KIEAE Journal
[ Article ]
Journal of the Korea Institute of Ecological Architecture and Environment - Vol. 17, No. 4, pp.21-32
ISSN: 2288-968X (Print) 2288-9698 (Online)
Print publication date 30 Aug 2017
Received 05 Jun 2017 Revised 16 Aug 2017 Accepted 21 Aug 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12813/kieae.2017.17.4.021

Analysis of Green Campus Initiatives Led by Voluntary Participants of University Students

Cheon, Wan* ; Koo, Ja-Kon**
*Main author, Dept. of Environmental Engineering, Yonsei Univ. wan8727@naver.com
**Corresponding author, Dept. of Environmental Engineering, Yonsei Univ. koo904@yonsei.ac.kr


ⓒCopyright Korea Institute of Ecological Architecture and Environment

Abstract

Purpose

Since 2010, many universities in Korea have been implementing Green Leader Training Programs which are usually run by students themselves. In the last five years of 2015, the Green Leader Training Program under the sponsorship of Korean Association for Green Campus Initiative has promoted the practice of a green campus and many relative projects have been carried out in various fields.

Method

We utilized the green campus component index established by the Presidential Committee on Green Growth in Korea and have analyzed 480 activities during the years of 2010~2015.

Result

We found that many activities were classified into the environmental field(264, 55.0%). This was followed by university members' participation(130, 27.1%), community engagement(68, 14.2%), and university management(18, 3.7%). These results showed that the green campus initiatives were focused on the environmental field. The number of universities participating from 2010 to 2015 were 20 in the metropolitan area and 15 in the non-metropolitan are. In the metropolitan area, 81.7% of green leader activities were conducted at universities in Seoul, and those in non-capital areas were active in the Middle region(51.3%) and Yeongnam region(48.7%). On the other hand, there was no activity in the Honam region, and it shows that there was a noticeable differential by regional groups.

Keywords:

Green Leader, Green Campus, Voluntary Participation, Korean Association for Green Campus Initiative

키워드:

그린리더, 그린캠퍼스, 자발적 참여, 한국그린캠퍼스협의회

1. Introduction

1.1. Background and Necessity of the Study

Today, as universities grow in size and the number of members increases, they become organizations that directly or indirectly affect the environment [1]. Given this trend, universities also need to make voluntary efforts to create a sustainable society [2]. Research on the sustainability of universities has been carried out in Korea and abroad including a study to link the Fisher[3] environmental management system (ISO 14001) with the administration of the university in relation to the green campus operating system and a comprehensive study to institutionalize green campuses through a case analysis of Ball State University, USA [4]. Research has been going on steadily, such as strategic research for eco-campuses through case studies in Malaysia, Sharp[6]’s study of institutionalization methods for sustainable environments on campus, and Ryan et al.[7]’s study on methods to promote sustainability in higher education regarding the improvement of sustainability of universities in the Asia-Pacific region.

In the United States, several activities have been conducted by the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE), which was established in 2006. By sharing information provided by this, each university has established an organic system [8]. One example is the Sustainability Tracking Assessment & Rating System (STARS), which assesses the university’s degree of education for sustainable development. In addition, more than 2,000 participants from 13 countries gathered at the AASHE Conference in 2016 for a research presentation for sustainability campuses. Also, an average of twelve webinars are held each year by selecting webinar applicants on the theme of sustainability campus management [9].

The International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU), founded in 2006 by 10 universities from around the world, including Yale University in USA, Oxford University in England and University of Copenhagen in Denmark, established the Campus Sustainability Initiative. In addition since 2009, each campus annually publishes sustainability reports including energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, and produces and distributes its own Green Guide for Universities [10].

Universities in Europe, the US, Canada and the Asia-Pacific region are involved in the creation of green campuses, such as with green building construction that is efficient in energy and resource utilization, and ISO 14001 certification [1]. At the University of Copenhagen, green campus activities were conducted through energy saving in laboratories, offices, lecture halls, green campus promotional stickers and posters [11].

Many universities in China are changing to green campuses through education for sustainable development, on-campus energy monitoring, energy analysis and management system development, and eco-friendly building construction [12]. Shenyang University is conducting energy saving projects such as using renewable energy like geothermal and solar heat, and using energy saving lamps (LED). In addition, the university has established environmental education curriculum and collaborates with Japanese universities on environmental issues[13].

In Korea, interest in education for sustainable development (ESD) is growing. In addition to a study on the importance of green campus management factors [14], there is analysis of the current status of university campus energy management for low carbon green campuses [15], change of university campus responses to new environments through the case of Cheongju University [16], sustainable university campus planning index studies[17] and a study to develop the green campus evaluation framework [18]. Research on the environmental perception of college students has been steadily progressing since 2006 [19, 20, 21]. However, there has been criticism that education for sustainable development and environmental education are continuing to be discussed at the partial and personal level, and that comprehensive public debate has not been achieved [22]. Since the meaning of education for sustainable development and the green campus is being added in higher education, it is necessary to shift paradigms to examine the role and meaning of the university's education for sustainable development in connection with early childhood education, elementary and secondary education, and social education to promote education for sustainable development in higher education[23].

Universities are spaces that consume energy and release pollutants just like any organization in society. They consume considerable energy in various spaces such as classrooms, laboratories, libraries, restaurants, and cafeterias. According to domestic data, the number of domestic universities that consumed more than 2000 TOE (Tonne of oil equivalent) per is gradually increasing from 45 in 2000, 76 in 2007, and 119 in 2015. Energy use was 130,000 TOE in 2000, 240,000 TOE in 2007, and 338,000 TOE in 2015 which is an increase of 160% over the past 15 years. Compared to the 71.6% increase in total energy consumption in Korean buildings, the increase in energy consumption in universities is much higher [24].

Universities are emerging as the major sources of greenhouse gas emissions as domestic universities' energy consumption increases year by year [25, 26, 27]. However, efforts to cope with climate change through energy saving are still insufficient. To cope with these problems, eight universities in Korea have been conducting various activities such as launching the ‘Korean Association for Green Campus Initiative’ in November 2008 [28]. The university green campus activities include greenhouse gas reduction efforts such as low-carbon transportation, carbon storage capacity enhancement, and the reduction of environmentally harmful emissions [29].

In order to create a green campuses, universities need to save energy resources, reduce greenhouse gas emissions through management, education, research, and community cooperation, and cultivate future green leaders with ‘sustainability’ as their core value. Efforts need to be practiced for the entirety of activities [30]. Accordingly, it is time to make various efforts based on the voluntary nature of universities.

1.2. Purpose

This study analyzed the performance of the Green Leader Training Program conducted in 2010 by the Korean Association for Green Campus Initiative in order to analyze the current situation and cases of green campus operation by voluntary participation of university students in Korea and abroad. The Green Leaders Development Program, organized by the Korean Association for Green Campus Initiative, is an annual program started in 2010 to activate green campus campaigns and foster university student leaders to lead this movement.

In this study, the cases of foreign countries stated as theoretical background were referenced, but the Korean Association for Green Campus Initiative collected and analyzed the cases of the universities participating in the Green Leader Training Program and applied each evaluation factor.

The purpose of this study is first to analyze the contents of the university student-led program by evaluating the Green Leader Training Program conducted during 2010∼2015 by the green campus evaluation index [31]. Second, to identify the importance of individual evaluation elements in green campus activities and third, based on this, it is to derive the necessary elements to activate the green campus operation.


2. Theoretical background

2.1. Green Campus Status and Evaluation index

2.1.1. Korea

The domestic green campus activities were started by forming a voluntary group of universities and spread through systematic support projects of the Ministry of Environment. As of the end of 2016, the Korean Association for Green Campus Initiative (2008.11), Gyeonggi Association for Green Campus Initiative (2010.3), Busan Association for Green Campus Initiative (2010.10), Chungbuk Association for Green Campus Initiative (2011.11), Low Carbon Green Campus General Council (2012.8), and Seoul Association for Green Campus Initiative (2013.6) have been established[30]. An agreement has been concluded to promote the initiative between the related departments such as the Committee on Green Growth, the Ministry of Environment, and the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology and university (college) groups (2011.7).

