Assessing sustainability on Chinese university campuses: Development of a campus sustainability evaluation system and its application with a case study

Accepted Manuscript Assessing sustainability on Chinese university campuses: Development of a campus sustainability evaluation system and its application with a case study Chen Shuqin, Lu Minyan, Tan Hongwei, Luo Xiaoyu, Ge Jian PII:

S2352-7102(18)31240-3

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100747

Article Number: 100747 Reference:

JOBE 100747

To appear in:

Journal of Building Engineering

Received Date: 16 October 2018 Revised Date:

12 March 2019

Accepted Date: 14 March 2019

Please cite this article as: C. Shuqin, L. Minyan, T. Hongwei, L. Xiaoyu, G. Jian, Assessing sustainability on Chinese university campuses: Development of a campus sustainability evaluation system and its application with a case study, Journal of Building Engineering (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jobe.2019.100747. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Assessing sustainability on Chinese university campuses: development of a campus sustainability evaluation system and its application with a case study Chen Shuqin1, Lu Minyan1, Tan Hongwei 2,3, Luo Xiaoyu1, Ge Jian1 1. College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310058, China

RI PT

2. Research Center of Green Building and New Energy, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092, China 3. School of Mechanical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092, China Abstract

With the vigorous promotion of national policies and funds, green campus construction is booming in Chinese

SC

universities. It's in great need to develop an evaluation system, as a long-term mechanism, to assess and compare the sustainability performance in different Chinese universities, and to guide the green campus revolution in

M AN U

Chinese universities. Aiming at the characteristics of green campus evolution in China, a campus sustainability evaluation system is developed, that contains five categories of Organization & Management (C1), Energy & Resource Saving (C2), Friendly Environment (C3), Campus Culture (C4), and Social Outreach (C5). The indicators include mandatory indicators, all of which must be met in order to pass the evaluation, and optional indicators, which take the form of scoring. The scores of all optional indicators should be accumulated to get the final score.

TE D

The achievements and shortcomings of sustainable campus development in a pilot Chinese university were revealed by this system as a case study, and the results indicate more attention should be paid on C1, C2, C4, and hence detailed suggestions were put forward. Discussions are made in terms of the potential contribution and the

EP

limitation of this evaluation system, and the capacity building needed to generalize the evaluation in China. Keywords

AC C

Campus sustainability, Evaluation system, China, Case study

1. Introduction

The higher education in China has achieved a large growth in the recent two decades. There were more than 2800 universities and colleges with 36.47 million students by the end of 2015 [1]. The development of education in China has brought the construction boom of new campus buildings and the extension of old campuses, and the floor area of campus buildings reaches to almost 900 million square meters [1]. The large expansion of higher education

1

Corresponding author: tel:86-13750862691; [email protected]

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT has resulted in a rapid growth in energy and resource demand [2]. According to the statistics, the energy consumption and water consumption per student on campus are four times and two times as large as that of Chinese residents respectively [3]. On the other hand, the low performance of campus facilities and the loose management during the operation, along with the deficiency of energy-saving behaviors among staffs and students, lead to a

RI PT

great potential for energy conservation [4]. Therefore, the application of green technologies and the effective management are expected to bring the big energy conservation on campus. In addition, as a place to impart knowledge, the formation of green campus humanistic atmosphere and the advocacy of green ideas in universities and colleges contribute to the enhancement of students’ sustainable development conception and relevant scientific

SC

knowledge, and the popularization of low-carbon lifestyle as well [5]. Therefore, aiming at the current situation, it is of great significance to develop the sustainable campus and even make the university campus a live laboratory in

M AN U

China.

Different from the other countries where the universities made the campus sustainability initiatives spontaneously, sustainable campus construction in China was greatly promoted by both the central and local governments [6, 7, 8]. Starting from the 2000s, Chinese government made great endeavor to put green technologies into campus construction and operation, in order to realize the energy and resource conservation. A series of regulations and

TE D

guidelines, such as “The Construction and Management Guidelines of Energy and Resource Conservation Oriented Campus in Colleges and Universities (trial implementation) [2008] No.89”, “Technical Guidelines of Campus Energy Management System Construction in Colleges and Universities [2009] No.163”, “The Guidelines of Energy

EP

Consumption Statistics, Audit and Publicity on Campus [2009] No.1163”, etc., were promulgated to provide the technical guide for the construction of the energy and resource conservation-oriented campus in China [9, 10]. It

AC C

makes clear by these regulations that the core ideas are to save energy, water and material. The establishment of the campus energy management system (CEMS) and the implementation of energy retrofit and water conservation projects are the two important approaches, which were advocated and also funded by Chinese government. Until 2016, more than 200 universities and colleges have successfully obtained the national financial support to establish CEMS for the real-time monitoring of campus building energy use, and the total funding amounts to approximately 0.6 billion RMB [6]. On this base, energy use statistics, energy audits, and as well as energy efficiency publicity, have been partly carried out in some universities and colleges, and energy use quota has also been further implemented, under the promotion of Chinese government as well. Energy-saving diagnosis and energy efficiency retrofit have also been undertaken accordingly. Some retrofit projects of water saving, energy efficient street lamps,

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT energy efficient HVAC systems and renewable energy applications have been funded by Ministry of Housing and Urban & Rural Development and Ministry of Finance [11]. After the large-scale construction of energy conservation-oriented campus, Chinese universities and colleges are experiencing the upgrade to green campus now. Several Chinese universities and colleges, the pilots of the green

RI PT

campus development in China, began to make the initiatives in sustainable education, through setting up courses and even majors for sustainability, and the incentive policies to stimulate the participation of faculties and students. Meanwhile, the green campus culture is being gradually created, by carrying out students’ activities and training seminars, establishing educational bases for the themes of sustainability, and cultivating green campus life styles. In

SC

addition, more and more researches in universities and colleges focus on the topic of sustainability as well, and universities also make more effort to extend the social outreach by industry-university-research cooperation, and

M AN U

provide technical support to the government. Figure 1 shows the main activities covered in the two stages of energy and resource conservation-oriented campus and green campus in Chinese universities [6]. Due to the large-scale implementation of national policies with the huge amount of funding for the energy and resource conservation-oriented campus, many universities have engaged in campus energy use monitoring, energy efficiency retrofit, renewable energy application, and hence there is urgent need to assess the effects of these

TE D

specific initiatives. Although energy audit, energy publicity and energy quota are encouraged to be put into effect by the national regulations, they have been executed in only few universities, and more incentives are needed to stimulate these actions put in use. Besides that, another big feature in campus operation and management for

EP

Chinese universities is they have the collective boarding systems, in which all the students live and accommodate on campus. In this situation, many facilities have been installed to serve for their living life, and hence more

AC C

particular regulations should be formulated for the purposes of campus energy conservation and the formation of the thrift life style. For example, central bath rooms and central hot water rooms are constructed in Chinese universities to provide the students with bathing and hot water supply. In order to make the students save the hot water, an intelligent billing card system is popularized on Chinese campuses to charge the service based on the flow volume of hot water per time.

