Green campus universities: case studies on problems and prospects

Junainah Mahdee; Normazalila Abu Bakar; Vincent Oh Kim Seng

doi:10.12688/f1000research.73381.1

Home Browse Green campus universities: case studies on problems and prospects

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Green campus universities: case studies on problems and prospects

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]

Junainah Mahdee ¹, Normazalila Abu Bakar², Vincent Oh Kim Seng¹

PUBLISHED 20 Oct 2022

Author details Author details

¹ Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Persiaran Multimedia, Cyberjaya, Selangor, 63100, Malaysia
² MM Smart Earth Resources, Taman Puncak Jalil, Seri Kembangan, Selangor, 43300, Malaysia

Junainah Mahdee
Roles: Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Normazalila Abu Bakar
Roles: Conceptualization

Vincent Oh Kim Seng
Roles: Visualization

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Research Synergy Foundation gateway.

Abstract

Background: Sustainability is a crucial social issue. In recent years, many scholars have suggested that the issue should be tackled at universities because they act as leaders in education, research and innovation. Universities are in a good position to foster progressive action towards global issues within current and future generations. As universities seek to create sustainable campuses, the green campus approach can create opportunities for a cultural paradigm shift, where universities become global leaders in sustainability. There have been various studies related to sustainability issues that include how universities can seek to create sustainable campuses. However, there are some gaps in the research on the “green campus approach” as a way to create sustainable campuses. This paper intends to examine the problems and prospects of creating a green campus university.
Methods: Data collection was conducted using the qualitative method. Structured interviews and observations were conducted via visits to the selected case-study universities as well as panels and discussions with experts in respective ministry and government agencies. All collected data were transcribed before being analysed using the NVivo software and thematic coding.
Results: Most universities in Malaysia have plans toward sustainability and the green campus approach. The awareness of going green and creating sustainability on university campuses has gradually increased. A strategic framework is needed as a guideline for creating green campuses in the higher education setting of Malaysia.
Conclusions: This study offers new insights into creating green campus universities in Malaysia as a means to create sustainability in higher education settings. The study involved three of the oldest universities in Malaysia. Future research may expand into other universities in Malaysia or internationally.

Keywords

Green campus, Sustainability, University, Problems, Prospects

Corresponding author: Junainah Mahdee

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: This research was supported in part by the Multimedia University Internal Grant under Grant No. MMUI/180215.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2022 Mahdee J et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Mahdee J, Abu Bakar N and Oh Kim Seng V. Green campus universities: case studies on problems and prospects [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2022, 11:1200 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73381.1) First published: 20 Oct 2022, 11:1200 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73381.1) Latest published: 20 Oct 2022, 11:1200 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73381.1)

Introduction

Sustainability is an ultimate goal to many individuals, organisations, industries, and nations in creating a better world. Sustainability can be created in various ways. In most cases, it is driven towards the selected goals of energy saving and reducing emissions. For instance, in the higher education setting, there are many elements that support sustainability such as education, research, infrastructure, technology, finance and campus management system. These elements can be optimised to create a lasting impact.

Many scholars have suggested that the sustainability issue must be challenged at universities. Universities act as leaders in education, research and innovation. This places universities in a good position to foster progressive action and address any global issues within current and future generations. Nevertheless, many scholars have also argued that “becoming and being a sustainable university is not a singular ‘before and after’ event, rather it is a journey or process of transformation that takes place over time”.¹

A sustainable campus can be defined as: “[…] a higher education institution […] that addresses, involves and promotes […] the minimisation of environmental, economics, societal and health negative effects in the use of their resources [in] its main functions of teaching, research, outreach and partnership, and stewardship […] to [help] society make the transition to sustainable lifestyles.”² In a similar vein, a green campus is a campus that combines education and environmental-friendly practices, with the aim to promote eco-friendly practices and sustainability.³

As universities seek to create sustainable campuses, the green campus approach appears to be an ideal one.

Various studies have been done related to the sustainability issues including how universities seek to create sustainable campuses. However, there are some gaps in the studies related to the ‘green campus approach’ as a means to create sustainable campuses. The green campus approach leads to opportunities to initiate a cultural paradigm shift, where universities become global leaders in sustainability. This paper intends to examine the problems and prospects of creating a green campus university.

Research objectives

This research intends to achieve the following objectives:

1. To examine the current state of the green campus approach among Malaysian universities.
2. To assess how effective the green campus approach is.
3. To investigate problems in implementing the green campus practices.
4. To investigate prospects for the future development of green campus practices.

Literature review

Recently, many scholars have debated on topics such as green campuses and sustainable universities.⁴^,⁵ The main discussion seems to focus on a single initiative by universities across the world. However, many of these studies are unreliable as they do not have a solid theoretical foundation.⁶^,⁷ Therefore, the generalisation of results can be difficult as the insights obtained are beyond the limitations of the specific case. However, despite the limitation and challenges towards sustainability such as resource scarcity, green campus projects were still initiated. Politecnico di Bari at Italian public technical university became a reference for many universities.

Quantifiable evidence of sustainable universities has also been reported.⁵^,⁸ Velazquez et al. (2006)² propose a model of sustainable universities which are built based on the best practices⁹^–¹⁸ from several universities around the world: literature reviews and simultaneous adoption of surveys. The model has evolved into a top-down approach: “a shift from defining the university’s own vision on sustainability and developing a consistent mission so as to lay a foundation for future actions and philosophies that underlie them.”¹⁹

As for promoting the initiatives, universities are urged to leverage from internal drivers and focus on pressures coming from external stakeholders. This includes employee wellbeing, incentives and trainings for professional development. The need to achieve high performance from key people of the organization has also increased, mainly on sustainability issues. Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar (2008) identify three streams of an integrated approach for universities working towards sustainability: “(i) sustainability teaching and research; (ii) implementation of an environmental management system that encompasses both infrastructures (what is called green campus) and day-by-day operations, such as energy efficiency, waste management, and pollution prevention; (iii) public participation and social responsibility, in terms of establishment of partnerships with stakeholders to promote various initiatives that range from spreading knowledge on sustainability to overcoming people’s disparities and discriminations”.²⁰ De Castro and Jabbour (2013) apply this framework to test an Indian university’s sustainability.²¹ Shi and Lai (2013) suggest another approach to rank and assess higher education institutions’ sustainability,²² applying a model by Velazquez et al. (2006).²

Today, a significant number of higher education institutions (HEIs) and universities have set their goals to the fundamentals of sustainability. This applies to universities’ role in bringing transformation toward sustainability which is also attested to in both the practitioner and scholarly literature.²³^,²⁴ Typically, their initiatives consist of operational and wider stakeholder outreach activities, as well as academic activities,²⁵^,²⁶ such as work on: the re-design of curricula²⁷^,²⁸; greening campuses²⁹^,³⁰; and building networks in local, regional and international areas to influence behaviour.³¹^,³² Universities have also been expanding and experiencing the means to integrate sustainable thinking. Attempts include activities such as: developing institutional guidelines and frameworks; examining sustainability through campus life experience (e.g., campus as a living lab); and, maintaining programmes of sustainability audits by using, for example, the Auditing Instrument for Sustainability in Higher Education.⁴^,²⁸^,³³^–³⁵

In spite of such activity, there has been criticism on performance mainly in regards to it being technologically opportunistic and lacking coordinated leadership and coherence,²³^,³⁶^,³⁷ which created debate and unaddressed questions on sustainability, such as the social dimension³⁸ and a lack of enduring effects.³⁹

Methods

Study design

The study uses the OECD (2015) Policy Coherence and Green Growth as shown in Figure 1. The notion is that the selected mechanisms and policy interaction in place will give way to lasting impact, as coherence.

