Institutional motivations and barriers to the construction of green buildings on campus
A case study of the University of Waterloo, Ontario
The Authors
Gregory R.A. Richardson, School of Urban Planning, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Jennifer K. Lynes, ERS Department, Faculty of Environmental Studies, Centre for Business, Entrepreneurship and Technology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada
Abstract
Purpose – To explore the barriers and motivations to the construction of green buildings at the University of Waterloo (UW) by documenting and analysing the UW building process.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors conducted 13 semi-structured in-depth interviews with key UW individuals as well as analyzing numerous internal reports in order to document UW's building process. Based on the literature, a set of key ingredients for successful green building projects is developed as a basis from which to evaluate UW's current practices.
Findings – Based on the four key ingredients needs for successful green building projects at Institutions of Higher Education (IHE), UW was found to have weaknesses in all four areas including: a lack internal leadership amongst stakeholders with decision-making power, a lack of quantifiable sustainability targets, an operational structure that does not reward building designs with lower energy costs, and lack of communication between professional designers, facilities management and faculty. While UW has implemented many green initiatives on campus, the current financial and organizational structure of the University's current system does lend itself to the creation and implementation of green buildings on campus.
Originality/value – Most research at IHE document existing green building initiatives and the lessons learned from their design and construction. There has been limited research into the processes by which decisions to proceed with the construction of green buildings are made, particularly within large institutions. As a consequence, the research documents many of the pitfalls, traps, and solutions that are experienced during the construction of green buildings, but have limited knowledge of the reasons why some proposed green buildings never get developed. This research identifies barriers to the construction of green buildings within institutional decision-making processes and makes specific recommendations for realizing green building construction based on the UW case study.
Article Type:
Research paper
Keyword(s):
Economic sustainability; Motivation (psychology); Buildings; Universities; Canada.
Journal:
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education
Volume:
8
Number:
3
Year:
2007
pp:
339-354
Copyright ©
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN:
1467-6370
Introduction
Institutions of Higher Education (IHE) in Canada and across the world are physically expanding to meet the demands of growing student populations. The student population enrolled full-time at universities in Canada has increased by 12 percent over the past decade (CAUT, 2005). The corresponding physical expansion of campuses has considerable impact on both energy and resource consumption at IHE and adds to the rising CO2 emissions that contribute to global warming. IHE worldwide have responded to the challenge of reducing the ecological footprint of campus operations through campus sustainability advocacy, implementation strategies and research. This paper discusses the barriers and opportunities implicit in making a commitment to sustainability at IHE by investigating the initiative that perhaps represents the greatest investment and most durable commitment to sustainability, the constructions of a “green building.” This research utilises a case study of the current building decision-making process at the University of Waterloo (UW).
“Green building” is a term used to describe a building that is more energy and resource efficient, releases less pollution into the air, soil and water, and is healthier for occupants than standard buildings. The construction and operation of buildings today account for one-third of Canada's energy use, consume 50 percent of natural resources and produce 25 percent of Canada's landfill waste (www.buildingsgroup.nrcan.gc.ca/aboutus/about_e.html#innovation). Green buildings have four key benefits over the design and construction of standard buildings. Firstly, environmental benefits typically comprise the primary reason for the design and construction of green buildings (Orr, 2004). Secondly, green buildings can reduce costs to the owner/occupier over the operational life-cycle of the building because of energy efficiency savings, water efficiency savings, mechanical equipment downsizing, reduced insurance and liability costs, building value and demolition and site clearing costs (Johnson, 2000; von Paumgartten, 2003). Thirdly, better indoor working environments in green buildings can increase profitability by increasing customer satisfaction, increasing worker productivity by up to 16 percent, and reducing employee absenteeism by as much as 45 percent (Heerwagen, 2000). Fourthly, the construction of green buildings provides benefits to IHE by presenting a positive image and reputation for the IHE by practically demonstrating progressive social and environmental commitments, and also advances academic literature on green buildings by providing more case studies to research (Scofield, 2002). In addition to these four benefits, in the case of IHE, green buildings can provide opportunities for students (e.g. as a learning tool, leading by example and showcasing technology) and communicate the benefits of green buildings to a wide range of users, including the community in which the university operates (Beaudoin and Tremblay, 2002). The argument for IHE to take the lead in implementing green buildings is supported by Orr (2004) who states that institutions are a microcosm of the real world and should be the site of innovation for experimenting with sustainability. Bordass (2000) identifies that many, however, fear the unknown and are reluctant to be early innovators in this area.