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

SC

Fig 1. The main activities covered in two stages of campus sustainability development

M AN U

Considering the specific situation mentioned above, an appropriate campus sustainability evaluation system, as a long-term mechanism, can help to assess the achievements of sustainable campus construction and its operation, to compare the sustainability performance across different campuses, and eventually guide the full-scale green campus revolution in Chinese universities [12]. Aiming at this, in this paper, firstly, the existing evaluation tools in the world for assessing the sustainability in universities and colleges were reviewed and analyzed for their merits and

TE D

demerits, and as well as the reason to develop an evaluation system for Chinese universities. On this base, A new evaluation system for campus sustainability in Chinese universities was developed, considering the actual status of campus sustainability development in China. The progress of campus sustainability in a pilot Chinese university

EP

was evaluated by this system, in order to validate the feasibility of this tool. Final are the discussions and conclusions to explore the original and unique contributions and limitations of this evaluation tool, and the capacity

AC C

building to make the evaluation among Chinese universities.

2. State of the art reviews of evaluation tools of campus sustainability in the world A great deal of tools and rankings systems have been developed for sustainability assessment in international, national and university levels [13-15]. A complete state of the art review was conducted on the topic of evaluation tools and systems for campus sustainability in the world, and the related literatures and documents in the last 20 years were all reviewed. Green campus evaluation was begun from the attempts to assess the sustainability in universities and colleges by public annual environmental reports of universities [16]. Some organizations made great endeavor to do the surveys

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT and questionnaires to reveal the process or status in sustainable development (SD), and to identify the “best practices” on campus. The typical examples are Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire and Nixon’s Campus Sustainability Assessment Review Project [17]. However, these reporting and questionnaires were limited to the internal recognition of impact on environment and self-assessment by an individual campus, and could not be used

RI PT

to make the comparison among different universities. More indices evaluation systems have been developed since 2002 because the indices assessments are more easily measurable and comparable than the narrative assessments by reports and questionnaires [18]. Among them, some only focus on the evaluation of sustainable education (SD), which aims to reorient education systems to

SC

sustainability [19]. The Sustainability Tool for Assessing Sustainability in Universities’ Curricula Holistically, developed by Lozano et. al to assess how universities’ curricula address SD, has been used for the Bachelor and

M AN U

Master programmes in the Faculty of Environment and Faculty of Business in the University of Leeds [20,21]. Some other indices evaluation systems mainly focus on the operational eco-efficiency. For example, Campus Sustainability Selected Indicators Snapshot and Guide gives the quick overview of campus operations and environmental influences [22]. GREENSHIP contains 6 categories, namely appropriate site development, energy efficiency and conservation, water conservation, material resources and cycle, indoor health and comfort, building

TE D

environment management [15]. Some assessment tools integrate a few aspects of SD [23]. The Unit-Based Sustainability Assessment Tool (USAT) and the Alternative University Appraisal project (AUA) consider issues in environmental and economic aspects [24, 25]. Finally, some systems attempt to cover all important issues of SD,

EP

including energy, water, food, land, transportation, built environment, community, research, education, outreach, and decision-making [26]. The Sustainability, Training, Assessment and Rating System (STARS) is a transparent

AC C

self-reporting framework open for all Higher Education Institutions to evaluate their performances of SD in different fields of operation, education, research and outreach. In China, Lv and Kan proposed a Chinese assessment indicator system after reviewing and modifying international tools, covering the issues in the areas of education, research, social service, and supporting system [27]. However, some special fields such as the achievement of energy-saving projects are missing and the values of some indicators are too difficult to be acquired. Another one is “Evaluation Standard for Green Campus (Draft for Comments)” proposed by a non-government organization of Chinese Society for Urban Studies to evaluate green campus construction of primary school, middle schools, and Chinese colleges and universities as well [28]. The standard sets indicators in seven categories of land-saving, water-saving, energy-saving, material-saving, environmental

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT protection, operation and management, education and promotion. However, there is a big problem for this evaluation system is, similar to the “Evaluation Standard of Green Buildings (GB/T 50378-2014)” in China, it just focuses on green building evaluation, while some important fields which green campus refer to, such as green procurement, green transportation, campus resources (paper, electronic waste) recycling, have been neglected [29].

RI PT

Until now, none of these schools or universities has been evaluated by this standard. Based on the above analysis, although there are some important assessment tools for campus sustainability in the world, some problems exist

for the evaluation of campus sustainability in Chinese universities, which are as

follows: (1) Many evaluation tools for the universities in other countries are not suitable for the Chinese

SC

universities, considering the specific characteristics in the evolution of green campus development in China and the operation of Chinese universities. As mentioned before, the Chinese government promulgated a series of

M AN U

regulations and guidelines and allocated large sums of funding to promote several specific initiatives for green camcpus constructions, some new indicators should be put forward to assess the achievements caused by these national regulations and initiatives which have greatly pushed the sustainable campus development in China, and to incentive the implementation of those regulations which are not put into good effect. Furthermore, there is the absolute need to assess the effect of the energy saving measures specially used by Chinese universities, such as the

TE D

application of intelligent billing cards for the hot water use. (2) Only few of the evaluation systems have the weight for each indicator. Even in these systems with the weights for indicators, many of them have the same weight for each indicator, which neglects the difference in the significance of each indicator. What is more, it is difficult to

EP

compare the degree and quality of the completion among different universities by the existing indicator systems, as the systems always aim to understand whether these measures have been done or not, rather than how well these

AC C

measures have been executed. (3) The thresholds of the indicators in developed countries are advanced for the universities in developing countries, and hence become daunting for the universities in developing countries, and hence discourage their participation. Therefore, the limit values of the indicators should be set up according to the actual situation of Chinese universities. Therefore, a more comprehensive and scientific evaluation system for campus sustainability in Chinese universities and colleges is needed urgently.

3. The development of an evaluation system of campus sustainability for Chinese university campuses 3.1 The approach to develop the indicators and their weightings After the art literature review, a large-scale questionnaire surveys with the faculties and students and face-to-face

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT surveys with the administrative officers were also done in 10 pilot Chinese universities of energy and resource conversation-oriented campuses and 10 common universities by the authors, in order to understand the current status and existing problems of campus sustainability in China [30]. On this base, a preliminary indicator system was firstly developed. This evaluation indicator system was then sent to 30 national experts for their reviews and

RI PT

comments and finally decided after two rounds of modification. The 30 national experts came from the administrative divisions, architecture colleges, environment colleges, economy colleges and sociology disciplines in different universities and research institutes. all of them have the long working experiences in green campus development, and are all engaged in a national association of China Green University Network, which is supervised

SC

by Ministry of Housing and Urban & Rural Development, and has an influencing leadership in green campus development in China.

M AN U

Then the types and weights of these indicators were decided by Delphi Method, in which the questionnaires were distributed to the above 30 national experts, asking their opinions, and three times of back and forth were done between the authors and experts to get the final decision [31, 32]. Two types of indicators named ‘mandatory indicator’ and ‘optional indicator’ were identified in the questionnaires by the experts. Mandatory indicators were all compulsory to be met in the evaluation, and authors firstly decided which indicators were the mandatory ones

TE D

and then sent to the experts asking for their opinions. The optional indicators, which take the form of scoring, were rated from 1 to 8 points by experts based on their importance. The weight of each optional indicator was decided as the score which the most experts chose.

EP

As for some specific indices, the experts suggested assigning different scores for the different implement situations. Hence, similarly to the way of weight decision, three ways have been put forward finally, 1) a fixed score is

AC C

assigned where the evaluated university meets the specific requirement of one indicator; 2) different levels of scores are allotted for different implementation levels for one index (For example, the indicator of E2.2 in Table 2 below, if more than 20% of the total building area in the university has been retrofitted or being retrofitted, 5 score would be given. Otherwise, only 4 score for over 15%); 3) take the full score multiplied by the actual implementation ratio to get the final score of an indicator.