Figure 1. Coherence of green growth.

Data collection

This research was conducted using a qualitative method. Data collection involved semi-structured interviews and observations via visits to the selected universities that promote green campus practices, namely Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) and Universiti Malaya (UM). These universities were selected because they were among the earliest universities established in Malaysia. Participants were selected based on their position and seniority in their sustainability roles or within environmental facilities in the universities. They were contacted via email to set an appointment for an interview at their office. The interviews were conducted on a semi-structured basis to allow rich data collection. This enabled the researcher to understand the root cause of problems. Observations made via the campus tour during the visit to the campus included a composting centre and energy saving stickers pasted on all light switches. Interview appointments have also been arranged with panels and discussions with experts in respective ministry and government agencies including the Ministry of Agriculture & Food Industries (MAFI) and Solid Waste Management and Public Cleansing Corporation (SWCorp) for the second phase of the study.

Analysis

All collected data were transcribed- before being analysed using the NVivo version 11 software using a free 14-day trial (download available here). Data analysis was conducted by focusing on the problems and prospects of going green in Malaysian universities. Interview transcripts and patterns were identified across different interviews by researchers Normazalila and Vincent. These are summarised in the findings. All transcripts were deidentified during data processing.

Ethics and consent

Ethical approval was obtained from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Universiti Malaya (UM) and Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) (ethical approval number: EA1162021). All participants were informed of the objectives and design of the study and a written consent form⁴⁰ was received from the participants for interviews. Participants were informed they could leave at any time if they wish.

Results

The findings show that most universities in Malaysia have plans towards creating a sustainable approach if not the green campus approach. The awareness of going green and creating sustainability on university campuses has gradually increased across universities between 2016 and 2021. The full transcripts can be found under Underlying data.⁴⁰

The main challenges (see Table 1) arising from this came from maintenance, financial/resources, rapid change of technology, mindset/culture, space/logistic/infrastructure, and lack of support from municipal council or expertise.

Table 1. Challenges around creating green campuses.

No	Challenges	Findings
1	Maintenance	High maintenance is required in managing a green campus approach and in creating sustainability. It requires manpower and other resources.
2	Finances/resources	High cost is involved in the effort to sustain green campus activities.
3	Rapid technology	Due to rapidly changing technology, some machines are outdated and no longer reliable for use.
4	Mindset/culture	There is an overall poor mindset in promoting good civics. A culture of habitual littering is still evident.
5	Space/logistics/infrastructure	Allocating space, logistics and infrastructure are among the biggest challenges which lead to a dilemma for top management.
6	Lack of support	Lack of support from the experts and authorities makes these challenges worse.

Promising areas were found to be the commitment from universities, strategies, waste management (recycling, composting), cost saving, awareness, and the generation of income and sustainability. For instance, it is evident that these universities create strategies for sustainable green approaches in the university’s key performance indicators (KPIs).

In this study, most of the interviewees were males (87%) aged 35-60 years old who had worked for more than 10 years. Based on the qualitative analysis, other than problems and prospects, there were five main themes that emerged from the transcribed data, namely: “energy saving,” “greenery view”, “3Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle)”, “waste management” and “change”. These themes were considered important factors in creating a green campus as they were found in all case study universities’ transcripts. The themes and the frequency they appeared in the transcripts are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Main themes.

Themes	Repetition			Total
Themes	Uni 1	Uni 2	Uni 3	Total
Energy saving	5	7	6	18
Greenery view	4	5	4	13
3Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle)	6	6	5	17
Waste management	4	5	4	13
Change	3	3	5	11

Discussion

It is best to discuss further the problems and prospects in this section. Firstly, maintenance is an issue due to some initiatives for going green requiring experts. For example, one of the case-study universities had to hire a special arborist to monitor dying trees surrounding the campus area.

One of the interviewees said:

“Some of our trees are dying. They aged more than 60 years. We had to hire an arborist to maintain them and that costs us money.”⁴⁰

Just like many other research projects, funding is a common issue that poses challenges to the green campus initiative. Ironically, rapid changes in technology require these initiatives to keep up to date. This becomes an obstacle to universities as they may have limited funds. Some initiatives such as a composting centre may require a proper infrastructure, space and logistics. The resources, including people to organise and execute the green approach on the campus must be properly identified. If executed poorly, this will result in other failures. Similarly, knowledge management has to be in place in order to encourage knowledge sharing. Lack of awareness, littering, vandalism were other problems caused by a culture of low civic-mindedness. More importantly, despite all these efforts, strong support from all stakeholders must always be present. There were cases at one of the case-study universities where their green initiatives did not receive full support from the local authority (Municipal Council).

One of the interviewees said:

“It is hard when you didn’t get the support you need. It is even harder when that involves the Municipal Council.”⁴⁰

While the vast majority of people are becoming aware of how important the green campus initiative is to their campuses, there were still incidents of change refusal.

One of the interviewees said:

“Some people just want to stay in their comfort zone, forever.”⁴⁰

However, there were still some good prospects found in the study. For instance, there were many committed personnels with good leadership in the universities that have utilised their capabilities to filter down the information on green initiatives via a top-down structure. This comes with planning and strategising, steering committee set up as well as sponsorship from industries. The involvement from industries such as Coca-Cola in sponsoring a recycling facility at one of the case-study universities has inspired many other companies to do the same. So far, waste management, recycling activities and composting are the most popular initiatives achieved by these case-study universities. In fact, some of these activities are generating income to the universities to become self-sustaining.

One of the interviewees said:

“A sustainable university also means self-sustaining - that it is able to maintain itself by independent effort.”⁴⁰

In addition to that, there were also many cost saving activities: energy saving, and low CO2 emission campaigns conducted across campuses. In general, the awareness toward green initiatives has gradually increased. Universities have become a reference point for societies and agencies in various events such as seminars, talks and campaigns. The case-study universities have also won some international awards for their greening activities. Hence, it attracts many collaborators to approach them to collaborate further. The achievement awards have brought these universities to a higher level and have enabled further collaborations in the green campus approach.

Conclusion

Creating green campus facilities is viewed as a means of improving the effectiveness and quality of sustainable development initiatives in higher education. Some key points have been identified that can help campuses to achieve this result effectively, starting with awareness of environmental sustainability, the promotion of the well-being concept among campus communities and engaging them in all its components in order to participate in the change. The green campus initiatives by the case study universities such as waste management, energy saving, reducing pollution and green planting correspond with what was found in the literature reviews as to creating sustainable campus. It is clear that all themes identified in the study play an important role in its success. These themes are common and found in all case study universities. Thus, it suggests that their roles are crucial.

Furthermore, it is a duty of academia to promote societal development, to make use of the campus as a “test field” to implement any innovative methods to be sustainable. The green campus approach must lead to a wider spectrum of sustainability and not limit its focus. The findings from this study are beneficial to any organisation mainly in the higher education sector.

This study has involved only three case study universities in Malaysia and these are public universities, hence further research could consider involvement from private universities. Comparison can then be made between public and private universities in lining up their priorities toward creating a green campus.

Data availability

Underlying data

DANS: Green Campus Universities: Problems and Prospects. https://doi.org/10.17026/dans-xrf-82dc.⁴⁰

This project contains the following underlying data:

- Green Campus_Case Uni 1.pdf [interview transcript]
- Green Campus_Case Uni 2.pdf [interview transcript]
- Green Campus_Case Uni 3.pdf [interview transcript]
- Green Campus-Findings Report.pdf [list of findings]

Extended data

This project contains the following extended data:

- Consent Form_Green Campus.pdf [consent form to be completed by interviewees before interview session]
- Green Campus_demographic data.pdf
- Info Sheet_Green Campus.pdf [brief information on the study and the researcher’s contact details]

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the support from the Multimedia University (MMU) for providing opportunity to publish this article.

References

1. Mohrman SA, Worley CG: The organizational sustainability journey: Introduction to the special issue. Organ. Dyn. 2010; 39(4): 289–294. Publisher Full Text
2. Velazquez L, Munguia N, Platt A, et al.: Sustainable university: what can be the matter? J. Clean. Prod. 2006; 14(9): 810–819. Publisher Full Text
3. Too L, Bajracharya B: Sustainable campus: engaging the community in sustainability. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2015; 16: 57–71. Publisher Full Text
4. Lozano R, Lukman R, Lozano FJ, et al.: Declarations for sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system. J. Clean. Prod. 2013; 48: 10–19. Publisher Full Text
5. Amaral LP, Martins N, Gouveia JB: Quest for a sustainable university: a review. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2015; 16: 155–172. Publisher Full Text
6. Adomssent M, Godemann J, Michelsen G: Transferability of approaches to sustainabledevelopment at universities as a challenge. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2007; 8(4): 385–402. Publisher Full Text
7. Karatzoglou B: An in-depth literature review of the evolving roles and contributions of universities to education for sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 2013; 49: 44–53. Publisher Full Text
8. Lozano R, Lukman R, Lozano FJ, et al.: Declarations for sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system. J. Clean. Prod. 2013; 48: 10–19. Publisher Full Text
9. Sharp L: Green campuses: the road from little victories to systemic transformation. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2002; 3(2): 128–145. Publisher Full Text
10. Uhl C:Process and practice: creating the sustainable university.Barlett PF, Chase GW, editors. Sustainability on campus. Cambridge:The MIT Press;2004.
11. Brennan J, King R, Lebeau Y: The role of universities in the transformation of societies. Association of commonwealth universities and the Open University;2004. Accessed 20 June 2021.Reference Source
12. Koester RJ, Eflin J, Vann J: Greening of the campus: a whole-systems approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2006; 14(9–11): 769–779. Publisher Full Text
13. Parker A: Creating a Green campus. Bioscience. 2007; 57(4): 321–321. Publisher Full Text
14. Krasny ME, Delia J: Natural area stewardship as part of campus sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2014; 106: 87–96.Publisher Full Text
15. Müller-Christ G, Sterling S, van Dam-Mieras R , et al.: The role of campus, curriculum, and community in higher education for sustainabledevelopment — a conference report. J. Clean. Prod. 2014; 62: 134–137. Publisher Full Text
16. Simpson J: A shared vision for sustainable development in higher education, Higher education funding council for England (HEFCE).2010. Accessed 20 May 2021.Reference Source
17. Yuan X, Zuo J, Huisingh D: Green universities in China — What matters? J. Clean. Prod. 2013; 61: 36–45. Publisher Full Text
18. Wals AEJ: Sustainability in higher education in the context of the UN DESD: a review of learning and institutionalization processes. J. Clean. Prod. 2014; 62: 8–15. Publisher Full Text
19. Bellantuono N, Pontrandolfo P, Scozzi B, et al.:Assessing Resources and Dynamic Capabilities to Implement the “Green Campus” Project. The Contribution of Social Sciences to Sustainable Development at Universities. Cham:Springer;2016; (pp. 213–227).
20. Alshuwaikhat HM, Abubakar I: An integrated approach to achieving campus sustainability: Assessment of the current campus environmental management practices. J. Clean. Prod. 2008; 16(16): 1777–1785. Publisher Full Text
21. De Castro R, Jabbour CJC: Evaluating sustainability of an Indian University. J. Clean. Prod. 2013; 61: 54–58. Publisher Full Text
22. Shi H, Lai E: An alternative university sustainability rating framework with a structuredcriteria tree. J. Clean. Prod. 2013; 61: 59–69. Publisher Full Text
23. Trencher G, Bai X, Evans J, et al.: University partnerships for codesigning and co-producing urban sustainability. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014; 28: 153–165. Publisher Full Text
24. Ramos TB, Caeiro S, van Hoof B , et al.: Experiences from the implementation of sustainable development in higher education institutions: Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities. J. Clean. Prod. 2015; 106: 3–10. Publisher Full Text
25. Luna H, Maxey L: Towards a green academy.Sterling S, Maxey L, Luna H, editors. The sustainable university: Progress and prospects. Oxon:Earthscan from Routledge;2013; pp. 281–303.
26. Shiel C, Filho WL, do Paço A , et al.: Evaluating the engagement of universities in capacity building for sustainable development in local communities. Eval. Program Plann. 2016; 54: 123–134. Publisher Full Text
27. Beusch P: Towards sustainable capitalism in the development of higher education business school curricula and management. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2014; 28(5): 523–545. Publisher Full Text
28. McCoshan A, Martin S: From strategy to implementation: the second evaluation of the Green Academy programme. The Higher Education Academy;2013. Accessed May 2021.Reference Source
29. Brinkhurst M, Rose P, Maurice G, et al.: Achieving campus sustainability: topdown, bottom-up, or neither? Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2011; 12(4): 338–354. Publisher Full Text
30. ISCN Secretariat: Best Practice in Campus Sustainability – Latest Examples from ISCN and GULF Schools. Boston, MA:International Sustainable Campus Network (ISCN);2014.
31. Arbo P, Benneworth P: Understanding the regional contribution of higher education institutions: Understanding the regional contribution of higher education institutions: A literature review. OECD/IMHE;2007.
32. Bansal P, Bertels S, Ewart T, et al.: Bridging the Research–Practice Gap. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2012; 26(1): 73–92. Publisher Full Text
33. Shriberg M: Institutional assessment tools for sustainability in higher education: strengths, weaknesses, and implications for practice and theory. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2002; 3(3): 254–270. Publisher Full Text
34. Wright TS: Developing research priorities with a cohort of higher education for sustainability experts. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2007; 8(1): 34–43. Publisher Full Text
35. Marans RW, Callewaert J, Shriberg M: Enhancing and monitoring sustainability culture at the University of Michigan, Transformative Approaches to Sustainable Development at Universities. Springer;2015; 165–179.
36. Butt L, More E, Avery GC: The myth of the ‘green student’: student involvement in Australian university sustainability programmes. Stud. High. Educ. 2014; 39(5): 786–804. Publisher Full Text
37. Martin J: Organizational Culture, Wiley Encyclopedia of Management. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd;2015.
38. Bone E, Agombar J: First-year attitudes towards, and skills in, sustainable development. Higher Education Academy/National Union of Students;2011.
39. Cotton DRE, Alcock I: Commitment to environmental sustainability in the UK student population. Stud. High. Educ. 2013; 38(10): 1457–1471. Publisher Full Text
40. Mahdee J: Green Campus Universities: Problems and Prospects. DANS. [Dataset].2021. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 20 Oct 2022

Author details Author details

¹ Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Persiaran Multimedia, Cyberjaya, Selangor, 63100, Malaysia
² MM Smart Earth Resources, Taman Puncak Jalil, Seri Kembangan, Selangor, 43300, Malaysia

Junainah Mahdee
Roles: Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Normazalila Abu Bakar
Roles: Conceptualization

Vincent Oh Kim Seng
Roles: Visualization

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This research was supported in part by the Multimedia University Internal Grant under Grant No. MMUI/180215.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 20 Oct 2022, 11:1200

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73381.1

Copyright

© 2022 Mahdee J et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Mahdee J, Abu Bakar N and Oh Kim Seng V. Green campus universities: case studies on problems and prospects [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2022, 11:1200 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73381.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 20 Oct 2022

Views

7

Reviewer Report 09 Oct 2023

Hilma Tamiami Fachrudin, Department of Architecture, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan, North Sumatra, Indonesia

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.77029.r208790

1. The research phenomenon is not clear, please add supporting research so that this research is suitable to be carried out

In text:

"Many scholars have suggested that the sustainability issue must be challenged ... Continue reading

1. The research phenomenon is not clear, please add supporting research so that this research is suitable to be carried out

In text:

"Many scholars have suggested that the sustainability issue must be challenged at universities. Universities act as leaders in education, research and innovation"

It is not explained what the issues in sustainability are, especially at universities. It would be better to add an explanation based on previous studies so that the research phenomenon is clearer

2. The references used should be able to support the research and be confirmed by the results of the analysis

The results of the analysis should be confirmed with the theory explained in the literature review section for example:

"In addition to that, there were also many cost saving activities: energy saving, and low CO2 emission campaigns conducted across campuses. In general, the awareness toward green initiatives has gradually increased. Universities have become a reference point for societies and agencies in various events such as seminars, talks and campaigns. The case study universities have also won several international awards for their greening activities. Hence, it attracts many to approach them to collaborate further. The achievement awards have brought these universities to a higher level and have enabled further collaborations in the green campus approach"

This explanation can be confirmed whether or not it is in accordance with previous research which states that activities or campaigns regarding university sustainability must be carried out

3. In the method section, it does not explain how samples were taken and what approaches or words were used for analysis

Participants were selected based on their position and seniority in their sustainability roles or within environmental facilities in the universities

This research should explain the level of position or seniority, for example as head of the sustainability university program at UPM, UM or UKM, etc. It should also explain how many people were sampled at each university and what sampling method was used?

4. The results of the analysis do not answer the research questions in detail

Research objectives

To examine the current state of the green campus approach among Malaysian universities.
To assess how effective the green campus approach is.
To investigate problems in implementing the green campus practices.
To investigate prospects for the future development of green campus practices

Each research objective prepared based on the research question should be explained in the conclusion section. For example: how effective is the green campus approach? It should be explained that from the analysis results it was found that the green campus approach is............. and so on for other research objective

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

No
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Hilma Tamiami Fachrudin is an expert on architecture, urban design, green building/campus/city and urban planning

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

10

Reviewer Report 08 Sep 2023

Enrique Orduña-Malea, Universitat Politecnica de Valencia, Valencia, Valencian Community, Spain

Núria Bautista-Puig, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Community of Madrid, Spain

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.77029.r197991

The “Green Campus Universities: Case Studies on Problems and Prospects” study investigates the problems and prospects of creating a green campus university using qualitative methods (interviews, panels, and discussions).

The topic covered is of interest, the methodology ... Continue reading

The “Green Campus Universities: Case Studies on Problems and Prospects” study investigates the problems and prospects of creating a green campus university using qualitative methods (interviews, panels, and discussions).

The topic covered is of interest, the methodology is adequate (however it needs to be more detailed), and there is an overall relation to the scope of publication in the F1000 journal (to the best of our knowledge no other paper has addressed this issue).

However, we find some major issues that should be addressed, which are detailed below:

a) The research gap is not clearly defined. There are other studies that have explored green campuses in the Malaysian context, even with a larger sample (e.g. Anthony Jnr, 2021) and an in-depth analysis (e.g. Najad, Ahmad, and Zen, 2018), even including a barrier analysis in a Malaysian campus (e.g. in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia; Gholami et al., 2020; Hooi, Hassan and Mat, 2012). Therefore, the authors should highlight (and justify) the main novelty and contribution of this paper.

b) The methodology should be improved and better explained (e.g. reader is not aware of the interviewees). The results are scarce (e.g. are the authors defining a strategic framework? What are the prospects for the future?), and the Discussion section seems more like a continuation of the results, instead of describing the significance of the findings in relation to what was already known about the research problem.

We will go slightly more into detail with them in the position-specific comments below.

Abstract
The research gap is not clear enough (Background section). The authors mention that ‘there have been various studies related to sustainability issues that include how universities can seek to create campuses’ (are these studies more theoretical? or descriptive?) but, in the following sentence, the meaning of ‘green campus approach’ is not clear (do authors means operationalization?). Is the purpose to create a framework for creating green campuses? It needs clarification to better guide the readers.

Moreover, the sample (three universities in Malaysia) should be specified in the Methods section.

The Conclusion section is not a real conclusion, but a brief summary.

Keywords
Please, avoid general keywords (e.g. problems, prospects) and be more specific. Maybe 'sustainability barriers' or 'sustainability challenges' (instead of ‘problems and prospects’) could be more appropriate.

Introduction and Literature Review
It is recommended that the authors contextualize the paper strongly, putting it firmly grounded in the literature. It seems that the authors have carried out this task to a very limited extent. As an example, what does mean ‘the green campus approach appears to be an ideal one’? Is it a model? or a conceptualization?

Moreover, the author mixes sustainability in general at higher education institutions with green campuses. We suggest better introducing the topic. As an example, mentioning the different system elements in which sustainability is embedded would be more appropriate (e.g. teaching, research, community outreach, assessment and reporting, and campus operations). We do recommend checking the following references:

Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K., Alonso-Almeida, M., Huisingh, D., Lozano, F. J., Waas, T., ... & Hugé, J. (2015). A review of commitment and implementation of sustainable development in higher education: results from a worldwide survey. Journal of cleaner production, 108, 1-18.

Cortese, A. D. (2003). The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future. Planning for higher education, 31(3), 15-22.

Consequently, the paper would benefit from having a paragraph on the different definitions of green campus (e.g., there are different terms like sustainability offices, green offices, green campus, etc.) and how green campuses are evaluated: indicators, rankings (e.g. Greenmetrics ranking that evaluates different indicators), reports (e.g. with directives like GRI), etc.

Lastly, the text requires a better contextualization of the Malaysian region, as there are studies that have already explored similar topics (green campus barriers, different universities from Malaysia, etc.). We do recommend reading the following references:

Anthony Jnr, B. (2021). Green campus paradigms for sustainability attainment in higher education institutions–a comparative study. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 12(1), 117-148.

Gholami, H., Bachok, M. F., Saman, M. Z. M., Streimikiene, D., Sharif, S., & Zakuan, N. (2020). An ISM approach for the barrier analysis in implementing green campus operations: Towards higher education sustainability. Sustainability, 12(1), 363.

Hooi, K. K., Hassan, F., & Mat, M. C. (2012). An exploratory study of readiness and development of green university framework in Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 50, 525-536.

Najad, P. G., Ahmad, A., & Zen, I. S. (2018). Approach to environmental sustainability and green campus at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia: A Review. Environment and Ecology Research, 6(3), 203-209.

Otherwise, certain statements lack references (e.g. di Bari at an Italian public technical university became a reference for many universities.).
In addition, when the authors mention ‘Universities have also been expanding and experiencing the means to integrate sustainable thinking’, are they referring to competencies/pedagogical approaches?

Other references of interest (not mentioned by the authors):

Tan, H., Chen, S., Shi, Q., & Wang, L. (2014). Development of green campus in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 64, 646-653.

Research objectives
We suggest the authors to rethink the research objectives of this study. As the sample is composed of three universities, we believe it could not be generalized to ‘the current state of the green campus among Malaysian universities’, especially when the authors indicate in the literature section, referring to previous literature, that ‘the generalisation of results can be difficult as the insights obtained are beyond the limitations of the specific case’. Moreover, ‘to investigate problems’ or ‘investigate prospects’ seem too ambiguous and unclear research objectives.

Similarly, how authors evaluate ‘how effective’ is not properly addressed in this study.

Methods
This section needs to be better explained, as it will benefit the interpretation of the results.

The use of the OECD (2015) Policy Coherence and Green Growth (i.e. policies, in Fig. 1) is not clearly justified, and results cannot be directly related to this scheme.

More information should be provided on the sample of the three Malaysian universities considered in this study, as the reader should not be aware of the university size, number of students, etc.). In addition to this, why did the authors decide to select those universities? The authors mention in the text that these universities are the older universities in the country, why is this fact relevant in this study?

Regarding the methods used, more details should be provided about the interviewees. The authors stated they conducted semi-structured interviews. In this sense:

How many interviewees did the authors interview? 1, 2, or 3 by university?
What is their sustainable-related role?
What are their features (e.g. gender, age, etc.)? Few descriptions are provided in the Results, but there is no way to understand the characteristics of the sample.
What was the duration of these interviews?

Similarly, no details are provided on the experts of Ministry and Government agencies. Having this information is fundamental. Moreover, the authors have two sides: the view of the university professionals and the view of the policymakers. As a suggestion, this could be differentiated or highlighted in the results section.

A brief description of how the questionnaire was designed would benefit the reader (apart from the transcriptions, already included as a link to the dataset). While some of this information is included in the dataset, it should be distilled and included in the full-text.

It is not necessary to mention that the NVivo version was a 14-day trial.

Results
There is a lack of clarity about the origin of the respondents (i.e. whether they were university staff from the three universities or policymakers). It seems the view might be completely different depending on this issue.

We believe the challenges (which are more barriers in fact) are a relevant finding of this study. However, it is not clear whether it is common among the three universities. On the other hand, the main themes, which may be the prospects or challenges, are not clear. As an example: change (of what?); mindset change (from whom?), ‘Greenery view’ (what does it mean?), resistance to change (why?).

Regarding the 3Rs, we do recommend using the more common and advanced Rs (4Rs,... to 9Rs).
As regards the challenges pointed out in Table 1, would be of interest to include some kind of quantification, as some challenges would have been mentioned more intensively or frequently than others. However, all topics do appear as equally important.

As mentioned before, this section would benefit from knowing the differences between the three institutions (maybe the involvement of industries is only conducted in one university) as well as the different levels.

Discussion
Please, remove the following sentence, as it is not necessary. You can describe the structure of the paper in advance at the end of the introduction if needed:

‘It is best to discuss further the problems and prospects in this section’

This section seems a continuation of the results and not a discussion actually. As an example. The authors mention ‘lack of funding’, ‘lack of awareness’, and ‘vandalism’... Why are those elements not considered barriers? (See table 1).

Are these results from the panel/discussion or the semi-structured interviews?

A limitations section should be included, including potential shortcomings of the method followed, potential generalization of findings, comparison with similar studies carried out in other countries, etc.

The few textual mentions from interviewees seem to be cherry-picked, but other comments with different or divergent opinions are not shown (at least, there is no mention of the absence of disparity). The method needs to reinforce objectivity when collecting information from people interviewed.

Conclusions
We do recommend the authors answer the four main research questions stated at the beginning of the article.

Research objective 1 cannot be answered with the methodology followed; research question 2 has not been actually responded to (and the sample analyzed could not be representative enough), and conclusions from research questions 3 and 4 are too general, needing more distilled discussion.

What really implies the views gathered from the interviewees and the effects of the ‘key points to improve’ on the universities (staff, budget, facilities) should be explored to improve the final sections of the article.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

References

1. Lozano R, Ceulemans K, Alonso-Almeida M, Huisingh D, et al.: A review of commitment and implementation of sustainable development in higher education: results from a worldwide survey. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2015; 108: 1-18 Publisher Full Text
2. Cortese AD: The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future. Planning for higher education. 2003; 3 (31): 15-22
3. Anthony Jnr B: Green campus paradigms for sustainability attainment in higher education institutions – a comparative study. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management. 2021; 12 (1): 117-148 Publisher Full Text
4. Gholami H, Bachok M, Saman M, Streimikiene D, et al.: An ISM Approach for the Barrier Analysis in Implementing Green Campus Operations: Towards Higher Education Sustainability. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (1). Publisher Full Text
5. Hooi K, Hassan F, Mat M: An Exploratory Study of Readiness and Development of Green University Framework in Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012; 50: 525-536 Publisher Full Text
6. Ghojogh Najad P, Ahmad A, Safitri Zen I: Approach to Environmental Sustainability and Green Campus at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia: A Review. Environment and Ecology Research. 2018; 6 (3): 203-209 Publisher Full Text
7. Tan H, Chen S, Shi Q, Wang L: Development of green campus in China. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2014; 64: 646-653 Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Enrique Orduna-Malea is an expert in institutional research and higher education, together with experience in Bibliometrics, research evaluation and university rankings. Núria Bautista is an expert in Sustainability in higher education, and Bibliometrics.

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 20 Oct 2022

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 1 20 Oct 22	read	read

Enrique Orduña-Malea, Universitat Politecnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain

Núria Bautista-Puig, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Hilma Tamiami Fachrudin, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan, Indonesia

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

7 Views

09 Oct 2023 | for Version 1

Hilma Tamiami Fachrudin, Department of Architecture, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan, North Sumatra, Indonesia

7 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

1. The research phenomenon is not clear, please add supporting research so that this research is suitable to be carried out

In text:

"Many scholars have suggested that the sustainability issue must be challenged at universities. Universities act as leaders in education, research and innovation"

It is not explained what the issues in sustainability are, especially at universities. It would be better to add an explanation based on previous studies so that the research phenomenon is clearer

2. The references used should be able to support the research and be confirmed by the results of the analysis

The results of the analysis should be confirmed with the theory explained in the literature review section for example:

"In addition to that, there were also many cost saving activities: energy saving, and low CO2 emission campaigns conducted across campuses. In general, the awareness toward green initiatives has gradually increased. Universities have become a reference point for societies and agencies in various events such as seminars, talks and campaigns. The case study universities have also won several international awards for their greening activities. Hence, it attracts many to approach them to collaborate further. The achievement awards have brought these universities to a higher level and have enabled further collaborations in the green campus approach"

This explanation can be confirmed whether or not it is in accordance with previous research which states that activities or campaigns regarding university sustainability must be carried out

3. In the method section, it does not explain how samples were taken and what approaches or words were used for analysis

Participants were selected based on their position and seniority in their sustainability roles or within environmental facilities in the universities

This research should explain the level of position or seniority, for example as head of the sustainability university program at UPM, UM or UKM, etc. It should also explain how many people were sampled at each university and what sampling method was used?

4. The results of the analysis do not answer the research questions in detail

Research objectives

To examine the current state of the green campus approach among Malaysian universities.
To assess how effective the green campus approach is.
To investigate problems in implementing the green campus practices.
To investigate prospects for the future development of green campus practices

Each research objective prepared based on the research question should be explained in the conclusion section. For example: how effective is the green campus approach? It should be explained that from the analysis results it was found that the green campus approach is............. and so on for other research objective

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

No
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Hilma Tamiami Fachrudin is an expert on architecture, urban design, green building/campus/city and urban planning

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

10 Views

08 Sep 2023 | for Version 1

Enrique Orduña-Malea, Universitat Politecnica de Valencia, Valencia, Valencian Community, Spain

Núria Bautista-Puig, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Community of Madrid, Spain

10 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

The “Green Campus Universities: Case Studies on Problems and Prospects” study investigates the problems and prospects of creating a green campus university using qualitative methods (interviews, panels, and discussions).

The topic covered is of interest, the methodology is adequate (however it needs to be more detailed), and there is an overall relation to the scope of publication in the F1000 journal (to the best of our knowledge no other paper has addressed this issue).

However, we find some major issues that should be addressed, which are detailed below:

a) The research gap is not clearly defined. There are other studies that have explored green campuses in the Malaysian context, even with a larger sample (e.g. Anthony Jnr, 2021) and an in-depth analysis (e.g. Najad, Ahmad, and Zen, 2018), even including a barrier analysis in a Malaysian campus (e.g. in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia; Gholami et al., 2020; Hooi, Hassan and Mat, 2012). Therefore, the authors should highlight (and justify) the main novelty and contribution of this paper.

b) The methodology should be improved and better explained (e.g. reader is not aware of the interviewees). The results are scarce (e.g. are the authors defining a strategic framework? What are the prospects for the future?), and the Discussion section seems more like a continuation of the results, instead of describing the significance of the findings in relation to what was already known about the research problem.

We will go slightly more into detail with them in the position-specific comments below.

Abstract
The research gap is not clear enough (Background section). The authors mention that ‘there have been various studies related to sustainability issues that include how universities can seek to create campuses’ (are these studies more theoretical? or descriptive?) but, in the following sentence, the meaning of ‘green campus approach’ is not clear (do authors means operationalization?). Is the purpose to create a framework for creating green campuses? It needs clarification to better guide the readers.

Moreover, the sample (three universities in Malaysia) should be specified in the Methods section.

The Conclusion section is not a real conclusion, but a brief summary.

Keywords
Please, avoid general keywords (e.g. problems, prospects) and be more specific. Maybe 'sustainability barriers' or 'sustainability challenges' (instead of ‘problems and prospects’) could be more appropriate.

Introduction and Literature Review
It is recommended that the authors contextualize the paper strongly, putting it firmly grounded in the literature. It seems that the authors have carried out this task to a very limited extent. As an example, what does mean ‘the green campus approach appears to be an ideal one’? Is it a model? or a conceptualization?

Moreover, the author mixes sustainability in general at higher education institutions with green campuses. We suggest better introducing the topic. As an example, mentioning the different system elements in which sustainability is embedded would be more appropriate (e.g. teaching, research, community outreach, assessment and reporting, and campus operations). We do recommend checking the following references:

Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K., Alonso-Almeida, M., Huisingh, D., Lozano, F. J., Waas, T., ... & Hugé, J. (2015). A review of commitment and implementation of sustainable development in higher education: results from a worldwide survey. Journal of cleaner production, 108, 1-18.

Cortese, A. D. (2003). The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future. Planning for higher education, 31(3), 15-22.

Consequently, the paper would benefit from having a paragraph on the different definitions of green campus (e.g., there are different terms like sustainability offices, green offices, green campus, etc.) and how green campuses are evaluated: indicators, rankings (e.g. Greenmetrics ranking that evaluates different indicators), reports (e.g. with directives like GRI), etc.

Lastly, the text requires a better contextualization of the Malaysian region, as there are studies that have already explored similar topics (green campus barriers, different universities from Malaysia, etc.). We do recommend reading the following references:

Anthony Jnr, B. (2021). Green campus paradigms for sustainability attainment in higher education institutions–a comparative study. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 12(1), 117-148.

Gholami, H., Bachok, M. F., Saman, M. Z. M., Streimikiene, D., Sharif, S., & Zakuan, N. (2020). An ISM approach for the barrier analysis in implementing green campus operations: Towards higher education sustainability. Sustainability, 12(1), 363.

Hooi, K. K., Hassan, F., & Mat, M. C. (2012). An exploratory study of readiness and development of green university framework in Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 50, 525-536.

Najad, P. G., Ahmad, A., & Zen, I. S. (2018). Approach to environmental sustainability and green campus at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia: A Review. Environment and Ecology Research, 6(3), 203-209.

Otherwise, certain statements lack references (e.g. di Bari at an Italian public technical university became a reference for many universities.).
In addition, when the authors mention ‘Universities have also been expanding and experiencing the means to integrate sustainable thinking’, are they referring to competencies/pedagogical approaches?

Other references of interest (not mentioned by the authors):

Tan, H., Chen, S., Shi, Q., & Wang, L. (2014). Development of green campus in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 64, 646-653.

Research objectives
We suggest the authors to rethink the research objectives of this study. As the sample is composed of three universities, we believe it could not be generalized to ‘the current state of the green campus among Malaysian universities’, especially when the authors indicate in the literature section, referring to previous literature, that ‘the generalisation of results can be difficult as the insights obtained are beyond the limitations of the specific case’. Moreover, ‘to investigate problems’ or ‘investigate prospects’ seem too ambiguous and unclear research objectives.

Similarly, how authors evaluate ‘how effective’ is not properly addressed in this study.

Methods
This section needs to be better explained, as it will benefit the interpretation of the results.

The use of the OECD (2015) Policy Coherence and Green Growth (i.e. policies, in Fig. 1) is not clearly justified, and results cannot be directly related to this scheme.

More information should be provided on the sample of the three Malaysian universities considered in this study, as the reader should not be aware of the university size, number of students, etc.). In addition to this, why did the authors decide to select those universities? The authors mention in the text that these universities are the older universities in the country, why is this fact relevant in this study?

Regarding the methods used, more details should be provided about the interviewees. The authors stated they conducted semi-structured interviews. In this sense:

How many interviewees did the authors interview? 1, 2, or 3 by university?
What is their sustainable-related role?
What are their features (e.g. gender, age, etc.)? Few descriptions are provided in the Results, but there is no way to understand the characteristics of the sample.
What was the duration of these interviews?

Similarly, no details are provided on the experts of Ministry and Government agencies. Having this information is fundamental. Moreover, the authors have two sides: the view of the university professionals and the view of the policymakers. As a suggestion, this could be differentiated or highlighted in the results section.

A brief description of how the questionnaire was designed would benefit the reader (apart from the transcriptions, already included as a link to the dataset). While some of this information is included in the dataset, it should be distilled and included in the full-text.

It is not necessary to mention that the NVivo version was a 14-day trial.

Results
There is a lack of clarity about the origin of the respondents (i.e. whether they were university staff from the three universities or policymakers). It seems the view might be completely different depending on this issue.

We believe the challenges (which are more barriers in fact) are a relevant finding of this study. However, it is not clear whether it is common among the three universities. On the other hand, the main themes, which may be the prospects or challenges, are not clear. As an example: change (of what?); mindset change (from whom?), ‘Greenery view’ (what does it mean?), resistance to change (why?).

Regarding the 3Rs, we do recommend using the more common and advanced Rs (4Rs,... to 9Rs).
As regards the challenges pointed out in Table 1, would be of interest to include some kind of quantification, as some challenges would have been mentioned more intensively or frequently than others. However, all topics do appear as equally important.

As mentioned before, this section would benefit from knowing the differences between the three institutions (maybe the involvement of industries is only conducted in one university) as well as the different levels.

Discussion
Please, remove the following sentence, as it is not necessary. You can describe the structure of the paper in advance at the end of the introduction if needed:

‘It is best to discuss further the problems and prospects in this section’

This section seems a continuation of the results and not a discussion actually. As an example. The authors mention ‘lack of funding’, ‘lack of awareness’, and ‘vandalism’... Why are those elements not considered barriers? (See table 1).

Are these results from the panel/discussion or the semi-structured interviews?

A limitations section should be included, including potential shortcomings of the method followed, potential generalization of findings, comparison with similar studies carried out in other countries, etc.

The few textual mentions from interviewees seem to be cherry-picked, but other comments with different or divergent opinions are not shown (at least, there is no mention of the absence of disparity). The method needs to reinforce objectivity when collecting information from people interviewed.

Conclusions
We do recommend the authors answer the four main research questions stated at the beginning of the article.

Research objective 1 cannot be answered with the methodology followed; research question 2 has not been actually responded to (and the sample analyzed could not be representative enough), and conclusions from research questions 3 and 4 are too general, needing more distilled discussion.

What really implies the views gathered from the interviewees and the effects of the ‘key points to improve’ on the universities (staff, budget, facilities) should be explored to improve the final sections of the article.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

References

1. Lozano R, Ceulemans K, Alonso-Almeida M, Huisingh D, et al.: A review of commitment and implementation of sustainable development in higher education: results from a worldwide survey. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2015; 108: 1-18 Publisher Full Text
2. Cortese AD: The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future. Planning for higher education. 2003; 3 (31): 15-22
3. Anthony Jnr B: Green campus paradigms for sustainability attainment in higher education institutions – a comparative study. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management. 2021; 12 (1): 117-148 Publisher Full Text
4. Gholami H, Bachok M, Saman M, Streimikiene D, et al.: An ISM Approach for the Barrier Analysis in Implementing Green Campus Operations: Towards Higher Education Sustainability. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (1). Publisher Full Text
5. Hooi K, Hassan F, Mat M: An Exploratory Study of Readiness and Development of Green University Framework in Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012; 50: 525-536 Publisher Full Text
6. Ghojogh Najad P, Ahmad A, Safitri Zen I: Approach to Environmental Sustainability and Green Campus at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia: A Review. Environment and Ecology Research. 2018; 6 (3): 203-209 Publisher Full Text
7. Tan H, Chen S, Shi Q, Wang L: Development of green campus in China. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2014; 64: 646-653 Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Enrique Orduna-Malea is an expert in institutional research and higher education, together with experience in Bibliometrics, research evaluation and university rankings. Núria Bautista is an expert in Sustainability in higher education, and Bibliometrics.

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] 1. Mohrman SA, Worley CG: The organizational sustainability journey: Introduction to the special issue. Organ. Dyn. 2010; 39(4): 289–294. Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. Velazquez L, Munguia N, Platt A, et al.: Sustainable university: what can be the matter? J. Clean. Prod. 2006; 14(9): 810–819. Publisher Full Text

[3] 3. Too L, Bajracharya B: Sustainable campus: engaging the community in sustainability. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2015; 16: 57–71. Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. Lozano R, Lukman R, Lozano FJ, et al.: Declarations for sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system. J. Clean. Prod. 2013; 48: 10–19. Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Amaral LP, Martins N, Gouveia JB: Quest for a sustainable university: a review. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2015; 16: 155–172. Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Adomssent M, Godemann J, Michelsen G: Transferability of approaches to sustainabledevelopment at universities as a challenge. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2007; 8(4): 385–402. Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Karatzoglou B: An in-depth literature review of the evolving roles and contributions of universities to education for sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 2013; 49: 44–53. Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Lozano R, Lukman R, Lozano FJ, et al.: Declarations for sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system. J. Clean. Prod. 2013; 48: 10–19. Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Sharp L: Green campuses: the road from little victories to systemic transformation. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2002; 3(2): 128–145. Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Uhl C:Process and practice: creating the sustainable university.Barlett PF, Chase GW, editors. Sustainability on campus. Cambridge:The MIT Press;2004.

[11] 11. Brennan J, King R, Lebeau Y: The role of universities in the transformation of societies. Association of commonwealth universities and the Open University;2004. Accessed 20 June 2021.Reference Source

[12] 12. Koester RJ, Eflin J, Vann J: Greening of the campus: a whole-systems approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2006; 14(9–11): 769–779. Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Parker A: Creating a Green campus. Bioscience. 2007; 57(4): 321–321. Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Krasny ME, Delia J: Natural area stewardship as part of campus sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2014; 106: 87–96.Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Müller-Christ G, Sterling S, van Dam-Mieras R , et al.: The role of campus, curriculum, and community in higher education for sustainabledevelopment — a conference report. J. Clean. Prod. 2014; 62: 134–137. Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. Simpson J: A shared vision for sustainable development in higher education, Higher education funding council for England (HEFCE).2010. Accessed 20 May 2021.Reference Source

[17] 17. Yuan X, Zuo J, Huisingh D: Green universities in China — What matters? J. Clean. Prod. 2013; 61: 36–45. Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Wals AEJ: Sustainability in higher education in the context of the UN DESD: a review of learning and institutionalization processes. J. Clean. Prod. 2014; 62: 8–15. Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Bellantuono N, Pontrandolfo P, Scozzi B, et al.:Assessing Resources and Dynamic Capabilities to Implement the “Green Campus” Project. The Contribution of Social Sciences to Sustainable Development at Universities. Cham:Springer;2016; (pp. 213–227).

[20] 20. Alshuwaikhat HM, Abubakar I: An integrated approach to achieving campus sustainability: Assessment of the current campus environmental management practices. J. Clean. Prod. 2008; 16(16): 1777–1785. Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. De Castro R, Jabbour CJC: Evaluating sustainability of an Indian University. J. Clean. Prod. 2013; 61: 54–58. Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Shi H, Lai E: An alternative university sustainability rating framework with a structuredcriteria tree. J. Clean. Prod. 2013; 61: 59–69. Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Trencher G, Bai X, Evans J, et al.: University partnerships for codesigning and co-producing urban sustainability. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014; 28: 153–165. Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Ramos TB, Caeiro S, van Hoof B , et al.: Experiences from the implementation of sustainable development in higher education institutions: Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities. J. Clean. Prod. 2015; 106: 3–10. Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Luna H, Maxey L: Towards a green academy.Sterling S, Maxey L, Luna H, editors. The sustainable university: Progress and prospects. Oxon:Earthscan from Routledge;2013; pp. 281–303.

[26] 26. Shiel C, Filho WL, do Paço A , et al.: Evaluating the engagement of universities in capacity building for sustainable development in local communities. Eval. Program Plann. 2016; 54: 123–134. Publisher Full Text

[27] 27. Beusch P: Towards sustainable capitalism in the development of higher education business school curricula and management. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2014; 28(5): 523–545. Publisher Full Text

[28] 28. McCoshan A, Martin S: From strategy to implementation: the second evaluation of the Green Academy programme. The Higher Education Academy;2013. Accessed May 2021.Reference Source

[29] 29. Brinkhurst M, Rose P, Maurice G, et al.: Achieving campus sustainability: topdown, bottom-up, or neither? Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2011; 12(4): 338–354. Publisher Full Text

[30] 30. ISCN Secretariat: Best Practice in Campus Sustainability – Latest Examples from ISCN and GULF Schools. Boston, MA:International Sustainable Campus Network (ISCN);2014.

[31] 31. Arbo P, Benneworth P: Understanding the regional contribution of higher education institutions: Understanding the regional contribution of higher education institutions: A literature review. OECD/IMHE;2007.

[32] 32. Bansal P, Bertels S, Ewart T, et al.: Bridging the Research–Practice Gap. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2012; 26(1): 73–92. Publisher Full Text

[33] 33. Shriberg M: Institutional assessment tools for sustainability in higher education: strengths, weaknesses, and implications for practice and theory. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2002; 3(3): 254–270. Publisher Full Text

[34] 34. Wright TS: Developing research priorities with a cohort of higher education for sustainability experts. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2007; 8(1): 34–43. Publisher Full Text

[35] 35. Marans RW, Callewaert J, Shriberg M: Enhancing and monitoring sustainability culture at the University of Michigan, Transformative Approaches to Sustainable Development at Universities. Springer;2015; 165–179.

[36] 36. Butt L, More E, Avery GC: The myth of the ‘green student’: student involvement in Australian university sustainability programmes. Stud. High. Educ. 2014; 39(5): 786–804. Publisher Full Text

[37] 37. Martin J: Organizational Culture, Wiley Encyclopedia of Management. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd;2015.

[38] 38. Bone E, Agombar J: First-year attitudes towards, and skills in, sustainable development. Higher Education Academy/National Union of Students;2011.

[39] 39. Cotton DRE, Alcock I: Commitment to environmental sustainability in the UK student population. Stud. High. Educ. 2013; 38(10): 1457–1471. Publisher Full Text

[40] 40. Mahdee J: Green Campus Universities: Problems and Prospects. DANS. [Dataset].2021. Publisher Full Text

Green campus universities: case studies on problems and prospects

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Research objectives

Literature review

Methods

Study design

Figure 1. Coherence of green growth.

Data collection

Analysis

Results

Table 1. Challenges around creating green campuses.

Table 2. Main themes.

Discussion

Conclusion

Data availability

Underlying data

Extended data

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated