Enhancing environmental management in universities through participation: the case of the University of Córdoba

Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Enhancing environmental management in universities through
rdoba participation: the case of the University of Co
n-Ferna
ndez, Antonio Gomera*, Miguel Antúnez, Ba
rbara Martínez-Escrich, Yolanda Leo Francisco Villamandos, Manuel Vaquero
rdoba, Campus de Rabanales, Colonia San Jos

rdoba, Spain Sustainability Office, University of Co e, 4, 14014 Co

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 30 May 2016 Received in revised form 25 May 2017 Accepted 12 June 2017 Available online xxx

This article illustrates the methodology for a participatory process that encourages the campus community to help improve the environmental management of their institution, as an example of the effective integration of this dimension of sustainability into higher education. Harnessing a participatory approach, two proposals are made: the creation of a forum for discussing the institution’s main issues, strengths and weaknesses in terms of environmental management, and boosting expectations and generating proposals and action measures to be conveyed via a range of documents throughout the
rdoba has been the process. The main result of its implementation at the Spanish University of Co development of a Participatory Environmental Action Plan with a set of goals, aims and objectives, indicators and promoters. This process can be extrapolated to other organizations wishing to improve their environmental management by involving their community members in their advance towards sustainability, thereby contributing to the environmental awareness and education of the actors involved. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Education for sustainable development Environmental participation Environmental management Campus community

1. Introduction 1.1. Sustainability and citizen participation Citizen participation can be defined as a process through which anyone can get involved, individually or collectively, with the aim of influencing the decision-making that will affect their community
, 2012). This participation can take place within an institu(Andre tional framework or not, and can be promoted by society (through associations, for instance) or by the decision-makers (through
, 2012). commissions, for instance) (Andre In “Participatory democracy, environment and sustainability”, Ryan (2001) argues that it is insufficient for citizens to take part merely by casting their votes in the election of their leaders, and therefore he strongly believes that it is ever more necessary for the community to play a more active role in public affairs. Arguably, citizen participation is much more than simply taking part in decision-making within the formal mechanisms of participation

* Corresponding author.
n-Ferna
ndez), [email protected] E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Y. Leo (A. Gomera), [email protected] (M. Antúnez), [email protected] (B. Martínez-Escrich), [email protected] (F. Villamandos), [email protected] (M. Vaquero).


, 2012), and society should be involved in the decisions taken (Andre by governments, public institutions and organizations (Thibault
, 2012). et al., 2000, as cited in Andre This requires, on the one hand, suitable government structures and public institutions capable of tackling such complexity and, on the other hand, an active community with a high level of commitment (Ryan, 2001). In general terms, this is referred to as “governance” and is identified with the channels and mechanisms through which the plurality of our social interests translates into the adoption of effective policies, which also entails a form of government where institutions and public and non-public actors take part and cooperate in public policies (Cerrillo, 2005). The White Paper on European Governance (European Commission, 2001) proposes a set of changes based on five principles in order to improve European governance on a continent-wide scale: openness, involvement, accountability, effectiveness and coherence. Among the changes to the way EU policies are both shaped and implemented, special emphasis is placed on the importance of encouraging the participation of every social actor, introducing information mechanisms on the principle of openness, as well as consultation and discussion mechanisms that enable citizens to take part in the decision-making process.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.103 0959-6526/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.


n-Ferna
ndez, Y., et al., Enhancing environmental management in universities through participation: the Please cite this article in press as: Leo
rdoba, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.103 case of the University of Co


ndez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e10
n-Ferna Y. Leo

2

Furthermore, the various channels of participation can be associated with the different levels of social commitment. Based on a variety of proposals that invoke this issue as a key common factor (Arnstein, 1969; Elcome and Baines, 1999; Pretty, 1995; White, 1996; The Community Engagement Network Resource and Regional Services Division, 2005, International Association for Public Participation, 2007), the present authors have identified four tiers of participation depending on the degree of social involvement, which served as the guide and starting point that help the participation processes conveyed in this article to be developed. The aim is to provide an original contribution capable of supporting such participation processes, as set out in Table 1. Taking the aforementioned proposals as a basis, real and effective participation may be understood as the one that occurs from tier 2 onwards, that is, “consultation-deliberation”, “decision” and “co-management”, since these entail the involvement of the organization’s members in the analysis of the situation, the identification of appropriate solutions and the implementation of the decisions taken. These new forms of decision-making are particularly pertinent to the environmental situation, largely as a consequence of the prominence of the social aspect as a key factor in the current environmental crisis. Effective participation in decision-making may prove to be a key tool for addressing the problems we will face arising from the € wy, 2006). Over the course of the looming crisis of civilization (Lo last few centuries, human activities have had a significant and cumulative impact on our ecosystem. We live in a world in which species populations have fallen by 52% over the past 40 years, where mankind’s ecological footprint has more than doubled in the last 50 years (WWF, 2014), and a world in which human beings account for 20e40% of net primary production on a global level (Carpintero, 2007). The situation has reached such an extent and recent changes in the cycles of elements are so profound that we have caused the world to enter a new geological epoch in the history of our planet: the Anthropocene, marked by the interaction of human actions and the Earth (Crutzen and Stoermer, 2000). The extent of this imbalance is unprecedented in history and raises the question of how and why we have reached this point (Lecaros, 2013). Global change is, therefore, a social issue, not only because it is largely caused by human activities, but also because societies and citizens are the ones ultimately suffering the consequences today and will continue doing so in the future (Duarte et al., 2006). Decision-making processes can promote, or inhibit, sustainability (Murray, 2011). In keeping with this statement, one of the actions required to reduce the adverse impact of human activities on the biosphere is the putting into place of environmental governance models where participation and involvement are crucial cornerstones for managing our ecosystems (Millennium Assessment, 2005). The environmental movement is therefore increasingly incorporating these new forms of decision making, consistent with the

prospects that accompany this new worldview. In this context, Meadowcroft (2004) identifies several of the many benefits of participation for sustainability, such as reconciling and redefining individuals’ and groups’ interests, shaping and adjusting the future, facilitating a more complete disclosure of existing attitudes, juxtaposing different approaches and promoting the integration of knowledge and the adaptation of governance to cross-cutting contexts relevant to sustainable development. Moreover, Heras (2007) points out that participation provides opportunities for learning and practicing environmental responsibility, key elements in educating for sustainable development. Participatory processes also help communities identify their own indicators, which offer an opportunity for community empowerment and education that conventional development approaches have failed to provide (Fraser et al., 2006). The modern environmental management literature exemplified by such authors stresses the need for community involvement to identify indicators as a means of monitoring progress towards sustainable development and environmental management goals. There is a growing tendency to use citizen participation to provide local entities with more governability, thereby ameliorating socio-environmental conflicts and moving from ‘top-down’ to ‘bottom up’ approaches. In words of Disterheft et al. (2012): “A top-down approach may be less time consuming, more focused on the improvement of operational environmental performance and oriented towards compliance with regulations and administrative requirements, whereas a participatory approach applies a more systemic perspective that allows to develop new teaching and learning settings. While being more resource-intensive regarding time and staff, a participatory approach focuses on empowerment, combining the provision of technical and analytical skills with the creation of understanding and awareness in order to achieve not only a better environmental performance, but a better incorporation of sustainable development taken as a whole.” To help support all the above, the present authors refer to Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration (UN, 1992), where the true importance of access to information and citizen participation in environmental matters was stressed for the first time. Participation is seen as pre-requisite for achieving sustainable development, as officially acknowledged by Agenda 21 (UNCED, 1992). This was subsequently conveyed by the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (UNECE, 1998). To sum up, according to the shared vision of the United Nations Environment Program, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives and the European Commission, the path to sustainability has to incorporate two crucial cornerstones: the principles of environmental management and the principles of democratic decision-making. When these two cornerstones interact, there is a need for participation on the path to sustainability (Hewitt, 1995).

Table 1 Tiers of participation in accordance with increasing social involvement. Tiers

Description

1.

Information-training

2.

Consultation-deliberation

3. 4.

Decision Co-management

The community is informed about and trained on the issue, the alternatives and the proposals for action, but it is not allowed to modify anything. The stakeholders express their ideas and get involved in the analysis and/or suggestion of alternatives and solutions for the issue at hand. Decision-making takes place among the interested or concerned parties. Implementing the decisions that have been made becomes a shared responsibility.


n-Ferna
ndez, Y., et al., Enhancing environmental management in universities through participation: the Please cite this article in press as: Leo
rdoba, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.103 case of the University of Co


ndez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e10
n-Ferna Y. Leo

1.2. Universities, sustainability and participation in environmental management Universities aim to reduce their environmental impact to integrate sustainability systematically into higher education institutions (Disterheft et al., 2012). Aware of their social responsibility as transferors of knowledge and technology, they are working towards integrating environmental management into their spheres of action: teaching, research, campus operations, relationships with society, etc. (Lozano, 2012), although progress varies significantly from one institution to another at an international level (Leal and Manolas, 2012). Various charters and declarations have thus been announced since the 1990s, aiming to demonstrate higher education institutions’ environmental commitment and their relationship with sustainable development, for example, the Talloires Declaration, the Bergen Declaration, the Turin Declaration, the University Charter for Sustainable Development, etc. (Wright, 2002; Tilbury, 2012). Two recent global initiatives, both unveiled on the occasion of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (2012), are the Commitment to Sustainability Practices in Higher Education Institutions and the Treaty of Higher Education Rio þ 20 (2012). According to Karatzoglou (2013), universities have consistently been considered significant contributors to the pursuit of regional sustainability initiatives. In his in-depth review of the literature on the evolving roles and contributions of universities to Education for Sustainable Development, he concludes that universities continue to cope effectively and sustainably with the dynamic nature of sustainability by displacing barriers, changing teaching paradigms, developing social competencies, communication skills, and community relations, and deepening their involvement in local and regional initiatives. Certainly, promoting and strengthening the commitment of the university community base is seen as one of the key steps in a strategy of university performance for sustainability (Alba et al., 2012). In this regard, Niland (2012) points out that actions and strategies geared towards sustainability are inextricably linked to governance and legitimacy in decision-making. For a university, this entails involving students, teachers, academic managers and administrative staff, but also goes beyond the academic level, encompassing its external relationships with government, business and non-governmental organizations and others. According to Disterheft et al. (2015), participatory approaches can be seen as a benefit to the overall paradigm shift towards sustainable development and contribute towards the integration of the sustainability concept into the university culture. For these authors, the success of participatory approaches is interdependent with structural institutional conditions and the people involved, highlighting the importance of specific skills and participatory competencies. Their study points to a set of critical success factors that can help to integrate the dimensions of participation more inclusively into sustainability assessment, prominent among which are effective communication, a strategy with tangible goals that participants can identify with and the support of senior management. Concentrating specifically on the environmental dimension of sustainability, nowadays most universities perform management, teaching and research activities with an environment-based focus (Alba et al., 2012). Universities are systems that are involved in numerous and complex scientific (laboratory experiments, agricultural practice, workshop operations, etc.), social and educational activities (teaching, learning and research), energy supply and usage, transport and interaction, sports and recreation, etc. (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar, 2008). Within this framework, the environmental variable can be approached from two main

3

perspectives: management of the environmental impact caused by university activities and education of the campus community (Alba et al., 2012). With the aim of strengthening these processes, it is necessary to establish the appropriate channels that help the community to take an active part in them (Spanish Ministry of Environment, 1999; Heras, 2007). A large number of universities also have an explicit institutional environmental commitment, as well as bodies in charge of developing programs to reduce the environmental impact of their activities, thereby fulfilling such commitments. These environmental bodies (e.g. environmental support facilities, sustainability offices, technical units, etc.) also aim to put various activities and processes into practice to involve the campus community in environmental matters (Alba et al., 2012). However, although it is possible to find some universities with innovative initiatives, there is still an absence of participatory processes within environmental management strategies enabling a high level of involvement (in the sense stated above in Table 1). Most of the environmental initiatives carried out within this sphere belong to the lowest tier of participation, namely “information-training”. Such information and training is mainly made available through the institutions’ websites, as well as through such information tools as newsletters, information desks, courses, talks, lectures, conferences, exhibitions, etc. (Casado, 2011). There is also an increased use of tools related to the second tier of participation, “consultation-deliberation”, mainly by means of surveys and interviews, but there are few examples of environmental participation at the two highest tiers d”decision” and “comanagement”d involving forums and representative bodies capable of developing environmental plans and programs (cases that do exist include the Universities of Connecticut (US), Nottingham (UK), Cork (Ireland) and British Columbia (Canada)). As a tool for attaining the highest levels of involvement, certain universities have been using environmental management systems, such as EMAS and ISO 14001. In this context, Disterheft et al. (2012) conducted a valuable study investigating EMS development and implementation processes in universities around Europe. The research shows that universities with standard certified systems, like EMAS and ISO 14001, mainly exhibit higher degrees of participation that those with no systems in place. Similarly, Herremans and Allwright (2000) study, “Environmental Management Systems at North American Universities: what drives good performance?”, highlights the importance of attitude, awareness and commitment in order to achieve an effective EMS. Nevertheless, the potential for participation seems not to have been fully explored, as activities and methodologies on a higher participation levels have been less frequently applied (in general terms, the process is usually carried out by teams of experts, whereas ordinary participants merely agree or disagree to some extent and, where necessary, modify as they believe appropriate). In any case, there are also a number of universities that, although willing to improve their environmental management, cannot afford the costs of system implementation and certification or lack a sufficiently mature structure of responsibilities to oversee it. Having said this, it is worth speculating whether it is possible to introduce models of high-level participation, applicable to any university, capable of ensuring an effective environmental management plan. The proposal put forward in the present study endeavors to set out a clear structure covering all tiers of participation d access to comprehensive and relevant information, consultation and discussion, and finally co-management d that can, at the same time, be used as a guide to recreate such an initiative. It is the authors’ belief that it is possible to ensure a better quality process of social involvementd measured in terms of real


n-Ferna
ndez, Y., et al., Enhancing environmental management in universities through participation: the Please cite this article in press as: Leo
rdoba, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.103 case of the University of Co


ndez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e10
n-Ferna Y. Leo

4

and efficient participation d provided that the tiers of participation are viewed as progressive ladder, whereby higher levels can only be attained once the preceding levels have been secured. The overall intention of this paper is to set out a comprehensive and complex participation process while ensuring the inclusion of all tiers of participation, thereby enabling the campus community to be involved in the improvement of its institution’s environmental management. Taking this scheme as a starting point, the next step is formulating an intervention instrument d the Proposal for a Participatory Process d that enables such environmental management to be enacted on the solid basis of the highest tiers of participation, and to raise awareness and improve education within the campus community. One of the main challenges of this proposal will not be overlooked, namely the need to ensure that all members of the campus community d the governing body, teaching staff, research staff, administrative and service staff, students, etc.d, demonstrate the necessary degree of commitment; this is similar to the point Sintomer and Ganuza (2011) make when they refer to the creation of new spaces compatible with existing structures. 2. Material and methods A process methodology utilizing a participatory approach specifically drafted for universities is proposed, the pilot program for
rdoba (UCO), Spain, which was carried out at the University of Co from 2012 to 2014. 2.1. Context In recent years, UCO has started progressively to include the environmental variable in its policies, structures and lines of action, thereby fulfilling its educational and social responsibilities, as well as its commitment to reducing the environmental impact of its activities (Gomera, 2011). Notwithstanding such commitment and increasingly active interventions, a decision-making system with competencies on environmental issues above the governing body was still lacking, as were participatory processes and mechanisms contributing to enhancing the environment in a coordinated way, focused on achieving a common objective and capable of getting the entire campus community involved. In short, the processes initiated at UCO suffered from the same shortfalls mentioned above in terms of involvement and participation. That is, there was a need to develop a tool for participation that included the resources required to guarantee the highest levels of involvement and contribute to the improvement of environmental management. Consequently, a process was designed whereby the very same participants, after being updated on the current environmental situation, became the ones who proposed how to move forward, which goals to achieve, which measures to take, etc. The participation structure utilized by some well-established tools was taken as the starting point of the proposal, such as Agenda 21, participatory budgets, comprehensive action plans, etc. The intention was to use such foundations to ensure a greater involvement of the participants throughout the whole process, which, as has already been noted, was one of the aspects most in need of improvement.

were the team of the Sustainability Office (SO), comprising four graduates in Environmental Sciences with doctorates in Environmental Education, who all had training and professional experience in participatory processes. The SO’s main goal is to help raise environmental awareness among the campus community by promoting networks and participatory processes that facilitate the inclusion of the environmental variable in a way that cuts across the entire organization. 2.3. Participants The total number of participants during the participatory stage was 45 (21 men and 24 women), drawn from the various university divisions: managers and the governing board (3), academics (18), administrative and support staff (14), students (8) and trade union representatives (2). The average length of service at the University was 10.5 years. Participants volunteered for each session, and described their main motivations as: awareness of and interest in environmental issues, being involved in, working in or researching an environmental field, and acting as a representative of one or other group of stakeholders. As will be explained below, this participatory stage took place over four sessions with a duration of two hours each. The average number of participants per session was 20: 14% of participants attended all sessions, 11% attended three, 11% two and 64% attended only one session. In session two, there were 45% new attendants with respect to the first session; 42% in session three and 30% in the last session. 2.4. Stages It is possible to delineate three stages in the proposal being put forward here: pre-analysis, a participatory stage and assessment. 2.4.1. Pre-analysis stage This is the preliminary stage in the pivotal participation process, conceived as a means of providing a contextualized scenario for the next phase. To this end, information on the evolution of the institutional environmental situation over past years and the current situation was gathered, so that the participants could express their opinions and suggest new ideas based on factual knowledge (Table 2). Before collecting the technical data, several items were defined: the environmental aspects to be considered, reliable and relevant sources of information for every environmental aspect and the basic structure of the final analysis-report. 2.4.2. Participatory stage Once the preceding step had been completed, a participatory stage was devised, consisting of four action phases in an effort to ensure progression in the levels of involvement: 1) contextualizing and first thoughts; 2) developing a shared vision; 3) defining and prioritizing goals and 4) defining the Participatory Environmental Action Plan (hereinafter, PEAP). The development of this stage is set out in Table 3. In addition to the participatory methodology developed, there were some crucial technical aspects to take into account throughout the entire stage:

2.2. Facilitators Elcome and Baines (1999) define a facilitator as an independent third party, without decision-making authority, who guides the way a group identifies and solves problems and makes decisions to increase the group’s effectiveness. The facilitators of this process

 Logistics: determining a time and a place for the sessions, preparing the rooms, taking care of the participants, etc. All these were seen as important aspects that needed to be discussed with the potential participants beforehand in order to facilitate and encourage their attendance.


n-Ferna
ndez, Y., et al., Enhancing environmental management in universities through participation: the Please cite this article in press as: Leo
rdoba, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.103 case of the University of Co


ndez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e10
n-Ferna Y. Leo

5

Table 2 Pre-analysis stage. Goal

Techniques and tools

Results obtained

To ascertain the way the main environmental aspects of the university have evolved over the last 20 years.

Technical data collection Semi-structured interviews with key informants in the campus community

Compilation document with the status of the university’s environmental evolution over a 20-year period, up to the present day.

Table 3 Participatory stage. Phases

Goal

Methodology

Results obtained

Phase 1. Contextualizing and First Thoughts Phase 2. Developing a Shared Vision

To make the participants reflect on the university’s course of action in terms of sustainability, and its future evolution. To make the participants turn their vision of the future into a clearer message based on their own thoughts, ready to be delivered to the entire campus community. To achieve short-term feasible objectives on the basis of the Participatory Environmental Manifesto, which serves as a starting point for making the ongoing progress towards the goals and aims expressed in the document. To lay out and reach a consensus on a PEAP that will contribute to improving the university environment with the collaboration of the entire campus community.

Vision of the Future workshop (1 session) Focus groups (at least 3 sessions)

Document: Vision of the Future

Phase 3. Defining and Prioritizing Goals

Phase 4. Defining the Participatory Environmental Action Plan (hereinafter, the PEAP)

 Conveying the process and the results: developing a system becomes vital to sharing the whole process and its outcome efficiently. It is therefore absolutely essential to use a variety of tools, such as mailing lists, social networks, and internal information channels within the institution, such as newsletters, bulletins and news feeds.  Defining coherent dynamics for the sessions: with the aim of optimizing the timings, the progress of each session and the participants’ involvement in the process as a whole, an overall coherent structure was established, with a “style” that was clearly recognizable to the participants. Subsequent sessions were streamlined as a consequence, since this uniform and constant style was adopted throughout the whole process. In this particular case, the following structure was devised:  The facilitators and the participants are introduced.  The facilitators address the meeting in order to put the process and its evolution into context, set the goals and clarify the session dynamics. By way of supporting material, a presentation was drafted which was subsequently expanded over the course of the following phases, always retaining part of the previous information as a reminder or background for the participants.  Focus groups are formed: groups with three or four members were initially set up to subsequently debate, discuss and reach a consensus on the various suggestions made. They were designed to be consistent with Krueger and Casey (2009) approach, in terms of carefully planning a series of discussions geared towards obtaining perceptions on a defined area of interest in a permissive, non-threatening environment.  Assessment questionnaires are filled in and general impressions are collectively shared.

2.4.3. Assessment stage A continuous and summative evaluation was carried out throughout the whole process. An anonymous questionnaire was designed, consisting of a series of closed questions with a Likerttype rating scale (1: strongly disagree; 5: strongly agree) interspersed with several open questions. The categories that were used are shown in Table 6 (see “Results” section). Furthermore, the facilitators played an overt participant-

Document: Participatory Environmental Manifesto List of priority goals

The PEAP

observer role as a data collection method (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994), and they noted down some non-verbal expressions and comments made by the participants. All this facilitated adaptation and adjustment of the results obtained in each session. 3. Results The main results of the participatory process implemented at
rdoba are set out below: the University of Co 3.1. During the pre-analysis stage The outcome was a user-friendly document with specific information about the most important aspects of environmental management d water, energy, waste, emissions, transport, purchases, biodiversity, policies, education, etc. d and their evolution over 20 years by comparing the situation between 1991 and 2011. To depict the situation in 1991, several people holding relevant posts at that time were interviewed. To depict the situation in 2011, certain services that were non-existent in 1991 provided valuable information (see example in Table 4). 3.2. During the participatory stage 3.2.1. Phase 1. Contextualizing and first thoughts Four groups of three to four people, each belonging to a different stakeholder group, were formed. The leader of each group was chosen internally. Each group was assigned two thematic areas and asked to imagine how they would ideally like
rdoba to be in the future (in the year 2031) the University of Co based on the information available about every environmental aspect in 1991 and 2011. The facilitators collated responses on flipchart paper, and these were discussed by the whole group until a final consensus vision in each area emerged. As a result of this phase, the “Vision of the Future” document was created. As an example, the environmental strategy and policy is set out in Table 4. 3.2.2. Phase 2. Developing a shared vision The groups were formed using the same criteria as in the previous phase. Each was assigned two areas, and asked to create a


n-Ferna
ndez, Y., et al., Enhancing environmental management in universities through participation: the Please cite this article in press as: Leo
rdoba, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.103 case of the University of Co


ndez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e10
n-Ferna Y. Leo

6

Table 4 Sample from the “Vision of the Future” and Manifesto document in relation to the environmental strategy and policy. Phase

Year

Aspect: environmental strategy and policy

Pre-Analysis

1991

There is no environmental policy. The environment concept is not integrated into institutional management. There is, however, some level of advice and control on the radiological protection aspect, although it is concerned with occupational health rather than the environment. Strategic Plan 2006e2015. Vision of UCO (how far the university wants to go): Environmentally-friendly institution … Environmental Policy at UCO -2006. Institutional commitment. Environmental Support Facility dESF (since 2001). UCO becomes an example to be emulated by the rest of society and promotes various sustainability projects. There is a specific and well-established functional and organizational body with enormous capacity to manage and regulate. The environmental criteria are integrated into university life. Commitment at the higher levels in the UCO establishment becomes a reality thanks to the allocation of human and economic resources. The environment concept cuts across all levels and degrees.

2011

Phase 1

2031

Phase 2

Manifesto

“We want to achieve a university model that constitutes an environmental role model for society, with an organizational and functional structure that integrates the environmental sustainability criteria into all its policies and strategies, both in governing bodies and at all levels and degrees.”

phrase to turn their vision of the future into a clearer message based on their own thoughts. Facilitators collated responses on flipchart paper, and these were discussed by the whole group until an agreed text emerged. A Participatory Environmental Manifesto was drawn up (see Table 4 for a sample paragraph) as a turning point and call for action aimed at creating the prospect of a more sustainable university. It was conveyed to the entire campus community through the main social networks, and a campaign to collect signatures was started via an online petition platform. 3.2.3. Phase 3. Defining and prioritizing goals The groups were formed using the same criteria as in the previous phase. They were asked to think of three short-term feasible objectives to start working on, using the Participatory Environmental Manifesto as their basis. The proposals were shared on a flipchart, grouped by related areas, and then participants voted for the five proposals they considered most apposite. The outcome was an agreed list of the following five goals to start working on, ranked by priority and feasibility according to the participants’ judgement:

3.3. During the assessment stage The global average rating resulting from the questionnaire was 4.59 (SD ¼ 0.62). The results classified by category are shown in Table 6. As far as the data collected through participant observation is concerned, it is possible to make the following observations:  The working atmosphere in the sessions was relaxed and friendly for the participants.  The number of participants was more or less constant and representative and most of them attended more than one meeting.  Participants showed active involvement in the focus groups and completed the given tasks.  On numerous occasions participants highlighted the importance of continuity in the process and expressed their wish to continue taking part in it.

3.4. Current status of the process 1. To make all the departments and services at the University of Cordoba adopt some minimally-acceptable environmental measures. 2. To set up an Environmental Information System targeted at the campus community. 3. To standardize the level of governing bodies’ involvement in the environmental improvement process at the University of Cordoba. 4. To encourage positive and active participation in order to involve students in environmental actions. 5. To promote virtual meetings through the use of the new information and communication technologies to substitute face-toface meetings and on-campus events.

3.2.4. Phase 4. Defining the participatory environmental action plan (the PEAP) The groups were formed using the same criteria as in the previous phase. Each group was given five templates (one for each goal set in the previous phase), and was asked to complete a series of variables: measures to be taken, proposed indicators and actors involved. The proposals were shared and debated until a consensus on the main content of the draft PEAP emerged. An example is shown in Table 5.

The PEAP has been approved by the Governing Board of the University, UCO’s highest-ranking collegiate body and the only one with regulatory powers. It thereby made a commitment to support this process and its continuity. Furthermore, the facilitators are mapping the next participatory phase with the aim of assessing and tracking the PEAP, as well as setting new goals and yardsticks, which will be covered by future studies. 4. Discussion At these times of crisis and global change (Crutzen and Stoermer, 2000), organizations are not immune to the surrounding social and environmental context, or the economic adjustments and restructurings that are underway. This, however, should be perceived not as a handicap but as a spur to continue promoting the sustainability of their actions. Strengthening citizens’ environmental awareness is essential (Gomera et al., 2012), and participation becomes a crucial governance tool within the framework of this global change, placing sustainability at the heart of the necessary transformations. Although according to Newig and Fritsch (2009) policy implementation research indicates that complex multi-level governance systems hamper the effectiveness


n-Ferna
ndez, Y., et al., Enhancing environmental management in universities through participation: the Please cite this article in press as: Leo
rdoba, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.103 case of the University of Co


ndez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e10
n-Ferna Y. Leo

7

Table 5 Definition of the first goal included in the PEAP. FIRST GOAL TO MAKE ALL THE DEPARTMENTS AND SERVICES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CORDOBA ADOPT SOME MINIMALLY-ACCEPTABLE ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES MEASURE(S) What can we do in this academic year in order to achieve our goal?  Planning and adopting a procedure to analyze all the departments and services from an environmental perspective by using a system to collect data and detect potential environmental impacts.  Drafting a protocol to set minimum goals in terms of the environment according to the nature of each department or service. PROPOSED INDICATOR(S) How can we quantify compliance with the measure?  Number of departments and services analyzed.  Protocol drafting. ACTORS INVOLVED Promoter(s) Target audience Who is responsible for implementing the measure? At whom or what is this measure targeted?  Environmental Support Facility, Sustainability Office and Technical Unit.  Every member of staff in all the departments and services.  Environmental Support Facility, Sustainability Office and Technical Unit.  The entire campus community.

of governance, it is emphasized that such approaches harness diversity as a stabilizing element, being better able to adapt to external change and uncertainty by virtue of their flexibility. Certainly, participatory processes may seem very risky, but there is growing evidence that, if well designed, such perceived risks may be well worth taking (Reed, 2008). In universities, whose special nature makes them play a pivotal role in society (Lozano, 2012), bringing about cultural shifts, changes in organizational structures and processes and technological aids to help satisfy the needs of key stakeholders has an added degree of complexity given the typical management structures, disciplinary divides and funding structures (Ferrer-Balas et al., 2009). Even though there is a consensus on the assertion that participation and involvement are indispensable to enhancing environmental management, it is extremely complex and difficult to implement effective participatory processes that address environmental issues. This is why there are so few examples of

participatory processes within environmental management strategies featuring high levels of involvement that are worth mentioning (Casado, 2011). In the cases that do exist, the processes emphasize the need to integrate planning, decision-making and evaluation into a single pathway leading towards more sustainable universities (Moore, 2005). The formalization of ‘bottom-up’ community involvement in environmental management projects has been driven by the past failings of ‘top-down’ approaches (Fraser et al., 2006). The work presented here may be an example of this new form of participation d what Pretty (1995) and White (1996) respectively call it, interactive and representative participation d in which people participate in joint analysis, development of action plans and formation or strengthening of local institutions, having a voice in determining their own development, influencing the shape the project takes and its management, while the facilitators seek to ensure the sustainability of the process (Pretty, 1995; White, 1996).

Table 6 Categories and scoring in the assessment questionnaire. Categories

Variables

Type of response

Score

Goals and content

Set goals have been achieved Comments have been structured Session length has been appropriate Methodology has been appropriate Methodology has promoted active involvement of the participants Conditions (room, furnishings, material, etc.) have been appropriate The facilitators know the subject being addressed The facilitators give clear explanations The facilitators merit a positive general rating The topics covered have been interesting The information received is useful for my professional development The session dynamics have promoted new ideas and knowledge The session merits a positive general rating

Closed (Likert scale)

4.48 (SD ¼ 0.67)

Closed (Likert scale)

4.64 (SD ¼ 0.57)

Closed (Likert scale)

4.77 (SD ¼ 0.48)

Closed (Likert scale)

4.5 (SD ¼ 0.69)

Please indicate any aspect which has been of particular relevance Please indicate any aspect for improvement How would you like the Participatory Environmental Analysis to be continued? Further comments

Open

Methodology and infrastructures

Rating of the facilitators

Usefulness and rating

Some examples Comments and suggestions

“Different university divisions working at the same level” “Greater dissemination and incentive for participation” “Real and effective involvement of Governing Board” “Thanks for the work and time for preparing each session!”


n-Ferna
ndez, Y., et al., Enhancing environmental management in universities through participation: the Please cite this article in press as: Leo
rdoba, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.103 case of the University of Co

8


ndez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e10
n-Ferna Y. Leo

Ideally, new consistent and compatible spaces should be created alongside the existing structures and the new governance principles, and the practices of all the actors involved should be changed (Sintomer and Ganuza, 2011). Taking the above into account, this participation process does not require any important structural changes apart from the presence of a body with catalyzing capability to lend impetus to the process and promote the necessary commitment among the campus community as a whole (in other words, a community consisting of the governing body, teaching staff, research staff, administrative and service staff, students, etc.). The participatory process implemented at the University of
rdoba complies with the requirements proposed by various auCo thors who advocate that citizen participation should go a step further than simply being a mere element in the decision-making
, 2012). process within formal participation mechanisms (Andre Likewise, society should get involved in the decisions made by governments, public institutions and organizations (Thibault et al.,
, 2012) to make a qualitative leap forward. 2000, as cited in Andre
rdoba shows that this The pilot program at the University of Co type of process can deliver positive results despite being carried out with minimal investment, so that it may be implemented whether the organization works under a standardized Environmental Management System or not. Throughout the subsequent stages, designed and catalyzed by the facilitators, the proposed methodology enables the organization members to get involved in the analysis of the situation, in the search for solutions and in the implementation of the decisions taken with a high level of commitment and participation. Overall, and after analyzing the fulfillment of objectives, the dynamics and outcomes of each session, the assessments and the data compiled from the participant observation, it may be concluded that this project fulfils the critical aspects Disterheft et al. (2015) identified for effective participation: a) a structure, supported by senior management, which provides enough time and availability for a participatory approach; b) a process directed towards a communication strategy aimed at finding out what people care about and giving feedback, and c) a team of facilitators with specific dispositions, skills and participatory competencies. An edited classification of the tiers of participation from a variety sources served as a starting point for the proposed methodology (Arnstein, 1969; Elcome and Baines, 1999; Pretty, 1995; White, 1996; The Community Engagement Network Resource and Regional Services Division, 2005, International Association for Public Participation, 2007), in such a way as to ensure a solid intervention plan consistent with governance principles. The “information-training” tier was thus initially covered by the document prepared during the pre-analysis stage, although it was followed up in subsequent phases, since all the data collected was made available to the participants. The “consultation-deliberation” and “decision” tiers are dealt with in all phases. The applied methodology based on focus groups encourages the participants to contribute their perceptions, concerns and aspirations for the drawing up of documents. In the
rdoba, the following docuparticular case of the University of Co ments were created: The Vision of the Future in 20 Years’ Time, a Participatory Environmental Manifesto and a Participatory Environmental Action Plan. The “co-management” tier was dealt with in this pilot program after the Governing Board of the University approved the implementation of the PEAP, since this is the way in which proposals contributed through participation come together in university management bodies with regulatory powers. It may be also the seed for establishing a stable decision-making body, which has hitherto been nonexistent at the University.

This process thus encourages members of the campus community to contribute to improving the University environment, having produced their own management tools as well as an Environmental Vision of the Future at UCO, a Participatory Environmental Manifesto, and a Participatory Environmental Action Plan that is currently under development (after its approval by the Governing Board). This reflects the fact that, as Fraser et al. (2006) point out, it is possible to use community input to select and choose relevant indicators to monitor and guide planning towards sustainable development. All the above is in accordance with the necessary addition of environmental governance models that should help to reduce the negative impact that human activities have on the biosphere, and in which participation is a cornerstone (Millennium Assessment, 2005). Having said this, only approximately 20 participants attended each session. This figure, even though it underpinned high quality and fluent group dynamics, may be considered rather low in relation to the total university population. As the process was developed by holding face-to-face sessions, the difficulty in securing wide participation from all the institutional bodies became the main limitation encountered in the present proposal. Certainly, while opening spaces for dialogue through invitation is necessary, it is by no means sufficient to ensure effective participation (Cornwall, 2008). However, as Farrington and Bebbington (1993) suggest, in this regard it makes more sense to think in terms of optimum participation: getting the balance between depth and inclusion right for the purpose at hand. At all events, in order to implement the process on a greater scale and thereby achieve the goals proposed, it will be necessary to strengthen and extend this type of initiative. Likewise, it will require on the one hand the continuous support of government structures and public institutions capable of addressing such complexity and, on the other hand, an active community with a high level of commitment (Ryan, 2001). Furthermore, there is a need to bring extra tools and resources to bear enabling more and more people to participate actively. Nonetheless, there is not the least doubt that this pilot program has served as a start-up or acceleration mechanism, enabling the process to incorporate new participants from the campus community. Participatory processes within environmental management strategies that allow a high level of involvement entail a qualitative leap forward in the governance of any organization consistent with the principles of sustainability. Universities, aware of their social responsibility as creators and bearers of knowledge and technology, and assuming their leading role as educators, should lead these practices and come up with new procedures and tools that drive a new governance model adapted to new realities. 5. Conclusions This research is located in the current that acknowledges the indispensability of participatory methods of governance for improving higher education institutions’ sustainability. In keeping with this, the study shows an approach that emphasizes the importance of participatory methodologies in the search for lasting changes geared towards more sustainable practices in universities. The proposed methodology for a participatory process has some inherent features that make it a valuable and useful tool for promoting participation among the members of universities with the aim of improving the institutions’ environmental management, as an example of effective integration of the sustainability dimension into higher education. Some remarkable aspects that highlight the relevance of the process are evident: The target group has a leading role throughout the entire


n-Ferna
ndez, Y., et al., Enhancing environmental management in universities through participation: the Please cite this article in press as: Leo
rdoba, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.103 case of the University of Co


ndez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e10
n-Ferna Y. Leo

process. From the initial pre-analysis stage to the preparation of the Participatory Environmental Action Plan, the participants are the ones who ponder, discuss and reach a consensus on how to proceed in order to improve the environmental performance of their institution. All four tiers of participation are therefore engaged in the process, namely: “information-training”, “consultation-deliberation”, “decision” and “co-management” (as set out in Table 1). The results achieved are tangible and feasible. Although the final outcome of the proposed process will vary depending on the organization in which it is developed, in the particular case of the Participatory Environmental Action Plan at UCO, a set of goals and measures has been established based on the level of awareness and commitment adopted by the actors involved, both the promoters and the target audience. The process is easy to develop and implement. Not only from a logistical point of view (planning and development of sessions, space requirements, ways of conveying information from the facilitators to the participants, etc.) but also from a financial perspective (cost of human resources and materials) it is relatively simple to put this process into practice without any need for initial economic investment, since it can be carried out by the existing staff already working for the institution. However, as mentioned, this staff has to have the necessary competencies as facilitators to carry out this kind of processes. Besides, as internal members, it is necessary to consider how the mixed roles they might be in could jeopardize their independence as theoretical third parties with no decision-making powers. These limitations, together with the difficulty of the potential participants to find enough time, recognition or motivation to attend the sessions, entail barriers that need to be taken into account when planning the process. This process can be extrapolated to other scenarios, provided that the different stages and phases are adapted to the new context. Thus, it has the potential to be a useful approach for any organization wishing to move towards sustainability by improving its environmental performance with the involvement of all its community members. Apart from the results obtained, the process of self-assessment is an indicator suggesting that the goals set forth have been achieved, since most of the participants gave positive ratings to the issues addressed in the various sessions. Although the process achieved high-quality representation (in terms of a balanced distribution of participants from of all university divisions and stakeholders, being many of them formally elected to represent them), participation in terms of quantity was a limit to the study. It is believed that both the outcome of the pilot program and the subsequent approval of the Participatory Environmental Action Plan by the University’s Governing Board are the catalysts needed to continue implementing this process with the aim of increasing the number of participants until such time as it reaches a significant level.

Acknowledgements This project team wishes to express its gratitude for the collaboration of the Department of the Environment of the Regional Government of Andalusia in order to develop the ’Andalucía Ecocampus’ project with the Sustainability Office of the University of
rdoba. Co The authors would also like to thank the participants in this process for their involvement in making the University of Cordoba a more sustainable institution. And of course the Governing Board of the University of Cordoba for believing in the Participatory Environmental Action Plan and the entire campus community in general for accepting the initiative so positively.

9

References Alba, D., et al., 2012. Estrategias de sostenibilidad y responsabilidad social en las ~ olas: una herramienta para su evaluacio
n. Profr. Rev. Curric. universidades espan Form. Profr. 16, 59e75. Alshuwaikhat, H.M., Abubakar, I., 2008. An integrated approach to achieving campus sustainability: assessment of the current campus environmental management practices. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1777e1785.
, P., with the collaboration of P. Martin and G. Lanmafankpotin, 2012. Citizen Andre ^ te
, L., Savard, J.-F. (Eds.), Encyclopedic Dictionary of Public participation. In: Co Administration. http://www.dictionnaire.enap.ca (Accessed 25 May 2016). Arnstein, S., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 35, 216e224.
n humana de produccio
n primaria neta (AHPPN) Carpintero, O., 2007. La apropiacio
n al metabolismo econo
mico. Ecosistemas 16 (3), 25e35. como aproximacio
lisis de los procesos de participacio
n ambiental en la UniCasado, M., 2011. Ana
noma de Madrid. In: Cano, L., Junyent, M., Benayas, J., Meira, P.A. versidad Auto
n Ambiental, (Eds.), Nuevas Investigaciones Iberoamericanas en Educacio pp. 167e190. http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/ceneam/recursos/documentos/ Nuevas_Investigaciones_Iberoamericanas_tcm7-231911.pdf (Accessed 25 May 2016).
n. In: Cerrillo, A. (Ed.), La goberCerrillo, A., 2005. La gobernanza hoy: introduccio
n Púbnanza hoy: 10 textos de referencia. Instituto Nacional de Administracio lica, pp. 11e36. Cornwall, A., 2008. Unpacking ‘Participation’: models, meanings and practices. Community Dev. J. 43 (3), 269e283. Crutzen, P.J., Stoermer, E.F., 2000. The “Anthropocene”. Glob. Change Newsl. 41, 12e13. Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., 1994. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, Inc. Disterheft, A., Caeiro, S.S., Ramos, M.R., Azeiteiro, U.M., 2012. Environmental management systems (EMS) implementation processes and practices in European higher education institutions - top-down versus participatory approaches. J. Clean. Prod. 31, 80e90. Disterheft, A., Caeiro, S., Azeiteiro, U.M., Leal, W., 2015. Sustainable universities - a study of critical success factors for participatory approaches. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 11e21. Duarte, C.M., et al., 2006. Cambio Global. Impacto de la Actividad Humana sobre el Sistema Tierra. Colecc. Divulg. 3, 167. Elcome, D., Baines, J., 1999. Steps to Success. Working with Residents and Neighbours to Develop and Implement Plans for Protected Areas. Commision on Education and Communication; European Committee for EE, Gland, Suiza. European Commission, 2001. The White Paper on European Governance. Farrington, J., Bebbington, A., Wellard, K., Lewis, D.J., 1993. Reluctant Partners: Nongovernmental Organisations, the State and Sustainable Agricultural Development. Routledge, London. Ferrer-Balas, D., Buckland, H., de Mingo, M., 2009. Explorations on the University’s role in society for sustainable development through a systems transition approach. Case-study of the Technical University of Catalonia (UPC). J. Clean. Prod. 17, 1075e1085. Fraser, E., Dougill, A., Mabee, W., Reed, M., McAlpine, P., 2006. Bottom up and top down: analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. J. Environ. Manag. 78, 114e127. Gomera, A., 2011. Analysis, Measurement and Distribution of the Environmental Awareness: an Environmental Education Tool (Doctoral Thesis). University of
rdoba, Spain. Co Gomera, A., Villamandos, F., Vaquero, M., 2012. Measurement and categorization of environmental awareness in university students: the contribution of the University to strengthening it. Profr. Rev. Curríc. Form. Profr. 16 (2), 194e238.
n como proceso de aprendizaje y conocimiento social. Heras, F., 2007. La participacio Educ. Soc. Rev. Inf. Socioeduc. 35, 28e42. Herremans, I., Allwright, D.E., 2000. Environmental management systems at North American universities: what drives good performance? Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 1 (2), 168e181. Hewitt, N., 1995. European Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide. How to Engage in Long-term Environmental Action Planning towards Sustainability. ICLEI. International Association for Public Participation, 2007. Spectrum of Public Participation. http://www.iap2.org/associations/4748/files/IAP2%20Spectrum_ vertical.pdf (Accessed 25 May 2016). Karatzoglou, B., 2013. An in-depth literature review of the evolving roles and contributions of universities to Education for Sustainable Development. J. Clean. Prod. 49, 44e53. Krueger, R.A., Casey, M., 2009. Focus Groups: a Practical Guide for Applied Research, fourth ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Leal, W., Manolas, E., 2012. Making Sustainable Development in Higher Education a Reality: Lessons Learned from Leading Institutions. In: GUNI Higher Education in the World 4: Higher Education’s Commitment to Sustainability from Understanding to Action. Pallgrave Macmillan, pp. 28e31.
tica medio ambiental: principios y valores para una ciudaLecaros, J.A., 2013. La e danía responsable en la sociedad global. Actabioethica 19 (2), 177e188. €wy, M., 2006. What is ecosocialism? Capital. Nat. Social. 16 (2), 15e24. Lo Lozano, R., 2012. Towards a More Effective and Efficient SD Incorporation into the Universities. In: GUNI Higher Education in the World 4: Higher Education’s Commitment to Sustainability from Understanding to Action. Pallgrave


n-Ferna
ndez, Y., et al., Enhancing environmental management in universities through participation: the Please cite this article in press as: Leo
rdoba, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.103 case of the University of Co

10


ndez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e10
n-Ferna Y. Leo

Macmillan, pp. 31e35. Meadowcroft, J., 2004. Participation and sustainable development: modes of citizen, community, and organizational involvement. In: Lafferty, W. (Ed.), Governance for Sustainable Development: the Challenge of Adapting Form to Function, pp. 162e190. Millennium Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being. Synthesis. Island Press, Washington. Moore, J., 2005. Seven recommendations for creating sustainability education at the university level: a guide for change agents. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 6 (4), 326e329. Murray, P., 2011. The Sustainable Self: a Personal Approach to Sustainability Education. Earthscan, Oxford (UK). Newig, J., Fritsch, O., 2009. Environmental governance: participatory, multi-leveleand effective? Environ. Policy Gov. 19 (3), 197e214. Niland, J., 2012. Globalization, universities and sustainability effects. In: Weber, L.E., Duderstadt, J.J. (Eds.), Global Sustainability and the Responsibilities of Universities. Economica Ltd., Paris, pp. 247e263. Pretty, J., 1995. Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Dev. 23 (8), 1247e1263. Reed, M.S., 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol. Conserv. 141 (10), 2417e2431. Ryan, D., 2001. Democracia participativa, ambiente y sustentabilidad. In: Ecología de
n: escenarios y actores para la participacio
n en asuntos ambila Informacio entales. FLACSO/Chile - Nueva Sociedad.


n de los Sintomer, Y., Ganuza, E., 2011. Democracia participativa y modernizacio
n sobre las experiencias de Presupuesto ParticServicios Públicos: Investigacio ipativo en Europa. Transnational Institute. Spanish Ministry of Environment, 1999. The White Book on Environmental Education (Madrid). The Community Engagement Network Resource and Regional Services Division, 2005. Effective Engagement: Building Relationships with Community and Other Stakeholders. Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. Tilbury, D., 2012. Higher Education for Sustainability: a Global Overview of Commitment and Progress. In: GUNI Higher Education in the World 4: Higher Education’s Commitment to Sustainability from Understanding to Action. Pallgrave Macmillan, pp. 18e28. UN, 1992. Rio declaration. In: United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. UNCED, 1992. Agenda 21, Ch. 36: Promoting Education and Public Awareness and Training. United Nations, Rio de Janeiro. UNECE, 1998. Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decisionmaking and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. White, Sarah C., 1996. Depoliticising development: the uses and abuses of participation. Dev. Pract. 6 (1), 6e15. Wright, T., 2002. Definitions and frameworks for environmental sustainability in higher education. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 3, 203e220. WWF, 2014. Living Planet Report.


n-Ferna
ndez, Y., et al., Enhancing environmental management in universities through participation: the Please cite this article in press as: Leo
rdoba, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.103 case of the University of Co