3.2 The evaluation indicators 3.2.1 The Organization and Management (C1) A reasonable assessment tool always considers “systemic changes, which include mission and goals statements,

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT incentive and reward structures, and other organizational decision-making processes” [22]. Based on the investigations in 10 pilot universities by the authors, from the university level in China, the development of campus sustainability requires the inter-departmental cooperation and resource integration of the Infrastructure Department, Resource Administration Office, Financial Department, Science and Technology Department, Graduate School,

RI PT

Office of Academic Affairs and other administrative departments, and also needs the guidance of technical experts in various fields as well. The top-level design which involves management organizations, and rules and regulations, etc., has already been worked out in these pilot universities of energy and resource conversation-oriented campuses in China [6]. The organizations usually comprise the management committee, consisting of vice president and

SC

directors in all related divisions, the executive office, taking charge of the concrete work in sustainable campus construction, and the expert committee, providing technical support for the specific initiatives. Besides that, it is

M AN U

very helpful to further designate one person in each college or department to take charge of all the tasks required by the university, and to appoint staffs with professional knowledge in the positions of campus management and logistics. In terms of the rules and regulations, referring to the current experiences at home and abroad, a set of management mechanism should be put forward including the medium and long term plans which are very helpful but have been done by only a few Chinese universities, energy use audit which has been implemented by some

TE D

Chinese universities but does not become a periodic regulation yet, energy quota regulation which will be more and more popular in Chinese universities, the annual SD report which is published by no Chinese university but should be encouraged, energy efficiency operation which has not been put in a good effect, green procurement which

EP

should be attracted more and more attentions, and environment management regulation ISO14001 which is a very meaningful approach but not executed in Chinese universities right now.

AC C

Base on the analysis, the indicators of organization and management mainly involve the construction of organization and mechanism system, as shown in Table 1. Two sub-categories with one mandatory indicator and thirteen optional indicators of totally 41 points are proposed: - Organization (O), which recognizes the importance of establishment of management committee, executive office and professional committee to form the effective administrative organizational structure especially for green campus development. - Mechanism System (MS), which covers a comprehensive set of regulations, including medium-and-long-term plans, inspection regulations for green campus construction projects, energy use audit system, etc. The application of these evaluation indicators can incentive the universities to consummate the incomplete regulation framework

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT for campus sustainability in nearly all Chinese universities. Table 1. Evaluation indicators in the category of Organization and Management (C1)

O1

Establish the management committee

O3

O4 O5 MS1 MS2 MS3

MM. Management Mechanism (26 points)

MS4

Establish and perform the campus energy quota regulation each year

MS5

Compose and publish the annual report of the campus sustainable development. Establish and perform the regulations for energy efficiency operation of facilities Establish and perform the green procurement regulations for food, electronic appliances and printing papers. Establish and perform the waste recycling management regulations Pass the ISO14001.

AC C

MS6

TE D

O. Organization (1 mandatory indicator and 15 points)

Establish the executive office, responsible for the concrete work Designate one person in each school or department to charge the implementation of all the tasks set by university. Have professional staffs in the positions of campus energy management and logistics. Establish the expert committee to provide technical support Make medium-and-long-term plans for the sustainable development. Set up and perform inspection regulations for green campus construction projects. Establish and periodically perform the energy use audit for campus buildings.

MS7

MS8

MS9

Mandatory indicator 3 points

4 points

Enough 4

Not Enough 2

Investigation results [30]

None 0

4 points

2 points

M AN U

O2

Sources for references

Scores

RI PT

Indicators

SC

#

EP

Subcategories

3 points

3 points

Fully performed, 3 points; Partly performed, 1.5 points

[6]

3 points Fully performed, 3 points; Partly performed, 1.5 points 1 point for each item, and totally 3 points

Investigation results [30, 33]

Investigation results [30]

3 points 3 points

3.2.2 Energy and Resource Saving (C2) With the stimulation of the national funding and special policies from the national and local governments in China, Chinese universities and colleges have carried out a series of energy and resource saving projects, including energy efficiency retrofit of existing buildings, the applications of renewable energy, water-saving appliances and grey

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT water treatment, energy-saving lighting, intelligent billing card for hot water use, and clean energy vehicles, and so on. Therefore, indicators of Energy and Resource Saving (C2) include five aspects of Energy (E), Water (W), Land (L), Materials and Waste (MW), and Transportation (T). There are eight mandatory indicators and optional indicators have the total score of 87 points, as shown in Table 2.

RI PT

- Energy (E), which focuses on the assessment of the progress and effectiveness of energy and resource conversation measures on the whole campus. Because the building retrofit projects and the construction of Campus Energy Management System (CEMS) are the main measures subsidized by Chinese government, corresponding mandatory indicators and optional indicators are assigned to evaluate the effects of these measures. The authors

SC

also did some investigations in Chinese universities to reveal the effects of these energy and resource conservation initiatives, and hence the limited values of the indicators to assess the effects of campus energy conservation

M AN U

measures, such as E2.2, E2.3, E3.2, E5.2, are set based on the investigation results [30]. For example, according to the investigation results, it is found that the ratio of floor area of retrofitted and retrofitting buildings to the total building area (E2.2) in Chinese universities is normally between 5% to 15%, due to the large retrofit cost, but it is encouraged to rise to larger than 20%. So four levels of large than 20%, 15%, 10%, 5% and 1% have been set. Regarding the energy saving rate (E7), according to the current status by surveys in Chinese universities and the

TE D

related associations, nearly all the universities have the energy saving rate less than 20%, and many universities even have no total energy saving rate due to the increase of floor areas or the number of students year by year, but there is some energy saving rate per floor area or per capita due to the application of energy saving measures. In

EP

addition, as Chinese universities have paid little attention on campus carbon emission, carbon emission inventory is encouraged to list, in order to attract more endeavor from the universities on carbon emission reduction.

AC C

- Water (W), which aims to evaluate the effect of water-saving appliances, nontraditional water sources, and online monitoring to eliminate water waste. According to the investigation results in Chinese universities, and about 50% to 70% of main water use units, such as the dining rooms, central bathrooms, are monitored online (W3) in Chinese universities, and the water saving measures in these demonstration universities work better than the energy saving measures, leading to the higher rate of water reduction, reaching to approximate 40% (W5). Therefore, the corresponding limit values have been set for these indicators based on the actual situation, to assess the water saving effect and even to stimulate the higher effect. - Land (L), which aims to encourage the universities to explore the underground space and reduce per capita building floor area, in order to achieve intensive land use.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT - Materials and Waste (MW), which is set to assess the use of recyclable building materials and recyclable papers, and to promote waste reduction, garbage composting and recycling, waste electronic equipment and furniture recycling, as well as campus hazardous waste management. These countermeasures are rarely used in Chinese universities, but are quite popular in the countries abroad. Considering their importance to realize the campus

RI PT

sustainability, related indicators should be set to incentive the adoption of these countermeasures. - Transportation (T), which is used to guarantee the safe riding and convenient parking in universities, which are the problems in many Chinese universities. Enough bicycle parking spaces, separate bike paths and convenient public transport network are encouraged to set; besides that, clean fuel vehicles are also suggested for the public

