Becoming Sustainable In Our Own Way: Sustainability at the Flagship Massachusetts Public University 9/15/16 Ludmilla Pavlova-Gillham, AIA, LEED BD+C Dennis Swinford, ASLA
Becoming Sustainable In Our Own Way: Sustainability at the Flagship Massachusetts Public University
9/15/16
Ludmilla Pavlova-Gillham, AIA, LEED BD+CDennis Swinford, ASLA
Campus Planning and Sustainable Development
Campus Planners “must focus as much on the education and research being done in higher education as on the physical, operational, and external community functions of the university and do so in an integrated, interdependent manner”
Anthony Cortese, “The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future”. Society for College and University Planning: Planning for Higher Education Journal 31, 2003
SecondNature.org
Presenter
Presentation Notes
In 2003 Anthony Cortese, in an article on critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future published in the Higher Education Journal of the Society for College and University Planning, said that: Campus Planners “must focus as much on the education and research being done in higher education as on the physical, operational, and external community functions of the university and do so in an integrated, interdependent manner” Cortese and Second Nature catalyzed a slow process of change on the University of Massachusetts flagship campus, which is the focus of our paper and this presentation.
Methodology
• John P. Kotter’s Process for Leading Change– Applies to grassroots as well as top-down approaches– Useful for interdependent systems (HEIs)
• Higher Education Institutions (HEI) case studies– Harvard (Sharp, 2009) – University of Colorado Boulder (Krizek, et al 2011) – Yale (Newman, 2012)
• Map Sustainable Development at UMass Amherst & reflect on lessons learned
Presenter
Presentation Notes
John P. Kotter’s process for leading change (Kotter, 2012, p.23) and previous case studies outlining phases of sustainability at Harvard, University of Colorado Boulder and Yale are used to map SD at UMA from 2001 – 2015 and to reflect on the engagement of campus stakeholders in meeting the challenges of GHG emission reductions. We used a qualitative approach by reviewing available public documents and conducted semi-structured interviews with administrative staff and faculty across the organization to assess the effects of sustainability policy on total campus GHG emissions reductions. Both of us have been critically involved in the progression of sustainability at UMA and have arrived at lessons learned through critical reflection on the campus experience.
Kotter’s eight-stage process of creating major change
1. Establish a sense of urgency2. Creating the guiding coalition3. Developing a vision and
strategy4. Communicating the change
vision5. Empowering broad-based
action6. Generating short-term wins7. Consolidating gains and
producing more change8. Anchoring new approaches in
the culture
Unf
reez
e St
atus
Quo
Chan
ge P
ract
ice
Presenter
Presentation Notes
A literature review of organizational change management theory reveals three general models of strategic change – managerial or manager-as-change-agent, emergent or employee-as-change-agent, and scale-based. Given that colleges and universities are unique organizations and operate in ways that are different from business firms, government agencies and other corporate or industrial organizations, an emergent model such as Kotter’s eight-stage process of creating major change was chosen as a yardstick for evaluating progress at UMA because of its practical guidance to organizations and managers and its application to grassroots as well as top-down approaches. Kotter notes that mature organizations often have over-managed and under-led corporate cultures that are experiencing both internal and external pressures to transform quickly. He proposes eight linear steps for major change management, the first four of which eliminate barriers prevalent in the status quo, the next three introduce new/changed practices, and the last embeds the changes in the institutional culture.
Higher Education Institution Case Studies
Phase I: grassroots / awakeningad hoc activities, operational improvements, sustainability officer or task force, pilot projects
Phase II: executive acceptance / pioneeringsupport for the business case for sustainability, improvements in multiple systems and entities, green branding, cost & economic terms guide most decisions
Phase III: visionary leadership / transformationExecutive leadership openly promotes sustainability vision, integrates new organizational processes and structures into primary functions and desired outcomes
Harvard University of Colorado Boulder Yale (Sharp, 2009) (Krizek 2012) (Newman, 2012)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The case studies of SD at Harvard, University of Colorado Boulder and Yale revealed a pattern of development in stages roughly corresponding to the following: First: a grassroots/awakening phase - associated with ad hoc activities and programs that leed to operational improvements by establishing a change management role - sustainability officer, a committee or task force and a series of pilot projects. Second: an executive acceptance or pioneering phase – associated with a new level of institutional support for the business case for sustainability as it relates to multiple system improvements and green branding or public relations programs, and extending it to multiple entities such as operations, academic affairs, research, athletics, or external relations as well as operations. Cost and economic terms still guide most decisions. Third:a visionary leadership or transformation phase – in which campus leaders and highest level executives openly promote the sustainability vision and integrate new organizational processes and structures into the primary functions and desired outcomes of the institution.
Case Study: UMass
Amherst (systems)
Material supply & disposal
Food Supply
Energy supply & delivery
Finance/ Account’gStructures
Decision Making
Processes
Human Resources
Buildings Operation & Maint.
Academic Planning
Campus Planning
7,000 tons of waste (56% recycled) annually
40,000+ meals/day
$26M and 2 trillion BTU’s in 2013
$1.03B Revenues, $1.01B Expenditures
12.8M GSF in 386 bldgs(50 heritage) in 11 towns4,278 acres in MA1,452 acres in campus core19 mi roads24 mi steam ( & cond.)10 mi electricity
Flagship of System, BOT, 3 unions & public procurement laws
About 30,000 individuals 14,000 beds 16,000 transit riders/ academic day
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Educational institutions that provide place-based education also encompass multiple systems with varying degrees of complexity. Every decision that is made effects hundreds of individuals, every dollar spent engages multiple campus participants and every academic home is a building that is intricately connected to a complex system of infrastructure, programs and people. A campus is not only a small city - it is a data rich environment that can be seen as a giant sandbox or educational playground. Its physical dimensions are complex and knowing how campus assets serve the educational mission is important. What we measure matters and having access to good data matters even more when we are faced with a challenging problem. The UMass community is truly diverse and is comprised of over 30,000 individuals, over 14,000 of which live on campus. Decision making occurs both in distributed and centralized fashion, and we ultimately answer to a Board of Directors and the legislature of the Commonwealth.
UMass Flagship, Sustainable Development Policy & Sustainability Reporting
Standard City Planning Enabling Act, 1928
American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment 2006
Executive Order 438: State Sustainability Program 2002
Mass LBE and Executive Order 484: Leading by Example: Clean Energy and Efficient Buildings, 2007
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act 2013
National Environmental Policy Act 1969
Mass EOEEA “Air Quality Laws and Rules” 2015
Mass General Laws: Global Warming Solutions Act 2008 AASHE’s STARS
USGBC’s LEED
Clean Air Act 1970
Second Nature Carbon and Climate Commitmen 2015
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Municipal comprehensive planning – and more specifically campus master planning - has a long tradition of developing physical plans for community growth in a manner that considers economic, environmental and social impacts. In the US Standard City Planning Enabling Act of 1928 first codified the planning process in a manner that includes sustainable development goals at a municipal or regional scale. The challenge that planners at HEIs face today is to develop master plan processes and content that incorporate SD principles at the global scale. This challenge is partially aided by compliance with larger public policy directives, and by the voluntary application of comprehensive sustainability reporting and assessment systems to the development of sustainability policies, Climate Action and Resilience Plans.
Grassroots Organizing for Change
Phase 1: Grassroots/ Awakening 2001 - 2007
• Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Sustainability
Phase I of UMass’ path toward sustainability took place from 2001 – 2007 and can be seen as following an emergent model - evolving a process, governance structures and internal leadership for SD. In the 1990’s students and faculty on the UMA campus became increasingly organized in advocating for support for sustainability, spurred by the example of HEIs who had endorsed The Talloires Declaration. In response to this grassroots advocacy, in 2001 the Faculty Senate established an Ad Hoc Committee on Sustainability that was charged to assess sustainability activities on campus, and to develop a set of recommendations for future actions. The committee’s members included faculty representatives from each school or college, directors of the Environmental Science department and the Environmental Institute, student advocates and administrative representatives from major business units. An early report indicated that the committee found a strong consensus that, “in the context of the university, sustainability is about using resources most efficiently to meet the mission of the university”. It listed an impressive number of operations efficiency projects that would result in as much as 30% reductions in carbon emissions by building a new co-generation power plant that replaces coal with oil and natural gas for electrical power and steam generation. Collaborative partnerships with other state agencies were being developed to implementing transportation demand management, to fund recycling waste effluent and to initiate energy efficiency projects via a performance contract with an energy services company. The state experienced a financial downturn in 2002 and significant system-wide budget cuts lead to a large loss of faculty positions. The Ad Hoc Committee did not submit any formal proposals and was disbanded. The failure of this early attempt to integrate sustainability into the University’s mission of teaching, research, and service was nevertheless followed by steady progress within individual units. The department of Environmental Conservation introduced three sustainability courses and a Sustainable Food and Farming program. Its graduates produced research projects that proposed, funded and piloted two very successful student initiatives: a Permaculture program on campus that engaged the support of Dining Services and an Eco-Rep program within Physical Plant. In 2007 UMass System President Jack M. Wilson signed the five UMass campuses onto the Second Nature American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment, thus ending the grassroots/awakening phase and initiating the next phase of campus sustainability work. Phase II occurred from 2008 – 2014 and can be seen as building on the governance structures and internal leadership established in Phase 1 and evolving a research and data gathering process for advancing SD activities. The managerial model began with the establishment in 2008 of an Environmental Performance Advisory Committee to develop a Climate Action Plan and implement campus sustainability projects. The sense of urgency to respond to climate change came from external stakeholders both in terms of student demand for green initiatives on campus and from additional regulation, particularly EO 484 in 2007 that set new performance targets and reporting requirements for GHG emission reductions, energy conservation and efficiency, renewable energy, green buildings, and water conservation in facilities owned and operated by state agencies; and the Global Warming Solutions Act in 2008 required agencies to provide “meaningful opportunities for public review of the potential environmental impacts of Projects”, and to administer a review process that requires documentation of environmental impacts and assessment of alternatives and mitigation measures. Sustainability activities developed under the guidance a re-branded Chancellor’s Sustainability Committee from 2008 – 2015 that included a two-tiered organization with an executive committee comprising of unit managers from across the university system, and volunteer driven sub-committees focused on sustainability systems. Support from upper level administrators was evident in the hiring in 2011 of three full time Sustainability staff in Physical Plant, University Relations and Auxiliary Services, and a Director of Academic Sustainability Programs who together shepherded the grassroots coalition into multiple activities, including the development of a Climate Action Plan and Sustainability Tracking Assessment Rating System (STARS) report that earned the campus a Gold rating - one of only 24 college and university campuses nationwide to receive it at the time.
Organizing for Growth
Framework for Excellence:Grow student enrollmentGrow facultyGrow academic programs
Strategic/ Academic
Plan
New building development Utilities and Energy Master Plan Transportation Plan Transparency & Community Environmental reporting
Campus Master
Plan
Education Student Engagement Waste reduction Renewable Energy Procurement LEED Buildings
Climate Action Plan
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Having achieved approximately 30% reductions in carbon emissions with the completion of an award winning co-generation Central Heating Plant, the campus shifted its attention to growth and economic development. Chancellor Robert Holub (2008 – 2012) brought new leadership and developed a new strategic vision for the campus – a Framework for Excellence – that set specific goals for increasing student enrollment, returning the size of the faculty to the level attained prior to the 2002 budget cuts, addressing facilities issues, particularly laboratory and classroom space, and stabilizing financial resources. Multiple strategic, academic and physical planning processes were initiated which resulted in the decision to begin a community master plan process. The Sustainability initiative and Climate Action Plan work proceeded on a parallel track.
Existing Master Plan
Traditional & Inclusive Master Plan Process
Presenter
Presentation Notes
A new Campus Master Plan was created in an open and inclusive process that used typical public participation tools such as over 200 stakeholder meetings, public charrettes, and open forums resulting in wide support for capital development from within the community - both on- and off- campus.
EXISTING program (2010)
34% Academic
32% Residential
6% Recreation
6% Student Life
18% Admin4% Garages
Campus Total GSF 10.8M GSFThis space can accommodate approximately:
• 24,300 Students
• 8,000 Faculty/Staff
• 12,500 Beds
Presenter
Presentation Notes
A blended team of professional consultants and campus planning staff gathered data on the campus environment, utilities and transportation, hosted vision development sessions with stakeholder groups, and collected space planning efforts into future facility requirements aimed at
37% Academic
31% Residential
6% Recreation
6% Student Life
16% Admin
5% Garages
This space can accommodate approximately:
• 27,700 Students
• 8,800 Faculty/Staff
• 14,000 Beds
VISION PROGRAM – RISING TO THE CHALLENGECampus Total GSF 12.5M GSF
Presenter
Presentation Notes
the near term 2020 growth vision
39% Academic
33% Residential
6% Recreation
5% Student Life
11% Admin
7% Garages
This space can accommodate approximately:
• 36,700 Students
• 11,700 Faculty/Staff
• 19,000 Beds
CAPACITY PROGRAM
Campus Total GSF 18.2M GSF
Presenter
Presentation Notes
and long term potential capacity development to 2050 and beyond.
Nearly 200 Events
Over 350 Hours
With• Campus Stakeholder Groups• CPPC, UPAC, PTAB, Pedestrian Safety, etc.• Faculty Senate• Student Senate• Student Groups• Deans and Faculty Presentations• Individuals• Open Campus Forums• Student Poster Sessions• Professional Organizations• PUMA• Local Town Officials and Commissions• Local Neighbors• Regional Planning Agency
Community Engagement
14
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The team created alternative solutions to meet the vision and strategic planning goals, accommodate the program, and test the land use, density, transportation, building condition and program assumptions. It presented a draft plan for review and comment by the campus community and additional stakeholder meetings, including online engagement with over 3,500 visitors on an innovative GIS platform.
Campus as a System/ GIS Data Model
Campus is a complex system of systems
Processes
• Academic/Teaching• Research• Operations• Residential Life
“Divide & Conquer”“No buffer space”“Changes all the time”
Presenter
Presentation Notes
We created a data-driven approach to physical planning that spatially integrated multiple systems and served as an enterprise framework for continuous integration of physical and academic program information.
Potential CO2 Emissions Projections 2020
Total CO2 Emissions Projections CO2/GSF Emissions Projections
Presenter
Presentation Notes
In addition, the campus undertook an extensive analysis of the future environmental and GHG impacts of the CMP and met its obligations to communicate these impacts to the community by submitting a comprehensive Expanded Environmental Notification Form for the University's 2012 - 2021 Capital Improvement Plan to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office . The challenge today is how to frame the conversation about implementing the master plan so that it addresses climate change. In the past, the availability of funds set the limits to growth. Today we must also consider carbon emissions as setting those limits. This is a major challenge for institutions, as they are continuously required to accomplish more with fewer funds.
1. Establish a sense of urgency:- Community call for action - Market/legislative demand for action
Today UMass is in a transition phase that is seeking direction from executive leadership to consolidate gains and anchor new approaches within the campus culture. The mission alignment of education, research and operations is directly contributing to sponsored sustainability research by leveraging the data-rich campus environment and GIS model of future growth to develop tools for integrated physical analysis. UMA is working with the UMass President’s Office to develop a sustainability and resilience policy that will demonstrate leadership and commitment to SD.
Conclusions for University Sustainable Development
1. Process, Governance and Internal Leadership• comprehensive and integrated strategic,
academic, financial & physical plans• Inclusive and transparent process• Integrated SR systems into planning efforts• Continuity and consistency for SD decisions• Incentive structures to support progress on
sustainability goals
Presenter
Presentation Notes
In the initial stage of the SD effort UMA had not developed a systemic approach to institutional governance and a process that included the campus community. Although administrative decisions made significant investment in energy efficiency and delivery that reduced GHG emissions, the early effort focused upon creating process and governance. Universities must consider: Implement a comprehensive planning process that integrates strategic, academic, financial and physical plans, and is repeated at least every five years in concert with capital plans. Insist on an inclusive and transparent process. Sustainability is a community effort and everyone has to understand how and where they fit into the process. Integrate SR systems such as ACUPCC, STARS and LEED with executive, financial, capital development, and operational management practices to support the specific strategic goals of the HEI. Provide continuity and consistency with one authority for SD decisions. Develop responsibility, accountability and incentive structures to support progress towards sustainability goals.
Conclusions for University Sustainable Development
1. Research and Data• Cross-departmental engagement in capital
project planning that identifies important SD issues
• Develop and apply a carbon budget for campus development
• Leverage academic curriculum for project-based learning, operations research and the campus as a living laboratory
Presenter
Presentation Notes
As the SD effort at UMA continued to mature it became critical to account for and communicate the success of the abstract and challenging concept of sustainability. Establishing teaching and research programs within the academic structure attracted researchers and students to the institution. The institutional leadership team and sustainability advocates need data to compare and understand the effectiveness of policies and actions to meet established SD goals. Critical actions for conducting research and gathering data to support SD are: Create robust cross-departmental engagement to identify important questions or issues early on in the decision making process and include specific sustainability goals and requirements for capital projects. Establish a rigorously applied carbon budget for campus development. Develop enterprise data sets that allow the identification and maintenance of information about academic programs, space assets, operations and related energy/ carbon emissions at a level of detail (at minimum at the building level) that is meaningful for decision making in capital, financial and carbon budget planning Leverage the academic endeavor in using the campus as a learning laboratory to tie together academic research and teaching with operations research and sustainability work on campus.
Conclusions for University Sustainable Development
1. Leadership for Society• Advocate for full commitment to SD and GHG
reduction goals• Model governance/negotiation strategies to
resolve conflicts and pursue smart growth• Place local/institutional decisions into a
regional/ global framework of resiliency activity• Practice what is taught by leading change effort
to connect academic and physical planning toward meeting the triple bottom line
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The climate crisis demands that HEIs demonstrate leadership for today's society - they must teach themselves and tomorrow's leaders how to integrate sustainability into every decision and action in order to achieve tangible environmental improvements. Critical actions that emerge from reflection on UMA's experience are: Recognize that a partial commitment to SD is not enough to solve the climate crisis or reach GHG emissions reduction goals. Model governance/ negotiation strategies to resolve the conflicts inherent in reducing consumption, living and practicing within set limits of growth. Lead efforts to conserve natural resources by placing local/institutional decisions into a regional/ global framework. Lead resiliency planning efforts with multi-disciplinary knowledge and modeling predictions that utilize the campus/state as a laboratory for applied research into a variety of policies. Practice what is taught by leading the change effort to connect academic and physical planning toward meeting the triple bottom line.