Barriers and motivations to the construction of green buildings
An overview of the current literature on the barriers and motivations to the implementation of green buildings, and more specifically with regards to university campuses, reveals two recurring themes: financial and organizational.
There are mixed views in the literature regarding whether green buildings have higher initial capital costs than traditional buildings. For example, in contrast to the view held by Johnson (2000) and Orr (2004), who contend that the initial capital cost of a green building is higher, several other researchers maintain that green buildings do not necessarily result in higher initial capital costs for design and construction (Bordass, 2000; Hydes and Creech, 2000; Intrachooto and Arons, 2002; Scofield, 2002). Under the right circumstances, green or high efficiency buildings have both an equal capital cost and lower operating costs when compared to conventional buildings: a win-win situation (Bartlett and Howard, 2000; Johnson, 2000; Orr, 2004). While the direct financial benefits, such as energy savings, provide clearly measurable improvements, indirect benefits such improvement of an institution's image, gains in competitive advantage and increased productivity as a result of employee or student pride can result in financial gains that are more difficult to assess. In this respect, financial benefits can be further defined into those that result in “money saved” and those that result in “money earned” as the result of an IHE's level of greening.
Organizational
Within the larger umbrella of organizational barriers and motivations, leadership, measurable sustainability targets and collaboration between designers and academics are identified as important factors for successful implementation of green buildings on campus. Firstly, the need for strong leadership, such as a project champion as well as support of senior administration is a critical component of successful for green projects (Orr, 2004). Secondly, sustainability targets are important pre-requisites to the construction of green buildings (Graedel, 2002). This includes quantification of indicators to set specific targets, from building procurement policies to the percentage of recycled material in toilet paper (Beaudoin and Tremblay, 2002; Legacy, 2004). A practical example of this policy is UBC, which states explicitly on their web site that they “set aggressive green targets for all new buildings on campus”
While the literature often refers to the motivations and barriers to sustainable management of IHE, the term motivations can be further broken down into:
- motivators, or “catalysts” that help push the green agenda forward; and
- motivations, in terms of benefits, for greening to IHE.
Table I provides an overview of the barriers, catalysts and benefits that have been discussed in this paper.
Based on the organizational and financial barriers, catalysts and motivations that have been identified in the literature, the successful implementation of green buildings at IHE require four main ingredients, shown in Figure 1. This figure will be used as a basis from which to evaluate the areas in which the UW need to improve if it is to move forward with successful green building projects.
Methodology
Georg and Füssel (2000) show that most attention by researchers of greening organizations has been given to results and little attention is given to process. By considering the process through which decisions are made, it becomes easier to see where the impediments and motivations for green buildings on campus lie. A two-part qualitative research approach was employed in order to understand both the process for constructing new buildings at UW and to analyse motivations and barriers to green building implementation within this institution. The research was conducted between January and May 2005. The first phase of the study involved a review of a variety of UW internal and external documents regarding campus greening initiatives, organizational structure, building policies, procedures and committees related to the design and construction of new buildings on campus. Documents included university guidelines, policies, agendas, minutes, student projects, and news bulletins.
The second phase of the methodology consisted of 13 semi-structured in-person interviews with key stakeholders intimately involved in decision-making processes relating to building at UW. Informants were selected by analysing documents relating to previous building decisions to identify key actors and by the recommendations of key informants involved in building decision processes at the university. Informants included both faculty and staff and represented a variety of positions and departments, including:
- administration and finance;
- facilities;
- environmental studies faculty; and
- engineering faculty.
The diversity of informants ensured a wide variety of perspectives were obtained. The interviews lasted between 30 and 80 minutes.
This study will be beneficial to change agents and researchers at other IHE for two reasons. First, the methodology can be replicated to develop an in-depth understanding of the building process at other IHE. Second, the findings that result from the study can be applied, compared and contrasted with other IHE and can aid in identifying barriers to the construction of green buildings at other educational institutions. This research was also intended to have a practical and policy contribution at UW. In summary, this paper is directed towards facilitating reforms to make campus operations more environmentally sustainable.
Established in 1957 and located on a 1000-acre campus in South-western Ontario, the UW is currently host to just under 25,000 students. With the mission of producing “the leaders of tomorrow” UW has been recognized “most innovative” university among 47 contenders in Canada for the 13th year in a row by a survey published in
Maclean's (2005) Magazine (www.macleans.ca/universities/article.jsp?content =20041104_162949_2152). UW has also acquired a reputation as an environmental leader among IHE because of its innovative Greening Waterloo (WATgreen) Advisory Committee established in 1990 to transform UW into a showcase for sustainability (Wright, 2002; van Weenen, 2000). In early 2005, UW launched a marketing campaign – green with innovation – to promote the university's wide-ranging environmental research, teaching and education programs
Despite this expertise and environmental leadership reputation, the UW administration has not formally committed the university to constructing any sustainable buildings or implementing a campus wide campus greening or green building policy. UW is representative of many IHE in that they have no formal sustainable or green building policy. In 2004, the student-run University of Waterloo Sustainability Project (UWSP) founded a Green Building Group whose aim was to promote green buildings on campus through a series of lectures devoted to this topic. UW students, through WATgreen, have also identified the barriers, motivations and best practice policies for UW campus-wide greening. The student interest in green buildings illustrates the growing importance that students are placing on campus sustainability and provide evidence of “grass roots” support for the construction of green buildings. This is exemplified through the range of student groups that have been established on campus including the aforementioned UWSP as well as Green Roofs over Waterloo, the Sustainable Technology Education Project, B2Green, and the University of Waterloo Environment Network. Furthermore, UW has environmental programs and/or expertise in each of its six faculties. What is missing on campus, however, is the formal institutional commitment to sustainability from top university administrators, and a “sustainability plan” to guide and unify current research, planning, operations, teaching and service activities (Kiang, 2004, p. 3). The debate surrounding green building implementation is particularly important at UW because the university is undergoing a building expansion program that includes the impending construction of a three new buildings and the development of a new 700-acre Research and Technology Park. These developments provide a unique opportunity to incorporate sustainable design on campus.
Results and discussion
The results are presented under two themes, those that relate to financial aspects of decision-making and those that relate to organizational structure and culture at UW. The process for the construction of new buildings at UW was found to move through six stages from the building concept, through to selecting design and construction consultants to a new building's construction and commissioning. This paper does not provide details of the current building process at UW, but rather, factors that are influencing the current decision-making process. For more details on the building process, see Richardson (2005).
Financial
The financial barriers that were identified in this study ranged from negative perceptions of green buildings in general, the perception that green buildings incur higher initial capital costs and a lack of incentives to reduce long-term energy and maintenance costs at both the faculty and facilities level.
Green building perceptions
UW staff and faculty knowledgeable in the design and construction of standard buildings viewed the term “green building” with scepticism. Informants generally asserted that the term “green building” is synonymous with “green” features such as solar panels, green roofs and grey water systems and were quick to point out the long payback time required to recuperate the initial cost of these features. Some informants were strongly against incorporating green design features into buildings on campus, citing financial considerations as the reason behind this belief. For example, Informant C contended:
Well, when you are looking at any sort of energy efficient building you are looking at heating, cooling, lighting and the envelope. Beyond that it gets quote, unquote “fluffy”. Green roofs and things like that are politically attractive but economically a disaster. They don't make [economic] sense.
Informants conceded that some green features that have long payback times can be important for demonstration and education purposes, but rejected these intangible benefits as reasons to include green design features into campus buildings. The prevailing attitude was that if a particular faculty wanted to incorporate special features into buildings for demonstration or teaching purposes, then these faculties should raise the money and pay for these features via fundraising. The interviews also identified that negative perceptions, such as poor payback times for installations of solar panels, and continued debate over fringe technology associated with green buildings are preventing action on proven and economically viable solutions. One informant felt that “politically attractive” green features elevate the price of buildings because the most efficient technologies are not used.
The debate on the initial capital cost of sustainable buildings
Informants in this study were divided over whether green buildings require a higher capital cost to design and build. There was consensus amongst permanent university staff that green buildings have a higher capital cost to design and build, while sustainable building “experts” that were interviewed asserted that green buildings had equal or lower capital costs (Table II).
The division between UW faculty experts and administrative staff mirror the debate in the academic literature (Hydes and Creech, 2000). The lack of communication between faculty building experts and Facilities staff, identified in the interviews, helps to maintain these differences in perceptions.
Lack of financial incentives for improving building maintenance costs
While UW faculty and staff both agreed that green buildings have the potential to reduce operation and maintenance costs over the lifecycle of the building, maintenance policy at the university prevents this consideration from being a key decision-making criteria. As a blanket policy, the university allocates $50 per square foot at the time of building construction to be invested in perpetuity to pay for the maintenance and utilities of a new building or a major renovation to an existing building. Interviews with university staff confirmed that the endowment fund is not directly linked to performance of the buildings and the $50 per square foot applies for all buildings regardless of the building's energy efficiency or maintenance costs. This policy effectively removes one of the key advantages of green buildings from consideration: the reduced energy and maintenance costs that they provide. An opportunity exists here to invest capital upfront in green design and reduce the amount of money allocated to maintenance and utilities (creating a large long-term financial saving for the university). One Informant identified that this approach could be used as an opportunity to invest initial capital more effectively to increase the lifecycle efficiency of new buildings on campus.
Faculty barriers
There are three principal financial barriers at the faculty level to the construction of green buildings on campus: First, several informants stated that once funding is available for a new building, the objective of the faculty sponsor is to maximize the use of space often at the expense of efficiency. In other words, faculty seek to maximize classroom, laboratory or office space over the benefits of high-efficiency mechanical equipment or better building materials, which could reduce maintenance costs and resource inefficiencies significantly over the lifecycle of that building:
If you were a faculty and you had raised $30 million to build a building, you want to get as many square feet as you can for that $30 million. You don't truly care how much the utilities are going to cost for that building.
Given that a faculty does not pay directly for their building's utility costs, the financial motivation to build an energy efficient building is not present, since the faculty will not yield any of benefits achieved through more efficient designs. Second, many informants were unable (or unwilling) to differentiate between latent energy use and energy consumed through the actions of individuals within the building. Informants identified that imprudent use of electricity by faculty, staff, students (i.e. not turning off lights, computers and other small appliances) elevates the electricity bill and efforts should focus on changing individual's behaviour rather than building design. Third, in the design stage the responsibility is put on faculties to come up with what they want in a building, but some faculties may not have the knowledge of what is needed for a green building and may not be proponents of high-eficiency buildings. This building design process, and the adherents to this process, reward standard “tried and true” buildings and reduce sustainable building innovation.
The funding arrangement for facilities
Another important barrier to the construction of green buildings on campus is that while the onus for building design is on university faculties, there exists no financial incentive for the facilities department to consider energy efficient design features. While labour and capital costs are fixed by central administration, the UW utility budget is not fixed; the budget is estimated by facilities and annually set aside by the finance department. Essentially, facilities are not accountable for spending on utilities.
Since, the performance of new buildings is not currently linked to facilities' operating budget, there is no price incentive for facilities to increase the efficiency of new or existing buildings on campus. For example, a current retrofit project at UW has an approximately $1 million initial capital cost and a projected annual energy saving of between $500,000 and 750,000 a year. A senior informant stated that, the money saved from the retrofit will go back into the UW general operating budget. Should energy savings materialize from the project, no proportion of them is returned to facilities to support future energy saving projects. The retrofits are a one-time exercise with no financial benefit for facilities.
Furthermore, a future communication hurdle is formed as funding for retrofits is essentially politically determined. There are no formalized cost/benefit criteria that would encourage energy-efficient retrofits that would reduce long-term operating costs. One facilities employee stated that:
… it's hard for us to prioritise energy savings, to use our own resources to accomplish them, when the benefit from those savings go elsewhere. You need to see that there isn't an incentive there.
UW administration relies on facilities to implement efficient energy use on campus without providing the department with appropriate incentives such as price caps, consumption targets, revolving loan funds or the return of money saved on reduced utility costs to the faculty.
University administration is not upholding long-term financial interests by constructing high-efficiency buildings
The UW administration was found to not be upholding long-term interests in maximizing its operating budget by building high-efficiency sustainable buildings. One of the main barriers to sustainable building construction at the administrative level was the perception by UW administrative staff that green buildings have a higher initial cost to design and build. UW has a fixed operating budget based on student tuition fees, federal and provincial grants and private donations. Recent budget cuts of 2 percent at UW show the difficulties in finding additional upfront capital to invest at the initial design and construction phase of a new building in order to realize long-term efficiencies. Tight budgets were used as the reason for not building green or high-efficiency buildings.
However, expert informants noted how campus buildings could be more energy and resource efficient with equal capital construction costs. One sustainable building expert, for example, noted the lost opportunity to construct an economically viable green co-operative education building (operational at the end of 2002). The expert noted that decisions on the orientation of the building toward the sun and the choice of expensive and inefficient custom windows reduced the environmental and economic performance of the building significantly. This is just one example of where building expertise could be utilized to make energy efficiency savings at no additional capital cost to the project. Interview results revealed that UW imposes no formal sustainable building policy and or target; does not actively pursue collaboration with faculty building experts; or has not explored using the endowment fund to realize better life-cycle costs. Even when green design features were a proven equal cost alternative to standard design features they were not considered.
Based on these interviews, a key question emerged: if university staff believe that sustainable buildings (which both UW staff and faculty Informants agree can have lower lifecycle maintenance and operation costs) are more expensive to construct per square foot, why is the university not building smaller, more efficient buildings to use money more effectively over the long-run? In summary, UW is not imposing reasonable policies to maximize building efficiencies for the benefit of the long-term operating budget.
Organizational
Communication between facilities/administration and the university/public
With respect to the construction of new buildings on campus at UW, no formal communication channels exist between the facilities and the university or public. An opportunity for “public” or even consultation open to faculty, students and staff members is limited and in many cases not available. Furthermore, this research identified that there is no easily accessible documentation either in print or on the UW web site with in-depth information about UW physical operations goals, objectives, plans, project timelines, and information regarding energy and water consumption. Facilities or the UW administration also does not publish the formal university policy for maintenance endowment funds or the minutes of the UW President's Advisory Committee on Design, which makes key decisions including the selection of bids for architects and contractors. Interviews with Informants of this study, which include senior administration, facilities employees and members of two building committees are, at present, the only way to access in-depth information on the building process. In interviews, senior administration at UW argued that the university is “doing good things,” but at the same time did not make publicly accessible details of UW's building program. The lack of communication was found to have a number of unnecessary and undesirable cascading consequences for the relationship between facilities and UW administration with public, faculty and student stakeholders. For example, informants were not aware of the innovative and cost-effective $1 million retrofit project that facilities was undertaking to reduce energy consumption on campus by 10-15 percent. Without accessible written information regarding UW's motives, plans, and achievements, no evidence exists. As a result, UW faculty, staff and students are sceptical of facilities' mandate, objectives and practices:
If the leadership of the University doesn't think it's important enough to talk about it and to emphasize it on say a quarterly basis, then I can't imagine how anybody in the whole chain of command should be caring (Informant H).
UW faculty, staff and students also feel powerless to provide input on decisions. Even when implementing innovative environmentally beneficial projects facilities continue to receive criticism because faculty and students do not know or have details about the projects. As well as breeding scepticism from students, faculty and the public, propriety records on energy consumption for buildings on campus prevents independent scrutiny of facilities performance in operating, maintaining and constructing campus buildings. When asked, facilities does provide faculty and students with information such as energy consumption but it is often perceived as a “hassle” to obtain it. UW might well be taking positive steps towards energy efficiency (and other green initiatives) in new or existing buildings, however, it is currently difficult to tell, given the lack of transparency in communicating this information to the campus community and beyond.
Leadership
Faculty sustainable building experts noted that an important means to progress sustainable construction practices on campus is for UW leaders to state sustainable goals, objectives and targets. Informant interviews, however, revealed that UW administrative leaders are not formally committed to the construction of green buildings at UW. One senior informant in an informal meeting stated openly that he/she is adverse to sustainability targets. Senior administrative informants stated the top UW priority for new buildings is that they are on time and on budget – all other considerations including the environmental impacts of the building are considered secondary. One senior informant stated that it is up to students, faculty and staff to present to senior administrative staff a “convincing argument” for sustainable buildings. This shows that committed individuals must raise awareness of green buildings, especially among senior members of staff, to realize their construction at IHE. On the other end of the spectrum a faculty member felt that, in order to move forward with green buildings on campus, a principal needs to be established with respect to the performance of the buildings that are being designed. Following this principal should be a requirement for firms that want to design buildings for UW and these companies should have to demonstrate a capacity and record of excellence in sustainable design in order to be considered for the job (Informant A):
Somebody's got to care. Someone's got to think that [green buildings] are important and provide enough moral persuasion to the bureaucrats and administrators to actually get the job done. It is really important that goals and objectives of the project be set right at the very beginning and by people as high up as possible in the ownership chain (Informant H).
Two solitudes exist for building expertise on campus: university administration and faculty. One member of senior administration disputed the need for transparency, the argument being that if university administration knows they are doing a good job – why do they have to tell anyone? The result is that while UW may well be taking energy efficient strides – University of Waterloo (2006, p. 19) recently reported themselves as having the lowest energy use per square foot of building space among Ontario universities – faculty and students are sceptical when the data behind such statements are not made available.
Facilities and faculty collaboration and communication
All Informants interviewed agreed that faculty and facilities collaboration has the potential to benefit the university (both administration and facilities employees) in terms of sustainability and benefit the faculty in terms of practical application of research. However, both staff and faculty were hesitant to initiate the collaboration process. One informant stated, “I don't get included in the decision-making and I don't think a lot of people do on campus. I think it's expected that they'll probably think of everything” (Informant D). Staff and faculty identified a number of contentions or perceived problems with collaboration, including financial compensation and establish communication (Table III).
The contentions listed by informants, while valid, are symptomatic of the lack of communication between UW staff and faculty. A strong commitment by university leaders and dialogue between researchers, administration and facilities employees would be able to resolve the details. Informant H stated that although it is “pretty obvious” that collaboration would be a good idea, it needs partners on both sides. Several faculty and facilities staff Informants expressed that a formal arrangement is the wrong way to go about collaboration because “a lot of this has to be done with a wish on each side to make this happen” (Informant J).
Communication among UW researchers with research interests in green buildings
Thompson and Green (2005) state that a small stable group of faculty and staff committed to campus greening is important for institutionalizing sustainability at an IHE. At UW, a core group of advocates including staff, students and faculty have been vocal in initiating and maintaining WATgreen – the Advisory Committee responsible for campus greening on campus. However, with regard specifically to green buildings, this research identified a communication gap among green/sustainable building experts at UW. Faculty with an interest in green buildings have not formed a cohesive group to advance the construction of green buildings at UW or pursue cross-faculty research.
Conclusions and recommendations
The focus of this paper was to explore the barriers to the planning and construction of green buildings at UW, an IHE, like the majority worldwide, with no green building policy, no campus sustainable policy and no practical implementation of a green building. This study is unique because it does not focus on an institutional success story or an analysis of an attempt to green an IHE. Instead, this study uses a qualitative methodology and an analysis of UW literature to document the building process and identify the influences on the lack of construction of green buildings on campus.
This analysis shows that UW has strong academic prowess in sustainable buildings but weak administrative leadership for sustainability, no sustainability targets, only minimal collaboration between UW academic experts and facilities employees, and little financial incentives for either faculty or facilities to improve energy efficiency in the design of new buildings and operations of existing buildings. While it is unlikely that prospective students will choose not to go to UW because of a lack of green building policies, if the University administration looked at green buildings as an opportunity to showcase its innovation to incoming students this may attract and retain additional students and professors to the campus.
The findings of this case study of UW complement and support the barriers and motivations that have been identified in the literature. For the successful implementation of green building policies four main organizational and financial factors are important. These four elements were developed into the key ingredients shown in Figure 1. The findings show that UW has weaknesses in all four areas of the diagram. Based on these barriers, this final section addresses recommendations for improving UW building performance and institutionalizing the construction of green buildings. These recommendations focus on changing the culture inherent in the administration at UW. Rather than being revolutionary in nature, they provide examples and incentives that encourage critical thinking and innovation. This approach may be useful to other IHE. These recommendations represent a “carrot” rather then a “stick” approach which should diminish resistance to the changes and encourage more innovative ideas.
Develop strong university leadership
The onus is on UW to champion the construction of aesthetically pleasing green buildings on campus. This leadership needs to come from those on campus that have decision-making authority regarding the construction of new buildings. One way to do this would be for university leaders through senior administrative meetings, University Senate, or Board of Governors to establish a Green Building Task Force as McGill University has done, to establish green building targets, guidelines and strategies for UW to move forward.
Establish guidelines and quantitative sustainability targets
UW should ensure that quantitative sustainability targets are stated and implemented from the beginning of the building project. Expert UW researchers have practical experience on how to implement guidelines and targets, and are easily accessible for advice.
Facilitate collaboration and partnerships
UW would benefit from facilitating a relationship between UW researchers and facilities employees. Collaboration between academic building experts and facilities employees would both establish credibility for UW building researchers and improve the economic and environmental performance of buildings on campus.
Foster increased communication and transparency – produce a facilities department web site
A central and easily accessible web site containing all building information is essential to maintain accountability and transparency to the public as will also reduce some of the current scepticism that exists. The University should also approve the publication of energy consumption data online so that UW students and faculty can use this data in their research.
In conclusion, documenting the university-specific building process from a building's concept to completion is important to understand policy/process strengths, weaknesses and to move forward with constructive reforms. The research also demonstrates that any move towards improving the sustainability on campus will require leadership to open communication channels and allow the university administration to tap the knowledge locked within its faculties. A more transparent building process at UW system would lead to better communication, less scepticism about facilities' motives, and most importantly, improvements in the energy and sustainability performance of university buildings.
Finally, it should be noted that while this paper has been fairly critical of the lack of sustainability initiatives of current building process at UW, there are many other staff, student and faculty-initiated sustainability initiatives that are an integral part of the UW community such as a weekly on-campus farmers market featuring locally grown food, the living wall that was recently installed in the Faculty of Environmental Studies building, the student-initiated solar panels that on the roof of Federation Hall and the native gardens around campus. In the time since the research for this study was completed, announcements have been made that green roofs will be incorporated into the designs of the new School of Accountancy, Quantum-Nano Centre and the Accelerator Centre that is part of the Research and Technology Park on the north end of UW's campus. This is a positive signal that sustainability and energy efficient design is increasingly being taken into consideration for the numerous new buildings that are slated for construction. This is a good beginning, but it is not enough. The UW has, historically, been one of the forerunners in campus sustainability in Canada. What is now needed is for senior administration to step up to the plate to address the sustainability issues over which the students and faculty have limited decision-making power.
Figure 1Ingredients for success for constructing green buildings at IHE
Table IThe barriers, catalysts and motivations of green buildings for IHE
Table IIA summary of Informants' perceptions of the cost of green buildings at IHE
Table IIIPerceptions of collaboration issues between faculty and facilities management
References
Bartlett, E., Howard, N. (2000), "Informing the decision makers on the cost and value of green building", Building Research and Information, Vol. 28 No.5/6, pp.315-24.
Beaudoin, M., Tremblay, L. (2002), "Specifying green buildings. The owner-occupant's perspective", paper presented at Sustainable Buildings Conference, Oslo, .
Bordass, B. (2000), "Cost and value: fact and fiction", Building, Research and Information, Vol. 28 No.5/6, pp.338-52.
CAUT (2005), Students, 2005 CAUT Almanac of Post-Secondary Education in Canada, 4th ed., Canadian Association of University Teachers, Ottawa, available at: www.caut.ca/en/publications/almanac/, .
Georg, S., Füssel, L. (2000), "Making sense of greening and organizational change", Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 9 No.3, pp.175-85.
Graedel, T.E. (2002), "Quantitative sustainability in a college or university setting", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher, Education, Vol. 3 No.4, pp.346-58.
Heerwagen, J. (2000), "Green buildings, organizational success and occupant productivity", Building Research and Information, Vol. 28 No.5/6, pp.353-67.
Hydes, K.R., Creech, L. (2000), "Reducing mechanical equipment cost: the economics of green design", Building Research and Information, Vol. 28 No.5/6, pp.403-7.
Intrachooto, S., Arons, D. (2002), "Nurturing green innovations for academic institutions", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 3 No.2, pp.155-63.
Johnson, S.D. (2000), "The economic case for high performance buildings", Corporate Environmental Strategy, Vol. 7 No.4, pp.350-61.
Kiang, S. (2004), "The path to institutionalizing sustainability", Environmental Resource Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, available at: www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infowast/watgreen/projects/library/w04institutionalizingsustainability.pdf, .
Legacy (2004), "Campus sustainability: sustainability assessment framework at UW", Environmental Resource Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, available at: www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infowast/watgreen/projects/library/w04sustframework.pdf, .
Maclean's (2005), "University rankings 05: reputation", Maclean's, November 14, pp.66-7.
Orr, D.W. (2004), "Can educational institutions learn? The creation of the Adam Joseph Lewis Center at Oberlin College", in Barlett, P.F., Chase, G.W. (Eds),Sustainability on Campus: Stories and Strategies for Change, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp.159-75.
Richardson, G.A. (2005), "Institutional incentives and barriers to the construction of green buildings at the University of Waterloo", University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, available at: www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jklynes/richardson05_greenbuilding.pdf, .
Scofield, J.H. (2002), "Early energy performance for a green academic building", ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 108 part 2 pp.1214-30.
Thompson, R., Green, W. (2005), "When sustainability is not a priority: an analysis of trends and strategies", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 6 No.1, pp.7-17.
University of Waterloo (UW) (2006), "Adding green to our colour scheme", Waterloo, Spring, pp.18-21.
van Weenen, H. (2000), "Towards a vision of a sustainable university", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 1 No.1, pp.20-34.
von Paumgartten, P. (2003), "The business case for high-performance green buildings: sustainability and its financial impact", Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 2 No.1, pp.26-34.
Wright, T.S.A. (2002), "Definitions and frameworks for environmental sustainability in higher education", Higher Education Policy, Vol. 15 No.2, pp.105-20.
Further Reading
Ahlberg, S. (1995), "The centre for environmental science and engineering: an opportunity for change on the UW Campus", University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, unpublished Environmental Resource Studies 285 Final Project, .
Crang, M. (1997), "Analysing qualitative materials", in Flowerdew, R., Martin, D. (Eds),Methods in Human Geography: A Guide for Students Doing Research Projects, Longman, Essex, pp.183-96.
Dahle, M., Neumayer, E. (2001), "Overcoming barriers to campus greening: a survey among higher educational institutions in London, UK", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 2 No.2, pp.139-60.
Dunn, K. (2000), "Interviewing", in Hay, I. (Eds),Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.50-82.
Gudz, N.A. (2004), "Implementing the sustainable development policy at the University of British Columbia: an analysis of the implications for organisational learning", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 5 No.2, pp.156-68.
Levy, J.I., Dilwali, K.M. (2000), "Economic incentives for sustainable resource consumption at a large university: past performance and future consideration", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 1 No.3, pp.252-66.
Sharp, L. (2002), "Green campuses: the road from little victories to systemic transformation", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 3 No.3, pp.128-45.
About the authors
Gregory R.A. Richardson is a geography graduate from the University of Waterloo (UW), where he completed his undergraduate thesis into the institutional motivations and barriers to the construction of green buildings at UW. He is founder of the University of Waterloo Green Building Group – an advocacy group dedicated to raising awareness about green buildings on UW campus and in the local community. He is currently a Master's student at the McGill School of Urban Planning in Montreal.
Jennifer K. Lynes is an Assistant Professor at the University of Waterloo with a joint appointment in the Department of Environment and Resource Studies and the Centre for Business, Entrepreneurship and Technology. She has published papers in the area of corporate social and environmental responsibility, sustainable tourism, waste management and energy conservation. Her current research interests lie in green and social entrepreneurship, sustainable communities and residential energy efficiency. She is also the Faculty of Environmental Studies representative on UW's WATgreen committee and an advocate for campus sustainability. Jennifer K. Lynes is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: jklynes@fes.uwaterloo.ca