and students to answer the 50 questions raised in the BIQ. The group
can also include individuals from alumni associations, non-profit organisations,
non-governmental organisations or related communities.
4.6.5 Potential use. The BIQ can be used to allow the institution to reorient itself towards
a sustainable future and assist universities to acknowledge areas to be recognised, addressed
and hence improved.
4.6.6 Tool structure. Levels of hierarchy: four; main criteria: four; sub-criteria: 13;
indicators: 30.
IJSHE
18,1
98
Figure 6.
A summary of the
BIQ-AUA
4.7 Unit-based sustainability assessment tool

4.7.1 Background. The unit-based sustainability assessment tool (USAT) is a tool developed
to be used in the Swedish/Africa International Training Programme. The programme was on
Education for Sustainable Development in Higher Education, supported by the United
Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and Mainstreaming Environment and
Sustainability into African Universities. The tool “was developed through the PhD research
of Muchaiteyi Togo, supervised and supported by Heila Lotz-Sisitka at Rhodes University,
South Africa” (PSPE, 2012b). Figure 7 illustrations a summary of key information about the
USAT.
4.7.2 Purpose. The main aim of developing this framework is not only to be a guide for
educating and aiding university towards sustainability but also to be a flexible tool used at
the departmental, faculty and unit level (Togo and Lotz-Sisitka, 2013). So, the idea is to be
used individually and independently by different departments, faculties or units at the same
institution.
4.7.3 Criteria and indicators. The USAT is divided into four areas (criteria), nine
sub-criteria and 75 indicators. The four criteria are: teaching, research and community
Assessment
tools’
indicators
99
Figure 7.
A summary of the
USAT
services; operations and management; student’s involvement; and policy and written
statement.
4.7.4 Design approach. The USAT was developed based on reviewing three well-known
frameworks, namely, SAQ, AISHE and GASU. These frameworks were used as a foundation
for developing and proposing indicators for a unit-based audit tool:
Though the USAT is designed to be used at departmental/institutional unit level, the results
representing the performance of various departments can be averaged to get the overall
performance of the institution. Not all the teaching departments or institutional units at a university
need necessarily to be included in the survey, though it is important to have all faculties represented
if the results are to represent overall university sustainability performance (Togo and Lotz-Sisitka,
2009, p. 8).
4.7.5 Potential use. This tool can be mainly used to facilitate a quick identification of a
university department’s efforts towards sustainability. It can also detect areas (indicators) in
which a department is leading or lagging.
4.7.6 Tool structure. Levels of hierarchy: four; main criteria: four; sub-criteria: nine;
indicators: 75.
IJSHE 4.8 The Green Plan
18,1 4.8.1 Background. The Green Plan (or the CPU-CGE Green Plan Framework) was initially
developed in France and drawn up by the French Conference of University Presidents (CPU),
the French Conference of Grands Ecoles (CGE) and the French Ministry of Ecology. The first
version of the Plan was launched in 2010 with four levels (criteria), whereas the 2012 version
was built on five continuous improvement levels. Figure 8 depicts a summary of key
100 information about the Plan.
4.8.2 Purpose. The Green Plan system, which was mainly designed and developed for
colleges and universities, is aiming to assist them in drawing up their own sustainability
plans. It is designed to be operational and can be suitably adapted at different stages in the
implementations of sustainability. The Framework can:
[…] assess the progress made; analyse and diagnose its strong points and weak points; define a
sustainable development strategy that is consist with its general policy; draw up its plan of action;
implement the plan of action defined; assess and develop a process for continuous improvement and
progress (Green Plan, 2010).
Figure 8.
A summary of The
Green Plan
4.8.3 Criteria and indicators. The Framework covers five fields (criteria): strategy and Assessment
governance; teaching and training; research; environmental management; and social policy tools’
and regional presence. There are 18 sub-criteria in total and 44 indicators.
4.8.4 Design approach. The Green Plan outline helps to highlight the institution’s
indicators
sustainable development policy, whereas the Green Plan Framework assesses
implementation of the sustainable development policy. The Framework table is organised in
a way in which it can be completed easily, clearly and succinctly. It includes definitions,
indicators, supporting documents, action plan and five levels (categories) for each indicator 101
explaining (awareness, initiation, conformity of green plan scheme targets, control and
leadership).
4.8.5 Potential use. The Green Plan Framework makes it possible to measure and assess
the sustainability performance of the institution in relation to laws, standards and voluntary
initiatives; compare the sustainability performance of the institution over a period of time;
and compare several institutions in terms of their sustainability performance (Green Plan,
2010).
4.8.6 Tool structure. Levels of hierarchy: four; main criteria: five; sub-criteria: eight;
indicators: 44.
4.9 Sustainable campus assessment system

4.9.1 Background. The sustainable campus assessment system (SCAS) was developed by the
Office for a Sustainable Campus in Hokkaido University, Japan. In 2013, the system was
approved by Hokkaido University. It is the first instrument to assess sustainability in higher
education institutions in Japan (PSPE, 2012a). The updated version of 2014 is very detailed
and contains well-explained criteria. Figure 9 represents a summary of key information
about the SCAS.
4.9.2 Purpose. The system has been developed aiming to evaluate sustainability aspects
in higher education institutions. The assessment system’s result will inform each institution
of its strengths and weaknesses in terms of sustainability. The tool can offer relative
comparison to other institutions (SCAS, 2014).
4.9.3 Criteria and indicators. The 2014 version of SCAS has 5 criteria and 27 sub-criteria.
It has 48 categories represented by 174 questions. What is noticeable in this framework is
that it offers slightly unusual sub-criteria. Disaster prevention and the role of university after
a calamity are examples of this odd collection. This is understandable given the fact that
Japan and other Asian-Pacific countries should be prepared in advance for disasters such as
earthquakes and tsunamis. The SCAS covers a wide range of issues, and the 27 sub-criteria
bear witness to such diversity and richness.
4.9.4 Design approach. The 28-page online survey is designed to be a self-assessment. In
the survey, the assessment criteria are defined and examples are given. A score is allocated
to each question. The survey is bilingual, written in both Japanese and English.
4.9.5 Potential use. The SCAS could potentially help each institution to make a decision of
their strategies for their sustainable future based on an assessment that covers a wide range
of aspects of sustainability. The SCAS is a particularly useful model for countries that
experience earthquakes and tsunamis.
4.9.6 Tool structure. Levels of hierarchy: four; main criteria: five; sub-criteria: 27;
indicators: (48 categories – 174 questions).
4.10 Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education

4.10.1 Background. The adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education
(AMAS) was initially developed during Gómez’s master’s degree research under the
supervision of Sáez-Navarrete (Gómez, 2013). They then, among others, launched the AMAS
IJSHE
18,1
102
Figure 9.
A summary of the
SCAS
model in 2014. The model was designed to be based on deep understanding of earlier
experience in sustainability in universities, taking into consideration international
declarations and other models. Figure 10 displays a summary of key information about the
AMAS.
4.10.2 Purpose. The goal of AMAS is:
[…] to introduce an Adaptable Model for Assessing Sustainability into higher education institutions
that enable the assessment of sustainability within different implementation stages and data
availability scenarios (Gómez et al., 2014, p. 01).
4.10.3 Criteria and indicators. The AMAS framework has been structured based on three
interrelated criteria: institutional commitment; example of setting/leadership; and advancing
sustainability. These three categories then have nine sub-criteria: statement; strategies;
coordination; diversity and equity; resource consumption; experience on campus; education;
Assessment
tools’
indicators
103
Figure 10.
A summary of the
AMAS
research; and public engagement. The model proposes 25 indicators to help assess
sustainability aspects in higher education institutions.
4.10.4 Design approach. Unlike many assessment tools, the AMAS was constructed
based on clear justification, as all the stages of building the model were presented in the
research. To calculate the 25 indicators, both qualitative and quantitative data are required;
15 indicators need quantitative data (60 per cent), whereas just 10 need qualitative data
(40 per cent).
4.10.5 Potential use. This model is flexible in terms of adding and removing indicators
based on the context of the institution, without losing common ground criteria. Hence, this
model “enables the assessment of sustainability within different contexts while maintaining
a universal methodological approach”. Additionally, it:
[…] allows for comparison within a cluster of institutions with similar contexts. The assessment
model could be used to improve other assessment tools by following the same process used to build
the model, facilitating the participation of stakeholders and experts (Gómez et al., 2014).
4.10.6 Tool structure. Levels of hierarchy: four; main criteria: three; sub-criteria: nine;
indicators: 25.
IJSHE 4.11 Sustainability tracking, assessment and rating system
18,1 4.11.1 Background. The sustainability tracking, assessment and rating system (STARS) is a
voluntary self-reporting system developed by the AASHE. It was initially developed in 2010
as one of the initiatives towards sustainable higher education institutions in the USA and
Canada. It is not only an assessment instrument but also a rating framework adding more
value to the system as a comparison tool. STARS, therefore, has recently become one of the
104 most popular frameworks (Gómez et al., 2014; Saadatian and Salleh, 2011). Figure 11
demonstrations a summary of key information about the STARS.
4.11.2 Purpose. According to the STARS’s 2.0, the main goals are to:
[…] provide a framework for understanding sustainability in all sectors of higher education; to
enable meaningful comparisons over time and across institutions using a common set of
measurements developed with broad participation from the campus sustainability community; to
create incentives for continual improvement towards sustainability; to facilitate information
sharing about higher education sustainability practices and performance and finally to build a
stronger, more diverse campus sustainability community (2014, p. 9).
Figure 11.
A summary of the
STARS
4.11.3 Criteria and indicators. Unlike the first version of STARS, which was divided into Assessment
three criteria, the 2014 STARS version was categorised into five areas: academic; tools’
engagement; operations; planning and administration; and innovation. The STARS has 74 indicators
indicators (including four innovation credits scored separately) in 18 sub-criteria:
curriculum; research; campus engagement; public engagement; air and climate; building;
dining services; energy; ground; purchasing; transportation; waste; water; coordination,
planning and governance; diversity and affordability; health, well-being and work; and
investment and innovation. 105
4.11.4 Design approach. The STARS is an online credit-based survey based on four
categories along with the innovation one. Hence, there are five levels of rating (with
minimum score required for each level): bronze (25 credits); silver (45 credits); gold (65
credits); platinum (85 credits); and reporting (participating but not considering to be rated).
4.11.5 Potential use. The STARS can be used as a road map for developing a sustainable
plan for higher education institutions that are taking first steps towards sustainability or
those who already advanced.
4.11.6 Tool structure. Levels of hierarchy: four; main criteria: five; sub-criteria: 18;
indicators: 74.
4.12 Green metric (UI’s GreenMetric university sustainability ranking)