SC

transport on campus, under the social atmosphere to advocate the clean energy transportation in China. Table 2 Evaluation indicators in the category of Energy and Resource Saving (C2)

E2 E2.1 E2.2

E2.3 E3 E3.1 E3.2 E4 E4.1 E4.2 E4.3 E4.4 E4.5

E5 E5.1 E5.2 E5.3 E6

Scores

Sources for references

2 points

Mandatory indicator ≥20 ≥15 ≥10 ≥5% ≥1% The ratio of floor area of retrofitted and retrofitting % % % Limit values buildings to the total building floor area 5 4 3 2 1 were set by investigation The ratio of floor area of retrofitted buildings reaching ≥10 ≥8% ≥5% ≥3% ≥1% results the 50% energy saving target to the total retrofitted % and retrofitting building floor areas 5 4 3 2 1 Renewable energy use CHINAGBC, The ratio of renewable energy use to total energy Mandatory indicator 2013 [28] use ≥3% ≥13% ≥10% ≥8% ≥5% Investigation The ratio of renewable energy use to total energy use results 4 3 2 1 Lighting efficiency 1 point is multiplied by the The ratio of energy-efficient lamps in exterior lighting actual ratio 1 point is multiplied by the The ratio of energy efficient lamps in interior lighting actual ratio The ratio of lamps with smart control in interior 1 point is multiplied by the lighting actual ratio There is smart control system for street lamps. 1 point There is campus intelligent billing card for water and 2 points electricity usage management Campus Energy Management System (CEMS) Establishment of CEMS Mandatory indicator 100% ≥60% >30% Limit values The rate of the buildings monitored by CEMS to the were set total buildings 3 2 1 based on the The rate of buildings with end use monitoring to the ≥60% ≥ 30% ≥10% investigation total buildings with energy use monitoring results 3 2 1 The quality of daylight

AC C

E. Energy (4 mandat ory indicat ors and 39 points)

There is any building with green building label for operation stage Building retrofit The implementation of building retrofit

TE D

E1

Indicators

M AN U

#

EP

Subcat egories

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT E6.1

E6.2

The daylight factor of the living room in dormitories must conform to the national standard of GB/ T 50033. The daylight factor of the main spaces in other buildings must conform to the national standard of GB/ T 50033.

2 points

2 points

GB/T 50033-2001 [34]

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

The score of each term Energy use reduction before and after the construction below is multiplied by its E7 of energy conservation-oriented campus weight, and then sum them to get the final score. >20 <20 <15 <10 < 5% Investigation % % % % E7.1 Energy saving rate (weight of 0.2) results 5 4 3 2 1 E7.2 Energy saving rate per floor area (weight of 0.3) Ditto E7.3 Energy saving rate per student (weight of 0.3) Ditto E7.4 Energy saving rate per research output (weight of 0.2) Ditto E8 Carbon emissions E8.1 Annual carbon emission inventory Mandatory indicator E8.2 Carbon emission amount of air travel of staffs 1 point E8.3 Other carbon emission amount 1 point CHINAGBC, The utilization of nontraditional water source W1 Mandatory indicator 2013 [28] ≥10% The usage rate of the water saving appliances to the 2 points are multiplied by W2 total water utensils the actual ratio W. 100 ≥70 ≥50 ≥30 ≥10 The percentage of main water use units (such as Water Investigation % % % % % W3 kitchen, centralized bathroom, hotel etc.) with the (1 results online monitoring 5 4 3 2 1 mandat ory Rain water collection, 1 There are the water saving measures in rain water Investigation indicat W4 point; gray water recycle, 1 collection and gray water recycles. results or and point 14 W5 Water reduction points) ≥40 <40 <30 <20 <10 Investigation W5.1 The rate of water reduction on campus (weight of 0.6) % % % % % results 5 4 3 2 1 W5.2 The rate of per student water reduction (weight of 0.4) Ditto L. The per capita building floor area should not GB/T Land exceed the limit values of architecture planning of L1 Mandatory indicator 50378-2014 (1 ordinary high education institutes in Chinese [35] mandat standard. ory indicat The rate of underground space to total building floor or and L2 3 points area is larger than 5% 3 points) GB/T MW. MW1 The usage rate of the reusable building material ≥5% 2 points 50378-2014 Materi [35] al and 2 points are multiplied by Waste MW2 The ratio of double-side printed paper the actual ratio (2 mandat 2 points are multiplied by MW3 The usage ratio of the recycled paper ory the actual ratio indicat The ratio of electronic products with energy efficiency 2 points are multiplied by MW4 ors and label to the total electronic products used on campus the actual ratio 18 CHINAGBC, The percentage of the garbage bins with separate Mandatory indicator points) MW5 2013 [28] collection is larger than 75%.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

MW7 MW8 MW9

Develop and implement the kitchen waste compost program The rate of per capita garbage reduction The ratio of recycled electronic products to the total number of waste electronic products.

Management of separate collection The separate collection of wasted battery The separate collection of fluorescent tube Take the strict management on the collection, MW10.3 temporary storage, transmission, and process of dangerous chemicals.

T6 T7 T8

The ratio of buildings with barrier-free facilities is over 75%.

1 point 1 point

Mandatory indicator

2 points

GB/T 50378-2014 [35]

Split flow of people and vehicles are considered. 2 points Campus should have separate bicycle lanes 1 point Enough bicycle parking space 1 point The distance between the public transport site and GB/T campus entrance is suggested to be less than 500 1 point 50378-2014 meters. [35] Use clean fuel and high-efficient fuel driving vehicles for the campus public transportation and other 2 points purposes. The ratio of staffs with green transport (such as taking 2 points are multiplied by non-motorized vehicle and public transportation). the actual ratio Provide measures to encourage carpool among staffs. 2 points

SC

T5

Ditto

M AN U

T. Transp ortatio n (13 points)

T2 T3 T4

Ditto

2 points are multiplied by the actual ratio

The ratio of reused furniture

MW10 MW10.1 MW10.2

T1

2 points

RI PT

MW6

TE D

3.2.3 Friendly Environment (C3)

Indicators of friendly environment constitute an important part in the evaluation. This part should be used to assess campus site, ecology landscape, and micro climate environment, with totally five mandatory indicators and optional

EP

indicators with altogether 26 points, as shown in Table 3.

- Campus Site (CS), which aims to maintain the safety and quality of the natural land. Two mandatory indicators

AC C

related to campus site selection must be met. Firstly, campus construction should not destroy the local cultural relics, natural water, natural wetlands, farmland, forests and other reserves. Secondly, campus site should not have the potential threat of floods, landslides and soil containing radon. Within the construction site, there is no harm of electromagnetic radiation and fire, explosive, toxic substances and other hazards. - Ecological Landscape (EL), which mainly considers the ratio of green space on campus, the proportion of native plants, as well as landscape waste composting program. Referring to the national standard of Evaluation Standard of Green Buildings (GB/T 50378-2014), campus greening rate is suggested to be more than 30%, which is a mandatory indicator in this subcategory. The plantation of native plants and landscape waste composting programs are encouraged to be implemented.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT - Micro Climate (MC), which covers the evaluation of campus thermal environment, wind environment, air quality, and light environment. Thermal environment evaluation includes heat island intensity, wet global temperature in summer on campus, and the ratio of buildings which can meet the indoor thermal comfort requirement in the national design standard. Considering more and more campus buildings have been installed the air conditioning

RI PT

systems and the indoor thermal environment becomes much better than before, it is encouraged all the buildings can meet the indoor thermal comfort requirement in the national design standard, and less score can be gotten if only part of them can meet the requirement. Indoor and outdoor air quality is important for the health of students and faculties on campus, so it is required that all the campus buildings should meet the indoor air quality

SC

requirements in the national standard, and the number of days with air pollution index less than 100 is more than 90%, which are the two mandatory indicators. It is also encouraged to construct non-smoking campus. The limited

M AN U

values are set for the indicators in the aspect of micro climate, as shown in Table 3, by referring to the related national standards for the acoustic environment quality, air quality, lighting environment, and thermal environment in China, and the investigations in Chinese universities done by the authors as well. Table 3. The evaluation indicators in the category of Friendly Environment (C3) #

Indicators

EL2

Campus construction should not destroy the local cultural relics, natural water, natural wetlands, basic farmland, forests and other reserves. Campus site should not have the potential threat of floods, landslides and soil containing radon. Within the construction site, there is no harm of electromagnetic radiation and fire, explosive, toxic substances and other hazards Outdoor permeable pavement area ratio should be more than 30%. Campus greening rate is more than 30% The native plant ratio is more than 75%

EL3

1

AC C

EP

CS1 CS. Campus Site (2 mandatory indicators CS2 and 3 points)

TE D

Subcatego ries

CS3

EL. Ecological Landscape (1 Mandatory indicator and 4 points) MC. Micro Climate (2 Mandatory

EL1

MC1 MC2

Average value of heat island intensity is less than 1.5 Measured wet global temperature in summer is less than 32 on campus

Scores

Sources for references

Mandatory indicator

Mandatory indicator

3 points Mandatory indicator 2 points

GB/T 50378-2014 [35] GB/T 50378-2014 [35]

2 points

2 points 2 points

GB/T 50378-2014 [35]

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

MC5 MC6 NC7 MC8

MC9

RI PT

MC4

SC

MC3

All buildings, 3 The ratio of the buildings which can meet points; Part the indoor thermal comfort requirement in of buildings, the national design standard. 2 points; Few, 1 point The wind power amplification factor at 3 points pedestrian area is less than 2. The number of days with air pollution Mandatory PHCCO,2014 [36] index less than 100 is more than 90% indicator All the campus buildings can meet the Mandatory GB/T18883-2002 indoor air quality requirements in the [37] indicator national standard of indoor air quality. The campus is the non-smoking campus 3 points All the campus area can meet the requirement of the national standard of 3 points acoustic environment quality. The ratio of campus area meeting the requirement in the related standards of GB/T50034-2013 3 points lighting environment quality to the total [38] campus area is larger than 70%

M AN U

indicators and 19 points)

3.2.4 Campus Culture (C4)

Table 4 lists the indicators of campus culture and their scores. The indicators of campus culture are used to assess the progress and implementation of green education, green scientific research, and green humanities, with optional

TE D

indicators of 77 points.

- Green Education (GE), which is mainly used to measure the effectiveness of sustainability-oriented courses and programs, green education bases, and the matched incentive mechanism. The authors also did the investigations to get a general understanding about the green education in Chinese universities. The ratio of undergraduate courses in

EP

sustainability to total courses in the indicator of GE1 is commonly lower than 10% with best practice of 20% in these investigated universities. Meanwhile, the ratio of the schools with the graduate courses in sustainability is

AC C

relatively higher, and the average value is from 60% to 80%. Hence the corresponding limit values of these indicators are set based on the actual situation of Chinese universities. -Green Research (GR), which aims to assess the research achievements in the areas of sustainability, and the policies set to support the research. The similar investigation was also done in Chinese universities in order to set the limit values of the indicators in Green Research. The ratio of research projects in sustainability to total projects is commonly among 10% to 20%, while the universities with excellent performance have the values between 20% and 40%, therefore five levels of 50%, 30%, 20% and 10% were put forward to assess the ratio of research projects in sustainability

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT - Green Humanities (GH), which involves the evaluation of training, seminars and other promotional initiatives to form an atmosphere of sustainable campus, and related student association activities and student competitions in the theme of sustainability, which attract more and more attention and funding from the national and local governments year by year. Similar investigations were done to understand current activities and initiatives in green

RI PT

humanities in Chinese universities so as to set the limit values for the indices. Table 4. The evaluation indicators in the category of Campus Culture (C4)

Sources for references The ratio of undergraduate courses in ≥20% <20% <15% <10% <5% Investigation GE1 sustainability to total courses results 5 4 3 2 1 The ratio of graduate courses in Investigation GE2 Ditto sustainability results The ratio of the colleges with the ≥80% <80% <60% <40% <20% Investigation GE3 undergraduate courses in sustainability results 5 4 3 2 1 to total colleges The ratio of the colleges with the GE4 graduate courses in sustainability to Ditto total colleges Establish green campus demonstration GE5 1 point for one base, top 5 points bases. Have the initiatives to encourage GE6 teachers to set sustainable courses and 2 points make curriculum reform. Have the initiatives to set the discipline GE7 3 points or program in sustainability Have the initiatives to encourage GE8 students to attend sustainable courses 2 points and programs. <50% <30% <20% <10% The ratio of research projects in Limit values GR1 sustainability to total projects. 8 5 3 1 were set by investigation The percentage of the research funding GR2 Ditto results in sustainability The initiatives to encourage to do GR3 research in sustainability Have initiatives to encourage teachers to GR3.1 3 points do the research in sustainability. Have initiatives to encourage students to 2 points GR3.2 do the research in sustainability. Provide green campus orientations for GH1 2 points both new students and faculties. Once for each semester in each Colleges provide the periodic lectures GH2 school, 1 point; twice, 3 points; and workshops in sustainability. above 3 times, 5 points. Limit values Establish and implement incentive Fully implement, 5 points; were set GH3 mechanisms for green movement and Partly implement, 3 points; Just based on green behavior establish, 1 point. investigation results Brochures, 1 point; Website, 1 Have measures to propagandize green GH4 point; Posters, 1 point; Other campus among students and faculties measures, 1 point; top 4 points #

Indicators

Scores

AC C

GR. Green Research (11 points)

EP

TE D

GE. Green Education (32 points)

M AN U

SC

Subcategori es

GH. Green Humanities (24 points)

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Student associations and corresponding activities The number of student associations in GH5.1 sustainability GH5

RI PT

0.5 point for one student association, top 2 points Once per semester for each The number of activities held by student Limit values GH5.2 association, 0.5 points; top 2 associations. were set points based on International award, 4 points; investigation National award, 3 points; results The student competition award above GH6 Provincial award, 2 points; the municipal level in sustainability. Municipal award, 1 point, top 4 points

3.2.5 Social Outreach (C5)

SC

Aiming at current different social activities in Chinese universities, the evaluation of social outreach mainly relates to green technology training and consultation provided to the community, policy support for the government, the

M AN U

collaborative projects among firms, universities and research institutes, as well as students participation in community sustainable practices, with optional indicators of 25 points. The main indictors cover the number of influential activities to support policy making for the local and national governments, such as participating in the compilation of standards and guidelines, the number of awards coming from the effective collaboration among industries, universities and research institutes, and the ratio of the colleges which have students participate in

TE D

sustainable activities in communities or cities. The detail evaluation indicators and their scores are listed in Table 5. Table 5 The evaluation indicators in the category of Social Outreach (C5) Indicators

Scores

Sources for references

The number of consultation and training of 1 point for two times of consultation SO1 green knowledge for the community, offered or training, top 5 points by the university. The number of influential activities to support 1 point for two influential activities, SO2 policy making for the government, in the top 5 points theme of sustainability. SO3 Support to social innovations Provide support to encourage staff and SO3.1 students to set up the company in the field of 5 points sustainability The number of awards above the municipal level in one year, which come from the SO3.2 1 point for 2 awards; top 5 points collaboration among industries, universities and research institutes. The ratio of the colleges, which have students 100% ≥80% ≥60% ≥40% ≥20% Investigation SO4 participate in sustainable activities in 5 4 3 2 1 results communities or cities.

AC C

SO. Social Outreach (25 points)

#

EP

Subcategories

3.2.6 The total scores of five categories

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT In summary, there are total 14 mandatory indicators and 69 optional indicators of altogether 256 points, as shown in Table 6. The mandatory indicators mainly locate in two categories C2 and C3 because of the importance of energy & resource saving and friendly environment, and great attention and incentives from the Chinese government in the two fields. More Optional indicators have been proposed in the categories C2 and C4, which account for 34% and

RI PT

30% of the total scores respectively, followed by C1 (16% of the total points). That’s due to the importance and so many evaluation contents of energy saving operation and carbon emission reduction, and green education and students cultivation with sustainable ideas and behaviors. In this way, the final score of an evaluated university can be achieved by the sum of the weighted score of each category.

SC

Table 6. The scores of indicators in five categories Third Level (Indicator)

The numbers/ scores of General Indicators

The weight of the first-level categories

1

13/41

0.16

25/87

0.34

10/26

0.10

17/77 4/25 69/256

0.30 0.10 1

8 5 0 0 14

TE D

C1(Organization & Management) C2 (Energy & Resource Saving) C3 (Friendly Environment) C4 (Campus Culture) C5 (Social Outreach) Total

The number of Mandatory Indicators

M AN U

First Level (Categories)

4. The evaluation of campus sustainability in a Chinese university as a case study In order to verify its feasibility of this evaluation system, it is applied in a Chinese university, called University A,

EP

to evaluate the current status of campus sustainability. This selected university is among the best candidates in the green campus development in China and launched the demonstration project of energy conservation-oriented

AC C

campus since 2009. The advantages and disadvantages of sustainable campus construction in this university have been revealed by this evaluation system, and corresponding plan and countermeasures can be made to stimulate its progress towards campus sustainability, based on the evaluation results.

4.1 Results in C1 Figure 2 indicates the final results of indicators in the category of C1 (Organization and Management), with the achievements of 21 scores which account for almost half of the total target points in C1. University A has the board management committee and an executive office to lead and manage the work in campus sustainability development,

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT and as well as the expert committee to provide the technical support. Figure 3 shows the current organization structure in this university. However, there is no full-time staff in each college or department with the sole duty to take charge of the implementation of the specific work, and the work related to green campus is regarded as the extra work load for the faculties in schools and departments. Besides that, there are not enough professional staffs

M AN U

SC

RI PT

in the positions of campus energy management and logistics.

AC C

EP

TE D

Fig 2. The scores achieved in the category of C1

Fig 3. The current organization structure in University A

Generally speaking, this university takes the leading role in the green campus mechanism construction among Chinese universities, and many related regulations, which are still missed in most of the Chinese universities, have been formulated and partly or fully implemented, such as medium and long-term plans, campus energy quota

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT regulation, green campus annual report. However, some regulations are not put into real effect, such as regulations for energy efficiency operation of facilities, and few regulations are still waiting to be worked out in this university, such as green procurement regulation, waste recycling management regulation, which become more and more

RI PT

generalized in the universities abroad, but still attract little attention in China.

4.2 Results in C2

Figure 4 shows the evaluation results in the category of C2 (Energy and Resource Saving), achieving 39.45 scores out of 87 scores. University A put into effect the campus energy management system in 2009, and also conducted

SC

some initiatives in energy and water conservation year by year since 2009 with the incentive of national funding, including the energy efficiency retrofit of historical buildings, demonstration projects of PV system, solar water

M AN U

heater systems and geothermal heat pump systems in buildings, and the intelligent billing cards for water and electricity usage management, water saving sanitary appliances in the toilets and the non-traditional water use in the irrigation and landscape. With these efforts, high scores are achieved in the subcategories of Energy (E) and Water (W). As a result, small reductions of per capita energy use and energy use per floor area were accomplished after the year of 2010 (as shown in Figure 5a), while the annual campus energy use keeps the increase until 2011

TE D

(as shown in Figure 5b), due to the increase of floor areas of campus buildings and the improvement of teaching and research capacity. Besides, even though the carbon emission of campus energy use is calculated every year, there is no data for carbon emission amount of staffs’ air traveling, as there are no such records or it is very

EP

troublesome to get the original copies from the administrative departments, or the current database does not support the data retrieve right now.

AC C

There are very few resource saving measures in terms of material and waste, and hence there is no distinct achievement in this field. Comparing with gradual generalization of reused or recycled material and waste in universities abroad, there is little use of reusable building material, recycled paper, recycled electronic products, reused furniture, and garbage compost as well [7, 8]. This shows that more initiatives in this field are in great need in this university. In terms of the transportation, due to the old campus planning, there are not enough bicycle parting lots, and no separate bike lanes, which are badly in need of improvement.

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

Fig 4. The scores achieved in C2

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

Fig 5(a). the energy consumption per unit area and energy consumption per capita from 2008 to 2012

SC

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

M AN U

Fig 5(b). the total annual energy use on campus from 2008 to 2012

4.3 Results in C3

Figure 6 reveals the results in the category of C3 (Friendly Environment), with final scores of 16. As for campus site, the mandatory indicators of no damage of the local environment and no potential treat of natural hazard can be

TE D

met by this university. However, the data of outdoor permeable pavement area is difficult to get and hence no score was gotten for the indicator of CS3. In terms of ecological landscape, the university has done a good job in campus greening and the growing of native plant, but there is no effort in waste composting. Regarding the micro climate, the wind environment, acoustic environment and air environment are good, while the outdoor thermal environment

AC C

EP

cannot meet the requirements of the related standards.

Fig 6. The scores achieved in C3

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 4.4 Results in C4 Figure 7 shows the evaluation results in the category of C4 (Campus Culture), achieving 52.5 scores in totally 77 target scores. The university made great effort in the green education, and accordingly got the good results. The university set minor programs for graduate students in sustainability, including six majors of sustainable buildings,

RI PT

sustainable economics, sustainable environment management, sustainable transportation, environment policy and sustainability, and international relationship and sustainability. The university has some regulations to incentive the students to choose the minor programs, such as setting the scholarship and exempting tuition free, etc. The professors will also get double salary for teaching in these minor programs. However, in the major programs,

SC

although there are about one third of the colleges setting some courses in sustainability, the ratios of both undergraduate and graduate courses in sustainability to total courses are still very low, with the values of only 1%,

Fig 7. The scores in C4

AC C

EP

TE D

and general introduction of sustainability.

