Assessment of sustainability awareness and practice in a campus community

Survey development

Two surveys were developed – a student survey and a staff and faculty survey. These were developed and administered through the Qualtrics XM Platform (Qualtrics, 2022). This is because “Qualtrics Research Core XM is CMU's enterprise-level survey and data collection tool for both research and administrative projects. It offers users the ability to create surveys, collect responses, and analyze data” (CMU Technology at CMU, 2023). Qualtrics is accessible for anyone with an electronic device via email, and free to use for the students, staff and faculty at CMU. Additionally, Qualtrics enables survey administrators to easily and anonymously export results to analysis platforms such as Excel, or SPSS among others. Each survey consisted of four primary sections: Demographics, Sustainability Background, Sustainability Activities at CMU and a Sustainability Engagement section. These were developed through consultation with CMU Human Resources, Central Sustainability and the CMU Office for Institutional Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. The surveys underwent the Institutional Review Board approval process during January of 2022. The student survey totaled 25 questions and was predominately “yes” and “no” questions. Similarly, the staff and faculty survey totaled 23 questions and was predominantly “yes” and “no” questions, with variations in the demographics section (Table 1).

Survey distribution

Once developed, the survey was first administered to students, then to staff and faculty, and all responses were collected anonymously through the Qualtrics XM Platform (Qualtrics, 2022). For the student sample, researchers requested a random anonymous sample comprised of 25% of the undergraduate student body attending classes at the CMU main campus from the university Office of the Registrar. During February 2022, after this sample was obtained, the survey was electronically distributed, using Qualtrics, to undergraduate students, totaling 2,350 individuals, then redistributed once a week for three more consecutive weeks, garnering 392 student responses (16.6% response rate). During March 2022, the staff and faculty survey was distributed to all faculty through the Faculty Association union, and to all staff through CMU Human Resources. The survey reached 1,286 individuals and was then redistributed two weeks later, garnering a total of 283 staff and faculty responses (22.0% response rate). For both the student, and staff and faculty samples, the survey and results are subject to selection bias and nonresponse bias, because the sample population could elect to not take the survey (Qualtrics, 2023).

Data analysis

The two survey data sets were analyzed separately through IBM SPSS Statistics version 28.0.0.0 (IBM Corp, 2021), then comparatively and collectively through a combined-results data set. Demographic data was compared to the 17 questions addressing sustainability background and sustainability actions at CMU for both surveys (students, and staff and faculty) (Table 1). Comparisons between students, and staff and faculty regarding sustainability background and knowledge were conducted using Pearson Chi-square tests (Table 2). Next, student and staff and faculty responses were combined and pooled into each of their academic colleges as appropriate, including arts and media, business, education and human services, health professions, liberal arts and social sciences and science and engineering. These university divisions were then compared and tested for significance (Table 3). Finally, sustainability engagement and written response questions were compared and analyzed. All significant results were found using a chi-squared analysis in IBM SPSS Statistics version 28.0.0.0 (IBM Corp, 2021).

Demographics

Comparison of student and staff/faculty sustainability background and knowledge

For 15 of the 17 yes/no survey questions, staff and faculty results yielded higher “yes” percentages, indicating more sustainability knowledge, awareness or behavior. Of these, ten yielded significant differences. Notably, when asked, “Do you think your individual actions can make a difference toward sustainability issues?”, students responded “yes” 77.4% of the time, whereas staff and faculty responded “yes” 90.5% of the time (p < 0.001) (Table 2). Similarly, regarding behaviors, when asked “Do you actively try to minimize your food waste?”; “Do you actively try to minimize your energy and water usage?”; and “Do you actively try to minimize your solid waste?”, students responded “yes” 70.4%, 68.1% and 63.3% of the time, respectively, whereas staff and faculty responded “yes” 83.3%, 88.0% and 86.2% of the time, respectively (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001). All of these demonstrated significance favoring positive staff and faculty behaviors. When assessing recycling and composting knowledge and practice, similar trends were identified, as staff and faculty results yielded significance in comparison to student results when asked “Do you recycle currently?”; “Do you feel informed about what can and cannot be recycled at CMU?”; and “Do you actively compost?” (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively) (Table 2).

Regarding CMU-specific actions and policies, staff and faculty almost exclusively were found to have more pro-sustainability knowledge and behaviors than students. When asked, “Did you know that CMU derives 75% of its energy from coal?”, only 6.7% of student responses indicated “yes,” whereas 12.7% of staff and faculty responses indicated “yes” (p = 0.01). Similarly, when asked “Did you know that CMU prevents approximately 40% of its solids waste from being sent to landfills?”, 6.7% of student respondents indicated “yes” whereas 18.4% of staff and faculty respondents indicated “yes” (p < 0.001). Finally, when asked “Did you know that CMU is a member of the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education?”, 19.0% of student respondents answered “yes,” compared to 27.7% of staff and faculty who answered “yes” (p = 0.011).

Assessment of sustainability knowledge and practice among academic colleges

Of the 17 survey questions assessing sustainability background and knowledge, 4 questions yielded significance using a chi-squared test (Table 3). When asked “Did you recycle prior to your employment/attendance at CMU?”, individuals enrolled or employed in science and engineering, education and human services and arts and media responded “yes” at rates of 91.2%, 84.4% and 83.3%, respectively, in contrast to lower rates from liberal arts and social sciences, health professions and business, with “yes” rates of 79.1%, 77.4% and 73.6%, respectively (p = 0.046). In contrast, when asked, “Do you recycle currently?”, responses within academic colleges exhibited substantial variation. From highest to lowest, colleges were ordered arts and media, health professions, science and engineering, liberal arts and social sciences, education and human services and business, with “yes” rates of 88.9%, 82.1%, 81.4%, 80.0%, 71.2% and 66.0%, respectively (p = 0.037).

The remaining two questions with significant responses were associated with resource minimization behavior. When asked, “Do you actively try to minimize your food waste?”, academic colleges responded, from highest to lowest, science and engineering, liberal arts and social sciences, business, health professions, arts and media and education and human services, with “yes” response rates of 84.1%, 78.0%, 73.6%, 67.9%, 66.7% and 62.1%, respectively (p = 0.013). Similarly, when asked, “Do you actively try to minimize your energy and water usage?”, academic colleges responded, from highest to lowest, science and engineering, liberal arts and social sciences, arts and media, health professions, business and education and human services, with response rates of 78.8%, 76.9%, 74.1%, 73.5%, 66.0% and 57.6%, respectively (p = 0.04).

Multiple response and survey engagement

The final section of the survey included three multiple-response questions and one optional written response question gauging awareness and actionable items around sustainability at CMU. First, respondents were asked to indicate all of the institutional sustainability programs that they had heard of. Unsurprisingly, an overwhelmingly large portion of respondents indicated that they had heard of student organizations/clubs related to sustainability, with 45.3% of students being aware of these and 51.7% of staff and faculty being aware of these. The remaining three less-selected options were all directly tied to and funded by CMU, with options being paid residence hall sustainability positions, the student government association sustainability committee and the new campus sustainability office.

The remaining questions asked respondents to indicate ways in which they would be willing to support sustainability initiatives at CMU. When asked about willingness to volunteer at the recycling center, 29.1% of students and 11.9% of staff and faculty members checked “yes.” When asked about willingness to pay an annual sustainability fee at or below $10, 28.6% of students and 28.0% of staff and faculty members checked “yes.” When asked, “What sustainability projects would you like to see pursued at CMU?”, results indicated favorability toward waste and energy-oriented projects. Over 50% of both the student, and staff and faculty groups indicated that they would like to see a designated recycling drop-off location for off-campus community. Over 40% of both groups indicated that they would like to see composting bins in residential kitchenettes and an increase in university energy acquisition from renewable sources. These were very high results in comparison to projects and opportunities which required physical engagement, such as more sustainability volunteer opportunities, more sustainability service-learning opportunities and more sustainability guest speakers. Finally, when asked about the development of a formal sustainability office, 30.8% of student and 17.8% of staff and faculty checked “yes” (Table 4).

Demographics

In the distribution of this survey, the student sample was comprised of exclusively undergraduate students. This 25% sample was a portion of the undergraduate student population taking classes on the CMU main-campus, and thus, graduate students were excluded from this study. This distribution methodology accounts for variation in sample size when compared to the reported student enrollment from the introduction (11,303 individuals enrolled the following fall), and must be taken into consideration when interpreting results.

Regarding survey responses, it was found that, for both groups, female respondents greatly outnumbered that of male responses, with nearly 70% of combined responses being female and approximately 30% male. The overall gender composition of the student body at CMU for the fall 2022 semester was reported as 60% female and 40% male (CMU Fall Enrollment History, 2023). Additionally, this data is reflective of the results of numerous other studies, notably a 2012 survey of Middle East Technological University which found that females are likely to hold more pro-sustainability attributes and engage in sustainability behaviors and thus engage more with sustainability materials such as this survey (Sahin et al., 2012). That said, a 2023 study of 430 students at a Saudi Arabian university garnered nearly equal male and female respondent rates, although it lacked equal representation among under- and upper-classmen (Al-Zohbi and Pilotti, 2023).

In this research, as anticipated, more students from STEM fields engaged with the study, with the College of Science and Engineering and College of Health Professions garnering the most responses. This is likely because of their familiarity with terms such as “environment,” or “sustainability” from relevant coursework, or perhaps due to a natural inclination toward these topics as individuals studying STEM fields. That said, it was not anticipated that the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences would produce near equal numbers of responses, thus indicating that sustainability is potentially a topic of interest across the entire higher education environment, and not necessarily specific to one or a few fields of study. Sustainability is multidisciplinary in nature and thus must be approached from all disciplines within higher education (Sibel, 2009).

As this is believed to be the first survey assessing staff and faculty sustainability knowledge and behavior in the higher education environment, there are few datapoints to compare within other studies. Despite this, response proportions nearly mirrored student responses, with the most respondents coming from the College of Science and Engineering, College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences and College of Health Professions. Additionally, nearly half of staff and faculty respondents have worked at the institution for less than 10 years, and half for more than 10 years, indicating that longevity of employment at an institution is unlikely to sway engagement with sustainability materials like this survey.

Comparison of student and staff/faculty sustainability background and knowledge

When comparing the student to the staff and faculty results, it was found that a majority of the time, staff and faculty demonstrated more pro-sustainability knowledge and behavior than students. It was found in 15 of the 17 questions in this section that students lack in sustainability knowledge when compared to staff and faculty, and ten of those with significant results. These findings resemble prior studies, indicating that students generally have low knowledge regarding sustainability concepts and institutional sustainability initiatives (excluding faculty comparisons). A 2007 study found that students lack a holistic understanding of the term “sustainability,” indicating a willingness to sacrifice social and economic interpretations in exchange for environment (Kagawa, 2007). Other studies demonstrated that students are largely unaware of campus sustainability initiatives and lack knowledge about sustainability, despite recognizing its importance (Msengi et al., 2019; Alsaati et al., 2020). Similarly, a 2014 sustainability study of engineering students indicated that respondents lacked knowledge on questions related to current sustainability events and technological innovations (Sharma et al., 2014). To date, research specific to student sustainability knowledge has indicated that students generally lack sustainability knowledge and understanding. Overall, the existing body of research and this research demonstrates that students are unprepared to address sustainability issues within their respective career fields, especially in comparison to their educators. Potential solutions to address this at CMU may include adding mandatory general education requirements around sustainability, integrating sustainability in the orientation and residence life experience and working as a university to create and uphold commitments around waste reduction, renewable energy, clean water, climate change and sustainable food and transportation systems.

While there were no identified prior research papers comparing student, staff and faculty sustainability knowledge at higher education institutions, it is believed that trends in which staff and faculty have more sustainability knowledge are a product of longer terms of employment experienced by staff and faculty, in comparison to the temporary enrollment status of students (Table 2). A 2020 eight-year study at Indiana State University found that freshmen have gradually demonstrated more concern for the environment each year, and they have shown increased concern for the environment over their collegiate careers (Speer et al., 2020). These findings, when paired with the results of this research, may indicate that longevity at an institution, whether through enrollment or employment, increases the likelihood of garnering interest, knowledge and action around sustainability. That said, the process through which an individual acclimates to and learns about sustainability concepts could be expedited through more focus on sustainability issues and topics throughout the university, including all academic and non-academic departments and divisions.

Assessment of sustainability knowledge and practice among academic colleges

For nearly every question, it was found that students, staff and faculty the College of Science and Engineering, College of Health Professions and College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences results indicated more pro-sustainability knowledge and behaviors, in comparison to peers in the College of Arts and Media, College of Business and College of Education and Human Services. First, regarding recycling behavior prior to and during enrollment and employment, the order ranking of college participation in recycling prior to and during an individual’s time at CMU changed vastly, with the only exceptions being the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences ranking fourth for both questions and the College of Business ranking last. Notably, the College of Health Professions ranked fifth for prior recycling behavior, but second for current recycling behavior, indicating that some factor within the health professions field or physical environment at CMU has a positive effect on increasing recycling behavior (Table 3). This could be attributed to increased visibility of signage, more building and lab space or faculty and course content within environmentally oriented health curricula such as those under a “Public and Environmental Health” program. Additionally, improvements such as this one could be a direct product of recent university-specific initiatives to improve recycling rates and behavior by Central Sustainability and CMU Facilities Management. These include newer programs to recycle electronics, pizza boxes, candy wrappers and food waste on campus. Many of these opportunities are not offered to students in their hometowns prior to their attendance at CMU, and therefore, current recycling behavior is more likely to increase as a product of expanded access to these waste reduction opportunities (Derksen and Gartrell, 1993). Additionally, programs such as health professions courses are largely housed in one building and thus signage and physical changes have direct influences on the students within these programs.

Unlike recycling behavior questions, resource conservation questions yielded similar results when comparing academic colleges, with the College of Science and Engineering responding the most positively to food waste, and energy and water conservation questions and the College of Education and Human Services responding the most negatively to both questions (Table 3). While difficult to attribute to academic coursework, this could be because all students at CMU live on-campus for at minimum one year and thus are exposed to the same living-situations, including energy and water infrastructure. In contrast, varying building and living communities have varying levels of accessibility to and enthusiasm around recycling, thus explaining some variation in recycling behavior. At CMU, recycling is emphasized in programs and education far more than resource conservation, and therefore, few things in the educational environment are currently influencing behavior around resource conservation.

As a university, CMU ranks higher than most other higher education institutions in waste diversion, but often lags in other facets of sustainability. Regarding waste, the 12-month diversion rate for CMU was 46% as of December 2022, which is 25% higher than the Michigan average diversion rate of 19.3%, and 14% higher than the United States diversion rate of 32.1% (Johnston, 2022; EPA, 2022). Despite this, CMU only held a “Silver” rating from AASHE up until 2021, when the establishment of the student led sustainability office, Central Sustainability, bolstered the university ranking to “Gold” (AASHE, 2022). Yet, this deficit is not the responsibility of one sole campus unit, and thus, it is important to gauge which academic units contribute to growing knowledge, and thus action, around sustainability and university development. However, if the College of Arts and Media, College of Business and College of Education and Human Services consistently lack in sustainability knowledge and behavior for student, and staff and faculty groups, then targeted education and programming for these communities must be used to engage individuals around sustainability.

Multiple response and survey engagement

Within the final section of the survey, multiple response questions enabled respondents to indicate familiarity with sustainability programs and initiatives, willingness to get involved in sustainability efforts and what sustainability projects they hope to see pursued at CMU. Surprisingly, there was less awareness of programs started by the university, suggesting that student-driven initiatives are more likely to raise awareness among students, staff and faculty (Table 4). For instance, students, staff and faculty had high awareness of student environmental clubs, whereas they generally lacked awareness of sustainability positions in the Student Government Association and Residence Life. That said, these university-funded sustainability programs are relatively newer than sustainability-oriented student groups, and therefore, respondents are more likely to have had exposure to the student groups having more longevity.

For action-oriented questions, it was found that there was substantial variation within staff and faculty responses, but more consistency within student responses. This variation could be attributed to students often being at the institution for a typical maximum of four years, whereas staff and faculty longevity exceeded ten years in approximately half of responses. Therefore, staff and faculty see the institution though a unique lens, and thus are willing to support sustainability in different ways than students.

Finally, when asked what sustainability projects respondents would like to see pursued, the most popular responses often involved waste- and energy-oriented solutions. Although CMU is a leader in composting and recycling, these waste disposal options are not necessarily accessible to all facets of the university, such as residential hall kitchenettes, office spaces and certain public cafeterias. Additionally, respondents, while unaware of ongoing energy initiatives such as purchasing from renewable wind sources, expressed a desire for the institution to increase investment and involvement in sustainable energy projects. Therefore, in cases like this on in which the programs desired may already exist, results speak to a lack of marketing and education around present energy (and other) programs. CMU can easily improve these education deficits through using the infrastructure in place as an educational tool.

Most notably, while the recent and ongoing establishment of a university sustainability office (Central Sustainability) has garnered major success and accomplishments, it has also demonstrated that the campus community, especially students, are lacking in sustainability knowledge, thus creating a barrier to pro-sustainability action. Overtime, attempts at addressing this gap have yielded varying levels of success, such as the establishment of a residential composting program, engagement of students in community gardening and providing sustainability volunteer opportunities to students. Therefore, despite lower “yes” responses to the need to bolster the institutional sustainability office, positive responses to the programming and education produced by this office suggest that it needs time to grow and affect the entire campus community.

Student input

The final question of the survey prompted respondents to provide input by asking, “Do you have any comments on sustainability at CMU that you would like to share?” Impressively, approximately half of the responses indicated strong favor for the installation of a recycling drop-off location for off-campus students. Just a few sample responses related to this included:

• “I would even pay something cheap to have recycling for off-campus students, seriously pursue that it seems easier to do first.”

• “PLEASE create a recycling drop-off for off-campus students! We have been throwing so many things away because we have nowhere to take them to recycle them.”

• “off campus apartments do not have recycling bins!! so it is hard to recycle here.”

• “Off campus apartments do not allow for recycling in a reasonable way, if there was a way to help with that?”

• “Living off campus/near campus is really hard to recycle because they don’t provide bins or info about where to go. As a full time student, I have a limited ability to go somewhere else to drop off recycling.”

• “As an off campus student, I think it would be beneficial to have a place to go to once a week to recycle.”

Aside from responses oriented toward waste reduction, a notable amount of students indicated a desire to see larger investment in renewable energy systems and greater accessibility and education for and around existing and new sustainability structures, such as LEED certified buildings, composting systems and residential hall recycling opportunities. These are all possible within the context of CMU and similar institutions but require consistent investment and attention from university leadership to achieve success. In the case of CMU, resources directed toward institutional sustainability opportunities such as Central Sustainability, student government and residence life sustainability positions and student sustainability groups will enable students, staff and faculty members to become changemakers around institutional sustainability challenges.

Limitations

It is worth noting that there are several limitations to this study to take into consideration when assessing results. First, while potentially indicative of interest in sustainability topics, responding to the study survey was optional, and thus, there was no way to guarantee equal representation across academic or student groups. That said, as reported in the demographics section, responses for gender mirrored that of other studies, while responses from varying academic colleges resembled the proportions of students enrolled in these university facets to begin with. Additionally, the survey does not differentiate between staff responses and faculty responses. This may lead to unintended influence from staff individuals who are not directly tied to academics, such as support staff who work in specific academic divisions but do not engage with related academic content. Finally, while ideally representative of all academic higher education institutions, this survey only assessed students, staff and faculty at CMU, and therefore may only have major implications for peer institutions, Carnegie R² institutions or schools similar in size and demographic, while not as significant implications for significantly smaller or larger schools or those significantly different in demographic composition. With this in mind, readers must also consider that these results are not fully representative of the entire student, staff and faculty body at CMU due to selection bias and non-response bias (Qualtrics, 2023). Therefore, the statistical analysis performed are only true for the respondent population and thus are not necessarily translatable to other institutions unless deemed applicable.

Conclusions and next steps

Overall, it is abundantly clear that sustainability needs to be further addressed and implemented within the CMU community. The collective results of this survey indicate that students, staff and faculty care about waste, water, energy and food issues as they pertain to sustainability and hope to see them addressed at an institutional level. Yet, as indicated by these results, students in particular, like those in similar studies, lack in sustainability knowledge and associated actions, despite caring about them (which differs from staff and faculty knowledge). Therefore, sustainability must be addressed through multifaceted approaches that integrate academics, administration, operations and student services to best prepare students for a changing world (Sibel, 2009).

Moving forward, future research and projects will build on the present study through further investigating why specific academic colleges or units positively or negatively influence sustainability knowledge and behavior, as this could be a product of curriculum, or physical environment and programming. Additionally, knowing that staff and faculty have more pro-sustainability knowledge and behaviors, it will be vital to gauge why this has not often translated to the students they are educating. Perhaps this is an indication that personal values and individual background has a stronger influence on sustainability knowledge and behavior than external influences, although this must be further investigated. Regardless, it is clear that support exists for the implementation of sustainability projects and programming within higher education institutions such as CMU, and therefore, action must be taken to meet the demands of the CMU community.

Other similar studies have engaged students through knowledge- and action-based assessments of sustainability culture in higher education environments. For instance, a 2012 study at Middle East Technical University found that gender and media usage were the best predictors of sustainability values and attitudes (Sahin et al., 2012). In contrast, a 2023 study at a Saudi Arabian University found that while students care about sustainability, values may not be a predictor of behavior, and thus the status-quo around sustainability education must be challenged (Al-Zohbi and Pilotti, 2023). Therefore, it is clear that numerous mechanisms, activities and communication channels must be used to continually and uniquely engage students, staff and faculty around sustainability. At CMU, this may mean administrative sustainability planning and commitments which can then be carried out through institutional mechanisms such as Central Sustainability, student government and residence life sustainability positions and sustainability student groups.

Within higher education institutions, numerous barriers to sustainable development persist, despite resounding community voices pressing for investment and involvement in sustainability projects and engagement. Most notably, economic barriers and frugal decision-making leads to hesitancy to invest in sustainability projects with long-term return potential. Additionally, resistance to change and institutional fragmentation are found to present both individual and institutional challenges to addressing sustainability (Gale, 2015). At CMU, these factors coupled with competing areas of growth are believed to lead to the stagnation of sustainable development, despite community interest. That said, investment in sustainable strategies can often yield financial and social profits, such as through the lower cost of compost hauling in comparison to landfill hauling or through the community building and sense of happiness produced though green spaces. In fact, according to a 2018 CMU Sustainability report produced by the Great Lakes Institute for Sustainable Systems, CMU saved over $10,000,000 from investment in sustainability infrastructure and processes in Facilities Management between 2008 and 2017 (Rohrer et al., 2018).

Regarding physical projects and programming, this survey will ideally result in more emphasis on institutional projects and commitment related to waste and energy – mainly through the betterment of existing recycling and composting systems. Additionally, the information provided by this study will ideally be used to inform targeted approaches to sustainability education within specific academic colleges at and beyond CMU, especially because each institution and department within has its own unique sustainability achievements and challenges. Again, this is a testament to the multifaceted yet interdisciplinary nature of sustainability, thus necessitating unique and innovative approaches to sustainability challenges and education within higher education institutions.