4.12.1 Background. The Green metric (GM) or (UI’s GM) is a world university ranking
system for universities to assess and compare campus efforts towards sustainability. The
tool was based on a broad philosophy that encompasses the three E’s: environment;
economics; and equity and education. It was developed by the Universitas Indonesia
(University of Indonesia), Indonesia, in 2010. The updated version of the GM was released in
2014. Figure 12 shows a summary of key information about the GM.
4.12.2 Purpose. The main aim of this framework (or this ranking) is to be open to every
and each higher education institution to participate; to be accessible to all universities in both
the developed and developing world; to contribute to the body of knowledge on
sustainability in education and the greening of campuses; and to promote university-led
social change with regards to sustainability goals (GM, 2014).
4.12.3 Criteria and indicators. The GM was divided into six dimensions (criteria): setting
and infrastructure; energy and climate change; waste; water; transportation; and education.
The tool has no sub-criteria and has a total of 33 indicators.
4.12.4 Design approach. The free GM system collects its data through an online survey
covering six categories mentioned above. These criteria are assessed and then added up.
Each specific indicator within each criterion is assessed based on a points system of
awarding.
4.12.5 Potential use. The system can be potentially used for measuring sustainability in
higher education institutions through its ranking system and, hence, benchmarking campus
sustainability best practices from all over the world.
4.12.6 Tool structure. Levels of hierarchy: three; main criteria: six; sub-criteria: zero;
indicators: 33.
5. Discussion and conclusions

The 12 tools reviewed show many similarities in their structure. Table IV gives an
illustration of the levels of hierarchy, numbers of main criteria, sub-criteria and indicators. It
is apparent from this table that the majority shares the same numbers of hierarchy (between
three and four) and numbers of main criteria (between three and seven). A considerable
variation can be noticed in the numbers of sub-criteria (between 0 and 27) and numbers of
IJSHE
18,1
106
Figure 12.
A summary of the GM
indicators (between 23 and 75). Overall, it can be said that there is no clear correlation
between the levels of hierarchy and the numbers of main criteria, sub-criteria and indicators,
meaning that there is no significant relationship between the number of criteria or
sub-criteria and the number of indicators.
Nonetheless, when comparing the number and type of indicators in the tools reviewed,
interesting results can be found, as in Figure 13. First, the total number of indicators in these
12 tools is 503 indicators, distributed as follows: management 115 (23 per cent), academia 132
(25 per cent), environment (34 per cent), engagement (17 per cent) and innovation (1 per cent).
It comes with no surprise that the numbers of environmental indicators quite often are the
highest in most of the tools. This is followed by the academic and management indicators.
Engagement indicators are occasionally mentioned in the 12 tools reviewed, whereas
innovation indicators were not clearly indicated in the majority of them. Second, it can be also
observed that the numbers of academic indicators correlate with either management or
Assessment tools Levels of No. of No. of No. of
Assessment
No. (abbreviation) hierarchy main criteria sub-criteria indicators tools’
indicators
1 SAQ 3 7 0 35
2 GASU 4 4 8 59
3 SUM 4 4 0 23
4 UEMS 4 3 8 27
5 AISHE 3 5 0 30 107
6 BIQ-AUA 4 4 13 30
7 USAT 4 4 9 75 Table IV.

8 Green Plan 4 5 8 44 An overview of the 12
9 SCAS 4 5 27 48* selected benchmarking
10 AMAS 4 3 9 25 tools illustrating levels
11 STARS 4 5 18 74 of hierarchy and
12 GM 3 6 0 33 numbers of main
criteria, sub-criteria
Note: * 48 categories with 174 questions and indicators
Figure 13.
A comparison of the
12 assessment tools
showing the five
categories and
numbers of indicators
for each category
environmental indicators, which can be seen in a number of tools such as the GASU, USAT
and STARS.
The current tools show that although there is a slight variation in their content, they share
many commonalities. Figure 14 illustrates the identified five areas (criteria) used in the 12
reviewed frameworks to improve sustainability performance in higher education
institutions. The identified common denominators can be grouped in a holistic framework,
including aspects of management; academia; environment; and engagement and innovation.
When assessing sustainability at universities, the terminology used will relate to these five
areas of sustainability, in spite of differences.
The proposed framework can also be regarded as a means for any higher education
institution to develop its own instrument to advance its progress and to measure its
efforts towards sustainability. As each university is faced with different challenges,
universities can tailor their own tool based on the proposed framework. In this way,
IJSHE
18,1
108
Figure 14.
Main common criteria
used in the 12 selected
benchmarking tools to
assess sustainable
university
individual universities can be helped – contrary to the “one-size-fits-all” approach of

conventional mainstream assessment tools. This is not to disregard the existing tools,
but to empower higher education institutions to decide for themselves the development
of their own processes. Once this has been established, institutions should use
assessment tools not only for guiding or assessing but also for comparing and reporting
and hence making sure that universities are heading in the right direction.
The proposed framework appears to be comparable to STARS. This supports the
conclusion reached by Kamal and Asmuss (2013) that STARS is one of the most
comprehensive and advantageous assessment tools. The paper makes its conclusion by
arguing that STARS meets the most important attributes of an ideal assessment
tool suggested by Shriberg (2002). These attributes are: identifying important
issues; emphasising comprehensibility; and easiness of comparability and
calculability.
First, STARS, which was newly established and recently updated, captures to a large
extent most of the criteria mentioned in the proposed framework. This means that all five
aspects of sustainability in universities (management, academia, environment, engagement
and innovation) are covered by STARS. Second, STARS has 74 indicators that assess
sustainability in sufficient detail. For example, under the criterion “Academics”, there is a
sub-criterion “Curriculum”, which has the indicator “Campus as a Living Laboratory”. This
can be defined as how “A university utilises its infrastructure and operations for
multidisciplinary student learning, applied research and practical work that advances
sustainability on campus” (STARS, 2014, p. 51). Such an indicator provides a variety of
examples (17 in total), showing a diverse and rich content that is remarkably coherent.
Another interesting example is the “Innovation” criterion. Compared with the 12 tools
reviewed, STARS explicitly offers such criterion with the aim of promoting “out-of-the-box
thinking” in approaching sustainability. This criterion with its innovative indicators Assessment
(Figure 11) are reserved for: tools’
[…] new, extraordinary, unique, ground-breaking, or uncommon outcomes, policies, and practices indicators
that greatly exceed the highest criterion of an existing STARS credit or are not covered by an
existing STARS credit (STARS, 2014, p. 307).
Third, STARS has the highest number of indicators in almost all five criteria. Furthermore,
it has a large number of indicators in each criterion as in Figure 13. Additionally, to make the 109
comparison and calculation of credits much easier, STARS uses an online credit-based
survey. STARS also accommodates the diversity of higher education institutions by making
some of the credits have less detailed specifications, but are instead flexible or open. In other
cases:
[…] credits include an applicability criterion, so that the credits only apply to certain types of
institutions. By following this approach, institutions are not penalised when they do not earn credits
that they could not possibly earn due to their circumstances (STARS, 2014, p. 10).
These tools also share essential strengths and weaknesses, as shown in Table V, which
summarises pros and cons of the 12 selected benchmarking tools. However, the critical issue
to highlight here is that with such comparison, the real issue is subjectivity. In other words,
each author assesses strengths and weaknesses from a variety of conflicting perspectives.
Such comparison would be meaningless if the scale of measuring strengths and weaknesses
differ. Thus, the real question is does the assessment of tools suffer from subjectivity? Further
research needs to address this issue.
There are several important areas where this study makes contributions to. Scientifically,
this research can be used to improve existing sustainability assessment tools. Additionally,
it can help to develop new tailored tools, as each university is facing different challenges to
advance its progress and measure its efforts towards sustainability. Socially, applying these
assessment tools through not only education and research but also operation and
engagement creates a culture of sustainability at universities.
The applicability of the tools reviewed, both scientifically and socially, can be
summarised in the following points:
• The tools can be used to assess and report sustainability along with ranking
universities based on their advancement in sustainability.
• The assessment tools can be used as both baseline and reference lists, as a broad guide
and as a method to set and achieve sustainability objectives.
• They can offer a base for strategic planning by highlighting key dimensions of
sustainability.
• These tools can be used to compare and contrast university’s efforts towards
sustainability. Also, it can be used for internally comparing the university’s
colleges and departments and externally with other universities nationally and
internationally.
• A number of tools concentrate merely on meeting the challenge of operational
eco-efficiency, whereas theory and practice point to the necessity of an integrated
approach to sustainability across functional areas.
• Assessment tools can help a university to reorient itself towards a sustainable
future and assist the university to explicitly acknowledge areas to be recognised,
addressed and hence improved.
18,1
110
ordered
IJSHE
Table V.
tools to assess
chronologically
A summary of 12
sustainable campus
selected benchmarking
No. of
No. Tool indicators Main strengths Main weaknesses
1 SAQ 35 Emphasises on (cross-functional) sustainability as a processa No mechanisms for comparisons or benchmarkinga

Useful as a conversational and teaching toola Difficult for large universities to completea
Probing questions that identify weaknesses and set goalsa
Serves as a pilot and strategic planning toolb
Defines sustainability from various perspectivesb
2 GASU 59 Covers all important issuesc Requires large amounts of datac
Uses AMOEBA graph to facilitate understandingc Hard to apply in HEIs without GRI reports on sustainabilityc
3 SUM 23 Useful in achieving initial momentum to progress and advance Takes long time to document the model’s effectiveness and
sustainability on campus efficacy
Top-down approach as well as bottom-up
Validity & reliability of this model are proven by other
references such as TSCE Reportd
4 UEMS 27 Proven to be useful to assess sustainability actionse Indicators are not as detailed as other frameworks
Developed by researchers from emerging countries (Saudi
Arabia)
Covers most aspects of sustainability
5 AISHE 30 Flexible for institutional comparisonsa Difficult to comprehenda
Process-orientation which helps prioritise and set goals Motivations are potentially excludeda
through development stagesa Narrative assessmentc
Created through international consensusa
6 BIQ (AUA) 30 Used alongside a qualitative assessmentc Does not cover social aspects of sustainabilityc
Supported by ProSPER membersc Environmental indicators are not as detailed as other frameworks
7 USAT 75 Allows for self-assessment by individual units/departments, Does not cover social responsibility issuesc
also capable of evaluation the whole institutionc
Supported by UNEP and MESAc
8 The Green Plan 44 Covers all important aspects of sustainabilityc Requires large data as well as a lot of effort
Very detailed and well explained, defined and easy to
implement
(continued)
No. of
No. Tool indicators Main strengths Main weaknesses
9 SCAS 174 Covers most aspects of sustainability Too long to complete

Covers other unusual aspects such as disasters Social issues have not emphasised enough
Supported by Hokkaido University
10 AMAS 25 Covers most aspects of sustainability Does not cover issues such as Procurement, Contracting and
Flexible and can be adapted to different contexts at different Food/Dining in university campus
stages
11 STARS 2.0 74 Most comprehensive tool including important categoriesb Complex assessment procedureb
Detailed explanation Cost associated with registering and participatingb
Technical Manualb Functions in contexts in which SD is already advancedc
Active support from AASHEc
12 GM 33 World University Ranking based on sustainability Focuses more on the environmental aspects of sustainability and
Active support from Universitas Indonesiac hence not covering issues such as social responsibility, diversity
and equity
a b c d e
Sources: Shriberg (2002); Kamal and Asmuss (2013); Gómez et al. (2014); United Nations Economic and Social Council (2001); Castro and Jabbour (2013)
Table V.
111
indicators
tools’
Assessment
IJSHE • These tools can offer a platform through which universities across the world can
18,1 share challenges and potential solutions.
• Some assessment tools can even aid improving other tools by following the same
processes used and hence making the criteria and sub-criteria much more tangible
and understandable.
112 • Some of the sustainability criteria within these assessment tools can be carried out
inside or outside the university campus (such as education, research, outreach,
partnerships, […], etc.). Other criteria, however, can only be implemented on
campus (mainly, the operational practices such as energy efficiency, water

efficiency, waste management, […], etc.).
• Such tools would also impact the public directly and indirectly. Applying these
assessment tools through not only education and research but also operating the
campus and engaging with the internal community (students, faculties and
supporting employees) and with the external communities (different stakeholders)
creates a culture of sustainability at universities and beyond benefiting societies
and promoting living more sustainably.
• Although there are many assessment tools and hence there has been a noticeable
progress, this progress is not clearly measurable.
• The next step should be moving from proposing more tools, criteria and
sub-criteria to practically detailing and operationalising the core of these tools,
which is indicators. Indicators should be given more attention. Tools ought to
develop indicators in easily measurable ways, clearly defined and agreed upon.
References
Alshuwaikhat, H.M. and Abubakar, I. (2008), “An integrated approach to achieving campus
sustainability: assessment of the current campus environmental management practices”, Journal
of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 16, pp. 1777-1785.
Alternative University Appraisal (AUA) (2012), “AUA model for ESD in higher education institutions”,
available at: http://sustain.oia.hokudai.ac.jp/aua/ (accessed 19 September 2014).
Amaral, L., Martins, L. and Gouveia, J. (2015), “Quest for a sustainable university: a review”,
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 155-172.
Bekessy, S.A., Samson, K. and Clarkson, R.E. (2007), “The failure of non-binding declarations to achieve
university sustainability: a need for accountability”, International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 301-316.
Beringer, A., Wright, T. and Malone, L. (2008), “Sustainability in Higher Education in Atlantic Canada”,
Boer, P. (2013), “Assessing sustainability and social responsibility in higher education: assessment
frameworks explained”, in Caeiro, S., Walter, L., Charbel, J. and Azeiteiro, U. (Eds), Sustainability
Assessment Tools in Higher Education Institutions: Mapping Trends and Good Practices Around
the World, Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, pp. 121-137.
Caeiro, S., Walter, L., Charbel, J. and Azeiteiro, U. (2013), Sustainability Assessment Tools in Higher
Education Institutions: Mapping Trends and Good Practices Around the World, Springer
International Publishing, Switzerland.
Calder, W. and Clugston, R.M. (2003), “International efforts to promote higher education for sustainable
development”, Planning for Higher Education, Vol. 31, pp. 30-44.
Castro, R. and Jabbour, C. (2013), “Evaluating sustainability of an Indian university”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 61, pp. 54-58.
Chau, K.W. (2007), “Incorporation of sustainability concepts into a civil engineering curriculum”, Assessment
Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 133 No. 3, pp. 188-191.
tools’
Cole, L. (2003), Assessing Sustainability on Canadian University Campuses: Development of a Campus
Sustainability Assessment Framework, Royal Roads University, Canada. indicators
Dalal-Clayton, B. and Bass, S. (2002), Sustainable Development Strategies, 1st ed., Earthscan
Publications, London.
Davis, S.A., Edmister, J.H., Sullivan, K. and West, C.K. (2003), “Educating sustainable societies for the
twenty-first century”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 4 No. 2, 113
pp. 169-179.
Deming, W.E. (1986), Out of the Crisis, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Disterheft, A., Caeiro, S.S., Azeiteiro, U.M. and Leal Filho, W. (2013), “Sustainability science and
education for sustainable development in universities: a way for transition”, in Caeiro, S.,
Walter, L., Charbel, J. and Azeiteiro, U. (Eds), Sustainability Assessment Tools in Higher
International Publishing, Switzerland, pp. 3-28.
Disterheft, A., Caeiro, S.S., Ramos, M.R. and Azeiteiro, U.M. (2012), “Environmental management
systems (EMS) implementation processes and practices in European higher education
institutions: top-down versus participatory approaches”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 31,
pp. 80-90.
Finlay, J. and Massey, J. (2012), “Eco-campus: applying the ecocity model to develop green university
and college campuses”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 150-165.
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2002), “GRI initiative”, available at: www.globalreporting.org/
(accessed 19 September 2014).
GM (2014), “UI’s GreenMetric University sustainability ranking”, available at: http://greenmetric.ui.ac.
id/ (accessed 20 September).
Gómez, F. (2013), “Adaptable model to assess sustainability in higher education: Application to five
Chilean institutions”, Master’s Thesis, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, available at: http://
repositorio.uc.cl/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/1783/608595.pdf?sequence⫽1 (accessed 25
September 2014).
Gómez, F., Sáez-Navarrete, C., Lioi, S. and Marzuca, V. (2014), “Adaptable model for assessing
sustainability in higher education”, Journal of Cleaner Production, available at: www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652614007641 (accessed 25 September 2014).
Green Plan (2010), “The green plan is not just green”, available at: www.developpement-durable.gouv.
fr/Green-Plan.html (accessed 24 September 2014).
Kamal, A. and Asmuss, M. (2013), “Benchmarking tools for assessing and tracking sustainability in
higher education institutions: Identifying an effective tool for University of Saskatchewan”,
Lidgren, A., Rodhe, H. and Huisingh, D. (2006), “A systemic approach to incorporate sustainability into
university courses and curricula”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14 Nos 9/11, pp. 797-809.
Lozano, R. (2006a), “A tool for a Graphical Assessment of Sustainability in Universities (GASU)”,
Journal of Clear Production, Vol. 14 Nos 9/11, pp. 963-972.
Lozano, R. (2006b), “Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities: breaking through
barriers to change”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14 Nos 9/11, pp. 787-796.
Lozano, R. (2009), “Auditing the contributions of Cardiff university curricula to sustainable
development”, paper presented at the GIN2009 Conference (International: Joint Actions on
Climate Change), Aalborg, Denmark, 8-10 June, available at: https://gin.confex.com/gin/2009/
webprogram/Paper2614.html (accessed 24 May 2014).
Lozano, R. (2011), “The state of sustainability reporting in universities”, International Journal for
Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 67-78.
IJSHE Lozano, R., Lukman, R., Lozano, F., Huisingh, D. and Lambrechts, W. (2013), “Declarations for
sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through addressing the university
18,1 system”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 48, pp. 10-19.
Monteith, J. and Sabbatini, R. (1997), “The evolving role of sustainability on the new campus of
California State University”, Greening of the Campus II: The Next Step, 18-20 September 1997,
Ball State University, Muncie, IN, pp. 56-60.
114 PSPE (2012a), “The platform for sustainability performance in education: sustainable campus
assessment system”, available at: www.eauc.org.uk/theplatform/sustainable_campus_
assessment_system1 (accessed 20 September 2014).
PSPE (2012b), “The platform for sustainability performance in education: USAT (Unit-Based
Sustainability Assessment Tool)”, available at: www.eauc.org.uk/theplatform/usat_unit-based_
sustainability_assessment_tool (accessed 24 September 2014).
Ramos, T.B. (2009), “Development of regional sustainability indicators and the role of academia in this
process: the Portuguese practice”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17, pp. 1101-1115.
Ramos, T. and Pires, S.M. (2013), “Sustainability Assessment: The Role of Indicators”, in Caeiro, S.,
Walter, L., Charbel, J. and Azeiteiro, U. (Eds), Sustainability Assessment Tools in Higher
Ramos, T.B., Caeiro, S. and Melo, J.J. (2004), “Environmental indicator frameworks to design and assess
environmental monitoring programs”, Impact Assessment and Project Approach, Vol. 20 No. 1,
pp. 47-62.
Roorda, N. (2002), “Assessment and policy development of sustainability in higher education with
AISHE”, in Fillo, W.L. (Ed.), Teaching Sustainability at Universities: Towards Curriculum
Greening, Peter Lang, New York, NY.
Roorda, N. (2013), “A Strategy and a Toolkit to Realize System Integration of Sustainable Development
(SISD)”, in Caeiro, S., Walter, L., Charbel, J. and Azeiteiro, U. (Eds), Sustainability Assessment
Tools in Higher Education Institutions: Mapping Trends and Good Practices Around the World,
Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, pp. 101-119.
Roorda, N., Rammel, C., Waara, S. and Fra Paleo, U. (2009), “AISHE 2.0 manual: assessment instrument
for sustainability in higher education, Edition 2.0. second draft”, available at: www.box.net/s/
0dgIhugzyyzta4kkfb83 (accessed 15 February 2014).
Saadatian, O. and Salleh, E. (2011), “Identifying strength and weakness of sustainable higher
educational assessment approaches”, International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp. 137-146.
SCAS (2014), “Sustainable campus assessment system”, available at: www.osc.hokudai.ac.jp/en/
modules/bulletin/index.php?page⫽article&storyid⫽8 (accessed 25 September 2014).
Shriberg, M. (2002), “Institutional assessment tools for sustainability in higher education: strengths,
weaknesses, and implications for practice and theory”, International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 254-270.
STARS (2014), “Technical manual 2.0”, available at: https://stars.aashe.org/pages/about/technical-
manual.html (accessed 26 September 2014).
Togo, M. and Lotz-Sisitka, H. (2009), “Unit based sustainability assessment tool: a resource book to
complement the UNEP mainstreaming environment and sustainability in African universities
partnership”, Hawick: Share-Net ISBN: 978-1-919991-09-2, available at: www.unep.org/
Training/docs/USAT_Tool.pdf (accessed 24 September 2014).
Togo, M. and Lotz-Sisitka, H. (2013), “The unit-based sustainability assessment tool and its use in the
UNEP mainstreaming environment and Sustainability in African Universities partnership”, in
Caeiro, S., Walter, L., Charbel, J. and Azeiteiro, U. (Eds), Sustainability Assessment Tools in
Higher Education Institutions: Mapping Trends and Good Practices Around the World, Springer
United Nations Economic and Social Council (2001), The State of the Campus Environment Report, Assessment
Implementation Agenda 21, United Nations, New York, NY.
tools’
University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (ULSF) (2009), “Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire
for Colleges and Universities (SAQ)”, available at: www.ulsf.org/programs_saq.html (accessed indicators
20 September 2014).
Velazquez, L., Munguia, N. and Sanchez, M. (2005), “Deterring sustainability in higher education
institutions: an appraisal of the factors which influence sustainability in higher education
institutions”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 6 No. 4, 115
pp. 383-391.
Velazques, L., Munguia, N., Platt, A. and Taddei, J. (2006), “Sustainable university: what can be the
matter?”, Journal of Clear Production, Vol. 14 Nos 9/11, pp. 810-819.
Wright, T.S.A. (2002), “Definitions and frameworks for environmental sustainability in higher
education”, International Journal for Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 203-220.
Wright, T.S.A. (2004), “The evaluation of sustainability declarations in higher education”, in
Corcoran, P.B. and Wals, A.E.J. (Eds), Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability:
Problematics, Promise, and Practice, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Further reading
AASHE (2010), “Association for the advancement of sustainability in higher education”, available at:
www.aashe.org (accessed 26 September 2014).
White, S. (2014), “Campus sustainability plans in the United States: where, what, and how to evaluate?”,
About the authors

Naif Alghamdi is a Lecturer at the Faculty of Architecture and Planning, King Saud University (KSU),
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. As an architect, he works part-time with several professional practices in Saudi
Arabia, providing consultation. Naif holds postgraduate degrees in both Project Management and
Architecture from the Bartlett, University College London, UK. Naif’s main interest is in sustainability
on university campuses in Saudi Arabia. Professional memberships include the Society of College and
University Planners, the Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers, the Saudi Umran Society
of Architects and the Saudi Council of Engineers. Naif Alghamdi is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: naag@ksu.edu.sa
Alexandra den Heijer is an Associate Professor (Chair Real Estate Management) at the Architecture
and Built Environment, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands. Her specialisation is
planning, design and management of university campuses and buildings. She focuses on generating
management information for real estate decisions helping universities to design and implement their
campus strategies and that contribute to creating knowledge cities. She has written many reports,
articles and papers on universities and campuses of the future, trends and changing concepts and
campus strategies. Alexandra operates in an extensive network of national and international campus
management experts – both in academia and practice.
Hans de Jonge is a Professor of Real Estate Management and Development at Delft University of
Technology since 1991. As a co-founder of the Department of Management in the Built Environment, he
was engaged in the development of fast growing education and research programmes with an emphasis
on the demand side of the real estate market. Since 1997, Hans de Jonge is also the CEO of Brink Groep,
a group of companies providing management, consultancy and information systems for the real estate
and construction market in The Netherlands.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Ijshe 04 2015 0071

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ijshe 04 2015 0071

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ijshe 04 2015 0071

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education

Assessment tools’ indicators for sustainability in universities: an analytical

To cite this document:

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Approaches Accounts Narrative assessments Indicator-based assessments

Table I. Potential for transparency Low Medium High

3. Declarations for sustainability in higher education

4. Assessment tools for sustainability in universities:

No. Tool Abbreviation Year

1 Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire SAQ 2001

summary of key information about the SAQ.

4.2 Graphical assessment of sustainability in university

4.3 Sustainable university model

4.4 University environmental management system

education institution ought to establish an organisational structure, in a format of either a

4.5 Assessment instrument for sustainability in higher education

implementation of sustainability; and to create a mechanism through which motivations and

4.6 Benchmark indicator questions – alternative university appraisal

4.7 Unit-based sustainability assessment tool

4.9 Sustainable campus assessment system

4.10 Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education

4.12 Green metric (UI’s GreenMetric university sustainability ranking)

5. Discussion and conclusions

7 USAT 4 4 9 75 Table IV.

individual universities can be helped – contrary to the “one-size-fits-all” approach of

1 SAQ 35 Emphasises on (cross-functional) sustainability as a processa No mechanisms for comparisons or benchmarkinga

9 SCAS 174 Covers most aspects of sustainability Too long to complete

campus (mainly, the operational practices such as energy efficiency, water

About the authors

You might also like