M AN U

and these courses mainly focus on green buildings, sustainable environment, energy and resources conservation,

There are also some approaches to encourage students and faculties to do the research in sustainability. For example, the university periodically set special funding for the faculties, to promote the multidiscipline research in sustainability. Besides that, more and more faculties have their research interests in the fields of sustainable environment (accounting for 53% of total projects), green buildings and urban planning (22%), energy saving vehicle (10%), mechanics (7%) and green agriculture (2%), and hence the projects and funding in these fields increase year by year, as shown in Figure 8. The students also have the chances to take part in the competitions and research programs in sustainability, with the supervision of professors. In addition, there are also many initiatives to cultivate the green campus humanities, such as providing lectures and

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT workshops for the faculties and students, making green campus posters, brochures and official website to introduce the green campus progress to the public, setting related regulations, holding the activities by student associations,

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

and taking part in the competitions in international, national, provincial and municipal levels.

Fig 8. The ratio of main research fields in sustainability

EP

4.5 Results in C5

The results of the evaluation in C5 (Social Outreach) show that University A has the very good performance in this

AC C

field, with the achievement of 24 scores accounting for 96% of total target scores, as shown in Fig.9. The Material College, the Institute of Environment for Sustainable Development and some research and training centers provide periodic trainings and consultations in the field of sustainability for the related stakeholders, such as engineers, land agents, manufacturers, and governmental officers at home and abroad. Some colleges have a close relationship with their technical counterparts in the government, offering the policy making support, by the means of expert consultation, the compilation of national and local standards, etc. The university also has R&D industrial bases and Science and Technic Parks, and motivates staffs and students to set up companies by providing some preferential policies, such as tax reliefs, offering office places free of charge, providing low-interest loans and even initial funding. In this situation, many achievements have come out fast from the collaboration among firms, universities

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT and research institutes. In addition, more than 80% of the colleges hold social practices and the extracurricular

SC

RI PT

activities for the students to participate in sustainable activities in the communities and the society.

M AN U

Fig 9. The scores achieved in C5

4.6 Critical thinking in the sustainable campus development in University A The results show that the university meets all mandatory indicators in the five categories and has done a good job in the categories of C3(Friendly Environment), C4(Campus Culture), and C5(Social Outreach), but still needs to make

TE D

more endeavors in C1 and C2. Regarding the subcategory level, almost full achievements have been made in L (Land) and SO (Social Outreach), followed by O (Organization), MC (Micro Climate) and GE (Green Education), in which the achieved points account for more than 60% of the total target scores, as shown in Figure 10. Some critical thinking for University A to develop sustainable campus in a long term could be proposed based on the

AC C

EP

evaluation results as follows:

Fig 10. The scores achieved in all subcategories

(1) The university set up a management organization and a relatively comprehensive series of regulations to

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT develop the sustainable campus. However, more focuses should be put on the engagement of professional staffs especially for sustainability development and scientific regulations for green procurement and waste recycling management. (2) The potential of campus energy and resource conservation should be further excavated. Even though

RI PT

University A has made great efforts to conduct different kinds of energy conservation initiatives, e.g. building retrofit, the usage of renewable energy, water saving appliances, etc., the application rate of energy and resource saving appliances in the university level is relatively low. For example, only 15% of water appliances are energy efficient (W2) with the achievement of 0.3 points in 2 target points. Furthermore, the conservation

SC

measures in the subcategories of W (Water) and MW (Material and Waste) should be more frequently put into use in the future.

M AN U

(3) The sustainability development in C4 (Campus Culture), including GE (Green Education), GR (Green Research), and GH (Green Humanities), is just in the beginning stage. The rate of undergraduate and graduate courses in sustainability should be increased, and as well as research projects focused on sustainability. What is more, more attention should be paid on the promotion and publicity of sustainable activities in the university

5. Discussion and conclusions

TE D

and in the communities.

Aiming at the current situation and its own characteristics of green campus development in China, an evaluation

EP

system especially for Chinese universities has been put forward to fully assess the initiatives in five categories of Organization and Management (C1), Energy and Resource Saving (C2), Friendly Environment (C3), Campus

AC C

Culture (C4), and Social Outreach (C5), after a comprehensive literature review of a great deal of evaluation tools in the world. University A, who is among the best candidates in the green campus development in China, was selected and evaluated by this system. The results clearly showed its achievements and shortcomings of the campus sustainability in this university, and corresponding suggestions were made to guide the work in the next step. In this evaluation system, the pertinent indicators were put forward based on a full consideration of green campus evolution in China, and the limit values and thresholds of all indicators were reasonably set up based on the current progress of campus sustainability in Chinese universities or the national standards. In this way, the system can be expected to effectively assess the consequences of these important initiatives taken by Chinese universities or funded by Chinese government. Meanwhile, some indicators in the international systems are localized and

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT introduced into the system, which can lead the directions in campus sustainability for Chinese universities. For instance, the garbage composting programs, such as kitchen waste composting and landscape waste composting, furniture reuse, and the use of recycled paper are popular in the universities abroad, but seldom adopted in most Chinese universities. The indicators to assess the effect of these measures are set into the system, which can drive

RI PT

the universities to make more endeavors in these aspects. Therefore, the application of such an evaluation system can promote the communication and understanding about campus sustainability among faculties, staffs and

students, assess and compare the sustainability performance across different campuses; and the evaluation results can also provide the references for the emphasis of both the universities and the government in the next

SC

step [12].

However, there are still some limitations and further research which should be done to make it available in the

M AN U

country level. Data collection is difficult for some indicators. For example, there is very huge workload to get the carbon footprint of staffs’ air travelling based on the original copies of all the air tickets in the university. It is also difficult to get the accurate values of the rate of per capita garbage reduction and the usage ratio of the recycled paper. In order to improve this system, one of the most important issues is that more case studies should be done in the next step so as to check the operability of this system. Hence the sensitivity analysis can be also done based on

TE D

more case studies.

Besides that, the application of such an evaluation system implies the capacity building which should be done in China as soon as possible. Green campus management and evaluation put forward the higher requirement for the

EP

interactive work among different administrative departments and colleges in Chinese universities, but there is no much overlap among these departments right now. Also, it definitely costs huge labor power to get and calculate the

AC C

data for the evaluation, while this is the extra work for the staffs in the departments right now, and they have no impetus to do such arduous work. Therefore, similar to the green building evaluation, it is urgent to set up a series of organizational mechanism by the government to popularize the campus sustainability evaluation in China. Besides the evaluation methodology, the third-party certification body and authentication mechanism for the evaluation on behalf of the government should be established, and as well as the staffs with the special duty to collect the data in the universities.

Acknowledgement This research is funded by the China National Key R&D Program “Solutions to heating and cooling of buildings in

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT the Yangtze river region” (Grant No. 2016YFC0700301) and National Natural Science Foundation of China No. 51508500. Reference [1]

Ministry

of

Education

of

China,

2016.

Bulletin

of

National

Education

Statistics

2015.

RI PT

http://www.moe.edu.cn/srcsite/A03/s180/moe_633/201607/t20160706_270976.html (accessed 06.07.16). [2] Ministry of Education of China, 2014. Statistical bulletin of national education career development 2013. http://www.moe.edu.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_633/201407/171144.html 30.07.14).

(accessed

online

SC

[3] Yuan, X.L., Zuo, J., Huisingh, D., 2013. Green Universities in China e what matters? J. Clean. Prod. 61, 36-45. [4] Xu, B., Qi, G.Q., Wang, N., 2010. Managing Efficiency and Construction of Energy - saving Behavior in

M AN U

Institutions of Higher Education in the New Era. Journal of Northeast Agricultural University (Social Science Edition). 8(4), 122-124.

[5] Barata, E., Cruz, L., & Ferreira, J. P., 2011. Parking at the UC campus: Problems and solutions. Cities, 28(5), 406–413.

[6] Tan, H.W., Chen, S.Q., Shi, Q., Wang, L.L., 2014. Development of green campus in China. J. Clean. Prod. 64,

[7]

Kyoto

University,

TE D

646-653. 2014.

Kyoto

University

Environment

Report,

available

at:

http://www/kyoto-u.ac.jp/ja/profile/environment/report/index.htm/.

EP

[8] The University of Pennsylvania, 2013. ISCN-GULF Sustainable campus charter report. Available at: http://www.international-sustainable-campus-network.org/downloads/reports/university-of-pennsylvania/309-unive

AC C

rsity-of-pennsylvania-2013-iscn-gulf-sustainable-campus-charter-report/file. [9] MOHURD (Ministry of Housing and Urban and Rural Development), and MOE (Ministry of Education), 2008. The Construction and Management Guidelines of Energy and Resource Conservation-Oriented Campus in Colleges and

Universities

(trial

implementation)

([2008]89).

http://www.mohurd.gov.cn/zcfg/

jsbwj_0/jsbwjjskj/200805/t20080519_168885.html (accessed online 13.05.08.) [10] MOHURD (Ministry of Housing and Urban and Rural Development), 2009. Notice on printing and distributing the “campus construction guidelines of campus energy management system in colleges and universities”

and

relevant

management

measures,

([2009]163).

http://www.mohurd.gov.cn/zcfg/jsbwj_0/jsbwjjskj/200911/t20091110_196722.html (accessed online 15.10.09.)

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT [11] MOHURD (Ministry of Housing and Urban and Rural Development) and MOF (Ministry of Finance), 2011. Notice

on

further

promoting

the

energy

efficiency

of

public

buildings,

([2011]207).

http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2011-05/11/content_1861716.htm (accessed online 11.05.11.) [12] Cole, L., 2003. Assessing sustainability on Canadian university campuses: development of a campus

RI PT

sustainability assessment framework. M.A. Environment and Management, Royal Roads University. [13] Shriberg, M., 2002. Institutional assessment tools for sustainability in higher education: strengths, weaknesses, and

implications

for

practice

and

theory.

Int.

J.

Sustain.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14676370210434714.

High.

Educ.

3

(3),

254e270.

SC

[14] Gomez, F.U., et al., 2015. Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education. J. Clean. Pro., 107: 75-485.33\d

M AN U

[15] Lauder, A., et al., 2015. Critical review of a global campus sustainability ranking: GreenMetric. J. Clean. Pro., 852-863. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.080.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.080. [16] Alonso-Almeida, M del M., et al., 2015. Diffusion of sustainability reporting in universities: current situation and future perspectives. J. Clean. Pro., 106: 144-154.

[17] Nixon, A., 2002. Improving the campus sustainability assessment process. Campus Sustainability Assessment

TE D

Review Project. Undergraduate Honors Thesis, Western Michigan University.

[18] Lozano, R., 2006.A tool for a graphical assessment of sustainability in universities (GASU). J. Clean. Prod. 14 (9e11), 963e972. ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.041.

EP

[19] Boman, J., Andersson, U.P., 2013. Eco-labeling of courses and programs at University of Gothenburg. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 48e53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.024.

AC C

[20] Lozano, R., 2010. Diffusion of sustainable development in universities’ curricula: an empirical example from Cardiff University. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 637-644. [21] Lozano, R., Young, W., 2013. Assessing sustainability in university curricula: exploring the influence of student numbers and course credits. J. Clean. Pro., 49: 134-141. [22] Shriberg, M., 2002. Institutional assessment tools for sustainability in higher education: strengths, weaknesses, and

implications

for

practice

and

theory.

Int.

J.

Sustain.

High.

Educ.

3

(3),

254e270.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14676370210434714. [23] Roorda, N., 2001. AISHE: Auditing Instrument for Sustainable Higher Education: English Text. Dutch Committee for Sustainable Higher Education, Netherlands.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT [24] Togo, M., Lotz-Sisitka, H., 2009. Unit Based Sustainability Assessment Tool. A Resource Book to Complement the UNEP Mainstreaming Environment and Sustainability in African Universities Partnership. Share-Net, Howick, ISBN 978-1919991-09-2. Artwork by: Tammy Griffiths. [25] AUA, 2012. Alternative University Appraisal. Model for ESD in Higher Education Institutions, pp. 0-35.

RI PT

[26] AASHE (The Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education), 2012. Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System STARS 2.0 Technical Manual: draft for public comment.

[27] Lv, B., Kan, J.J.,2012. Research on campus sustainability assessment indicators system and implications in China. Urban Planning International, 27(1):44-52.

SC

[28] CHINAGBC (China Green Building Council), 2013. Evaluation Standard for Green Campus (Draft for comments) (CSUSGBC04-2013). Chinese Society For Urban Studies, Beijing.

M AN U

[29] MOHURD (Ministry of Housing and Urban and Rural Development), 2014. Evaluation Standard of Green Buildings (GB/T 50378-2014). Available at: https://wenku.baidu.com/view/05ef163c9b89680202d82554.html. [30] Chen, S.Q., Zhu S.W., Tan, H.W., Zhang, N., 2015. Current situation and problems of energy efficiency management in Chinese universities and colleges. Construction Science and Technology, 12:34-38. [31] Sackman, H., 1974. "Delphi Assessment: Expert Opinion, Forecasting and Group Process", R-1283-PR, April

TE D

1974. Brown, Thomas, "An Experiment in Probabilistic Forecasting", R-944-ARPA, 1972. [32] Harold A. Linstone, Murray Turoff, 1975. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, ISBN 978-0-201-04294-8, archived from the original on 2008-05-20.

EP

[33] Luan, C.X., Zhu, Z.X., Chen, S.Q., Tan H.W., 2014. Research on green campus of colleges and universities in China. 10th International Conference on Green Building and Building Energy Efficiency, Beijing, 87-94.

AC C

[34] MOHURD (Ministry of Housing and Urban and Rural Development), 2001. Standard for daylighting design of buildings (GB/T 50033-2001). Available at: https://wenku.baidu.com/view/487be4d1195f312b3169a56b.html. [35] MOHURD (Ministry of Housing and Urban and Rural Development), 2014. Evaluation Standard of Green Buildings (GB/T 50378-2014). Available at: https://wenku.baidu.com/view/05ef163c9b89680202d82554.html. [36] Patriotic Health Campaign Committee Office (PHCCO), 2014. The national healthy city standards. Available at: https://wenku.baidu.com/view/c961601b2b160b4e767fcf90.html. [37] Ministry of Environment Protection, 2002. Indoor air quality standard (GB/T18883-2002). [38] MOHURD (Ministry of Housing and Urban and Rural Development), 2013. Standard for lighting design of buildings (GB/T 50034-2013).

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT The evolution and features of campus sustainability in China is revealed.




An evaluation tool for campus sustainability of Chinese universities is developed.




A case study is used to validate the evaluation tool successfully.




The tool reveals the merit and demerit of campus sustainability of the university.

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT