An Indicator-Based Approach to Sustainability Monitoring and Mainstreaming at Universiti Sains Malaysia

Abstract

This chapter presents the results of the research we have been doing to develop a new methodology to monitor and mainstream sustainability throughout Universiti Sains Malaysia, in keeping with our new vision of “Transforming Higher Education for a Sustainable Tomorrow.” We have focused both on global sustainability challenges and on campus sustainability. In the first part of our research we developed a new tool, a Sustainability Assessment Methodology (SAM), to assess the sustainability content of courses and projects. This method involves a screening step, consisting of three generic questions; an identification step, with 24 more specific questions; and a classification step, in which the results of steps 1 and 2 are used to classify courses and projects as either Green (High), Yellow (Medium), or Red (Low) in terms of sustainability. When we used SAM to do a USM Sustainability Audit, out of 2671 courses examined, 44 % were found to have elements of at least one pillar of the “Triple Bottom Line” sustainability model, 27 % had elements of two pillars, and 9 % had elements of all three pillars. In the second part of our research, we developed a Framework with Four Worksheets that presented targets, tasks, and timelines for sustainability infusion at all levels of USM’s activities. The outcomes of this part of our research provide feedback and guidance to all practitioners to build sustainability content in their mission activities. This may include reorienting existing courses or designing and managing new research and community-oriented projects. Together, the results may be used either for rating or ranking sustainability performance, though we have used them only for rating at this stage.

Keywords

Appendices

Appendix 1

Permutation Combination

1. The (+, ~ , –) responses when applied to the three pillars of SD, Economy (Eco), Environment (Env) and Society (Soc), generate the following permutations.
2. (Note This table itself need not be understood in any depth to apply SAM, but this explains the basis for it. It is true that those who use SAM need to have a working knowledge of SD and ESD. There are no other easy approaches to assessing sustainability content as we have attempted here. It is similar to a clinical approach; while instrument based test results are useful in diagnosis, qualified and experienced medical personnel are needed to treat patients).
3. Any combination of two or more positives (+) with other sign was considered to indicate a distinct situation for sustainability—a smiling face. The other two faces have less and less + signs and hence relatively less sustainability content.

Appendix 2

Brief check list for SAM–KIPs* and KPIs* (Based on USM-APEX Sustainability Priorities—WEHAB +3)

No.	Indicator type: Impact indicators (8 KIPs); scope—general (check compatibility of statements here to audit items)	+ (H)	~ (M)	– (L)	Remarks (sector/cross-sec)
1	Depletion of natural capital; institutional arrangements Development footprints; globalization, culture				Environment
2	Pollution; institutional arrangements Integrated waste management - 3R approach				Environment
3	Knowledge economy, skills generation; poverty eradication (social uplift)				Economy
4	Emphasis on “the economy and society are wholly owned subsidiaries of the environment” or “the economic goods and services come from the ecological goods and services”				Economy
5	Green business for income generation and societal well being				Society
6	Health, conflict resolution, social capital, democracy, equity, good governance				Society
7	In human history, there have been ‘waves’ of major innovations. The next wave of innovation will be in Sustainability. EE/ESD as the educational approach for this innovation				EE/ESD
8	The intent of the ESD decade (2005-14, UNDESD)				EE/ESD
No.	Indicator type: performance indicators (10 KPIs); scope—‘WEHAB + 3’ (WEHAB = water, energy, health, agriculture and biodiversity)	+	~	–	Remarks
9	Quality and quantity				Water
10	Distribution and accessibility				Water
11	Efficiency/accessibility:				Energy
12	Diversification/renewable energy				Energy
13	Communicable diseases				Health
14	Non-communicable diseases				Health
15	Land use and land cover changes				Agriculture
16	Food security				Agriculture
17	Biological goods and services				Biodiversity
18	Habitat integrity, conservation				Biodiversity
No.	Indicator type: performance indicators (6 KPIs); scope—WEHAB + 3’ (3 = (i): climate change/disaster risk management, (ii): population/poverty, (iii): production/consumption)	+	~	–	Remarks
19	Science, sectoral impacts and capacity building				Climate change/disaster risk management
20	Mitigation, adaptation, Networking and Policy				Climate change/disaster risk management
21	Demography, settlement, natural resources, income generation, and Poverty				Population/poverty
22	Human capital, education, health, globalization, culture, and governance				Population/poverty
23	Natural resource use, pollution, policies				Production/consumption
24	Industry, trade, transportation, business, market, policies				Production/consumption

1. (+) If the answer is positive/yes
2. (~) If the answer is neutral (neither positive or negative)
3. (–) If the answer is negative/no (if in doubt here, use precautionary principle)
4. *KIP Key intangible performance; KPI, Key performance indicators

Appendix 3

Appendix 4