Green Campus Evaluation Index

A green campus is defined as “a comprehensive concept that is active in terms of saving energy and resources and practicing zero carbon emissions through management·education·research· community cooperation, with sustainability and low carbon as core values” [32]. According to the long term development plan for green campuses, ‘Green campus’ is categorized into 1) sustainable university management, 2) environment-friendly campus, 3) participation of school members, 4) cooperation and engagement with the community. Detailed contents are also stated. In addition, based on the four categories of environment, university members’ participation, university management, and community engagement, detailed contents were presented [33].

The category of ‘environment’ is composed of five evaluation factors: sustainable energy, resource recycling and waste management, water resources, air, and sustainable space management. ‘University members’ participation' consists of four evaluation factors: curriculum, research projects, student participation, and faculty participation. ‘University management’ consists of five evaluation factors: planning, operational guidelines, information exchange, related organizations, and continuous monitoring. ‘Community engagement’ is composed of two evaluation factors, local residents participation and build cooperation. Thus, the green campus evaluation factor consists of four categories and 16 evaluation factors.

2.1.2. Oversea

In other countries, green campus activities can be divided into the United States, Europe, and Asia-Pacific regions. The focus will be on the United States and the United Kingdom, which systematically summarize the green campus evaluation index.

As of the end of 2016, the United States is running the American College & University Presidents' Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), which has 597 university presidents involved and is building a greenhouse gas inventory to promote reducing greenhouse gas emissions[34]. In addition, they established a ‘program of action’ where each university sets CO2 reduction rates and practices. Since 2007, they have operated the Sustainability Tracking Assessment & Rating System (STARS) through AASHE. It consists of 4 ratings including Platinum, Gold, Silver and Bronze. Based on this, the green campus implementation level is assessed. In the United States, 778 educational institutions, including Yale University, New York University, and UCLA, are participating in STARS [35].

Evaluation criteria of AASHE's STARS consists of the five areas as shown in Table 2: 1) Academics 2) Engagement 3) Operations 4) Planning and administration 5) Innovation and leadership. There are two items in Academics, curriculum and research, and the scores are 40 and 18, respectively. There are two items in Engagement, campus engagement and public engagement. The scores are 21 and 20, respectively. Engagement has two items. There are 9 items in Operations: air&climate, buildings, energy, food&dining, grounds, purchasing, transportation, waste, and water. The scores are 11, 8, 10, 8, 3-4, 6, 7, 10, and 6-8 points respectively. There are 4 items in Planning and administration: coordination&planning, diversity&affordability, investment, wellbeing&work. The scores are 8, 10, 7, and 7 respectively. There are 2 items in Innovation and leadership, exemplary practice and innovation. The scores are 0.5 and 1 each.

Evaluation Criteria of AASHE's STARS (AASHE, 2016)

Table 3 shows scores and ratings for each university according to STARS. The scores and rating for each university were selected by university based on the dates submitted in 2016 [36].

STARS Scores and Grades for Each University (AASHE, 2016)

Another green campus evaluation system in the United States is the Green Report Card system. The organizer is the Sustainable Endowments Institute (SEI) and uses grades from A to F. The Green Report Card is currently available through the 2011 edition, and the S, M, and A universities rated by STARS are also certified on the Green Report Card. Table 4 shows the grades and overall grades for each evaluation area [37].

S, M, A University Green Report Rating (The College Sustainability Report Card)

In the UK, the Green League has been active since 2007 and was organized by People & Planet, the largest student movement network. The Green League began by collecting environmental information from 120 universities in the UK to secure university environmental information transparency and encourage university policy-makers to raise their knowledge of the environment [38]. The evaluation items of the Green League are divided into policy, management, and performance categories, and there are 13 sub-categories. Each year, the Green League awards are given based on the scores obtained by each university. Table 5 shows a list the top universities in Green League 2015 [39].

Green League 2015 Ranking (People&Planet)

In Japan, the Eco League, founded in 1994, established the executive committee of Campus Climate Challenge (CCC) to announce eco-campus rankings starting in 2009. Eco-campus rankings are evaluated according to three categories, CO2 emissions (energy use), environmental measures, and environmental education. The awards distinguish national and public universities from private universities. In addition to simply scoring, feedback on the scoring results allows each university to identify what has been done and what needs to be supplemented. The number of universities participating in this system is increasing every year [40].

2.2. Green Leader Training Program

The Korean Association for the Green Campus Initiative, established in 2008 as an inter-university consultation body, has been working on a green campus long term vision study, establishing the foundation for promoting green campuses, developing practical programs for reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of universities, developing green human resource development programs, and the establishment and operation of cooperative networks to promote green campuses. In addition, they promote campus environmental improvement, curriculum reorganization, on-campus environmental evaluation, joint research on new and renewable energy and green technology, and projects with the community.

The Korean Association for the Green Campus Initiative organizes a green campus promotion committee for each member university to systematically promote the green campus movement. Also, they help members of the university understand the concept of a green campus and participate in practice through green campus competitions, energy saving and environmental protection activities, and summer green leader training camp. In addition, they promote international links in order for domestic universities to cooperate with foreign universities to play a leading role in realizing love for the environment, life, and sustainable development[41].

2.3. Case Study Method

In this case study, the target is Green Leader activity administered by the Korean Association for the Green Campus Initiative. Statistical analysis was used together with literature analysis of the Green Leader Training Program 2010~ 2015 along with frequency analysis using Excel. To this end, the status of Korean and overseas green campuses was reviewed to analyze the projects conducted by Green Leader by year, sector, and university. In addition, the results according to the Green Campus evaluation index were examined to analyze the degree of cooperation with the administrative groups, such as the student council and universities, in order to compare the results of the past five years. Table 6 shows the list of universities participating in the Green Leader Training Program of the Korean Association for the Green Campus Initiative. The location of the university, the metropolitan area and the national university are identified.

As shown in Table 6, 34 universities and 35 campuses participated in the Green Leader Training Program from 2010 to 2015, 13 universities in 2010, 14 universities in 2011, 16 universities in 2012, 19 universities in 2013 and 12 universities in 2015, the total number of 74 universities. Among them, private universities accounted for 78.4%, a total of 58 universities, while national universities accounted for 21.6%, or 16 universities, of all participating universities.

Participating Universities for Green Leader Training Program by Year


3. Case Study Contents

3.1 Case Study Contents

3.1.1. By year

This study collected and analyzed the final report of the Green Leader Training Program administered by the Korean Association for the Green Campus Initiative. 13 universities participated in 2010, the first one, 14 universities in 2011, second, 16 universities in 2012, third, 19 universities in 2013, fourth and 12 universities in 2015, fifth. The Green Leader Training Program was not implemented in 2014, so the fifth Green Leader Training Program was implemented in 2015.

3.1.2. By evaluation factor

The final report was analyzed by evaluation factors in connection with the green campus evaluation index. For the ‘environment’ category, it was analyzed using five evaluation factors: sustainable energy, resource recycling and waste management, sustainable water resources, low carbon emission, and sustainable space management. For ‘members’ participation’, it was analyzed using four evaluation factors: curriculum, research projects, student participation, and faculty participation. For the ‘university management’ category, it was analyzed using five evaluation factors: planning, operational guidelines, information exchange, related organizations, and continuous monitoring. And for the ‘community engagement’ category, two evaluation factors, local residents participation and build cooperation, were used. In addition, the details included in each evaluation factor were compared and analyzed with each university's green campus activities.


4. Results

4.1. By Participation Sector

Table 7 shows the results of analyzing the participation category based on the universities listed in Table 1. The activities in the ‘environment’ category showed the highest, 264 cases, including 40 cases in 2010, 38 cases in 2011, 57 cases in 2012, 77 cases in 2013 and 52 cases in 2015 followed by ‘university members’ participation’, 130 cases including 14 cases in 2010, 24 cases in 2011, 30 cases in 2012, 23 cases in 2013, and 39 cases in 2015. There were 68 cases in ‘community engagement’, including 9 cases in 2010, 4 cases in 2011, 19 cases in 2012, 19 cases in 2013 and 17 cases in 2015. The activities in the ‘university management’ category showed the lowest, 18 cases including in 2 cases in 2010, 1 case 2011, 1 case in 2012, 0 case in 2013, 14 cases in 2015. Figure 1 shows the analysis results by year, and Figure 2 shows the ratio of participation by sector in five years.

Results of Participation Sector by Year

Fig 1.

Comparison of Green Leader Activities by Year

Fig 2.

Ratio of Categories by 5 years

As shown in Figure 2, the highest ratio of programs implemented from 2010 to 2015 was 'environment' (55.0%) followed by 'participation' (27.1%) and 'community engagement' (14.2%), and 'university management' (3.7%). The results for each year are shown in Figure 3. As shown in the results for each year, 'environment' is the highest and 'university management' is the lowest due to the nature of the Green Leader activity, a program run by students.

The personnel and participating students who reviewed the final report of each university's Green Leaders Training Program agreed on the importance of the following four points. First, students should be encouraged to participate voluntarily in the green campus activities. Second, campus facilities problems should be solved together with the university as students are not able to lead. Third, student council should be involved actively and be able to participate in on campus decision making and fourth, students should be able to expand their participation by activating online activities such as social networks.

Fig 3.

Ratio of Categories by Each Year(%)

4.2. By Evaluation Factor

4.2.1. Environment

Resource recycling waste management (47.3%) was the most important evaluation factor in the environmental category. The most frequent activity at each university was to set a paper recycling bin to collect the reusable papers and then produce notebooks and distribute them. For general garbage, there were many universities where recycling was not done properly or there were not enough trash cans for garbage. The Green Leader worked on installing garbage cans or putting name tags on them to specify the type of garbage to increase the recycling rate.

In addition, the Green Leader collaborated with the student council and volunteer groups to organize bazaars and collect used goods to practice the Conserve, Share, Exchange, Reuse. movement. Since small electrics and electronics contain harmful heavy metals, there were some universities that carried out movements to collect used mobile phones on campus to recycle them. Other waste related activities included group purchasings of green products such as tumblers, making soaps using waste cooking oil, and making eco bags using banners.

Sustainable energy accounted for 34.1% of the environment category. The most simple project was to attach a saving sticker. The words that students can see and act on were added and they were attached in restrooms, on fluorescent lamp switches, and computers etc. It was a project that was relatively inexpensive and easy which seemed to be easy for the students at each university to proceed with. There is a lot of energy consumption because the university does not shut down the computers after using them. In order to reduce power consumption, the Green Leader conducted activities to reduce power by installing a green touch program. In addition, energy saving exercises were actively encouraged by installing a phrase that prompts the user to save power on the desktop and screen saver. Sustainable space management was 12.5% in the environment category. Activities include putting air purifying plants in libraries, setting up smoking areas, and creating birdhouses to harmonize with nature. Water accounted for 3.4% of the environment category. Activities include production and installation of a direct water treatment system and activities to identify the current status of greywater. Air accounted for 2.7% of the environment category. Activities include carpooling, on campus bus service, etc.

4.2.2. University members’ participation

The evaluation factor, which accounted for the largest percentage of the participating sectors, was student participation, 81.5%. Although the food waste campaign may be considered to be waste in the environment category, it is classified as student participation in that the reduction of food waste is carried out by the participation of the students. In order to encourage the students' practice, it was organized by forming an environmental club or giving out cafeteria vouchers for those who practiced.

Most of the activities for reducing the use of disposable products were conducted using incentives. In particular, activities such as encouraging the use of metal chopsticks and mugs instead of disposable wooden chopsticks and paper cups have been enacted. In addition to this, there was an environmental poster competition and Green Leader promotion seminar to spread its intention and activities and environmental books that students requested were equiped in the on-campus library.

Among the university members’ participation category, the curriculum accounted for 10.0%. A participating university in the Middle region carried out its own camp for 40 hours composed of theoretical lectures and student-led workshops. In addition, freshman mentees was selected for green activity awareness education and green behavior instruction for 3 months. After that, a follow up program based on the data was presented. In addition, discussions and club activities on the Green Campus were promoted.

Among the university members’ participation category, research projects accounted for 4.6%. A university in the metropolitan area has directly realized the active response with climate change through building a greenhouse gas inventory by students. Another university in the metropolitan area planned an environmentally friendly field trip where the environmental service team reduced the amount of disposable garbage by using metal chopsticks instead of disposable chopsticks and spoons. More effective eco-friendly activities were attempted beyond the spoon and chopstick idea, which was a first trial.

Among the university members’ participation category, faculty participation accounted for 3.9%. In a university in the Yeongnam region, about 300 faculty members and students gathered in the library plaza to make a ‘declaration of designation of a non-smoking area’, which was a great help for health and to clean up the campus environment. During the event, there was non-smoking charter, reading of the declaration, the unveiling a non-smoking sign, and the distribution of non-smoking fliers. In addition, in order to settle this for the future, there was an announcement for the active non-smoking supporter and the clinic center plans. Also, a day without cars was carried out.

4.2.3. University management

The university management category consists of five evaluation factors: continuous monitoring, planning, information exchange, operational guidelines, and related organizations. The category of planning, operational guidelines and related organizations showed 0% activities. Continuous monitoring accounted for 38.9%. Unlike the environmental club, which was run by the participation of general students, this was monitored by the Green Leader directly. Also, another difference is that the monthly use was compared in cooperation with the university.

Among the university management category, the information exchange for 61.1%. Green campus and Green Leader activities were promoted through online clubs and social networking services (SNS). There were many cases in which a communication and discussion atmosphere was created by informing people of the status of energy and resource saving.

4.2.4. Community Engagement

The community engagement category consists of two evaluation factors, local residents participation and build cooperation. Among them, the local residents participation accounted for 54.4%. The most popular activities were public education promotion programs. The subjects of the general public were limited to young children and elementary school students, and it was conducted through on-site learning. The curriculum was created to convey environmental pollution easily and activities such as planting plants by directly touching the soil were conducted.

Also, booths were set up at university events and other events to encourage more people to participate. Various events were carried out such as making coffee air fresheners, making cotton candy using a self-generator, a signature-seeking campaign for the environment, and making useful microbial (EM) soap. The cooperation category accounted for 45.6%. A university in the metropolitan area opened a recycling lecture in cooperation with a nearby cultural center.

A university in the Middle region sent an official letter to the middle and high schools to write scholarship requests regarding donations made through booths at university events in cooperation with the educational service group scholarship foundation. Another university in the Middle region promoted the National Park Green Point system to encourage all people for the cleanliness of the nation. A university in Yeongnam region conducted preliminary investigation on local resident’s illegal lead weight use for fishing in breakwaters due to their lack of information, produced questionnaires to enlighten their awareness, and conducted direct public relations activities.

Figure 4 shows the results by evaluation factor. The waste category in ‘environment’, student participation in ‘university members’ participation’, information exchange in ‘university management,’ and local residents participation in ‘community engagement’, which held a dominant position, with percentages of 47.3%, 81.5%, 61.1%, and 54.4% respectively.

Fig 4.

Results of Green Leader Activity


5. Results by University

The number of projects conducted within the category according to Table 1 were evaluated to identify project progress by university and year. As a result of comparing and evaluating each university, it confirmed that the Green Leader activities were most performed in the ‘environment’ category and ‘university members’ participation’ category.

In the ‘environment’ category, the waste category accounted for the highest, 47.3%, followed by energy, 34.1%, sustainable space, 12.5%, water, 3.4% and air 2.7%. In the ‘university members' participation’ category, the student category accounted for the highest, 81.5%, followed by the curriculum, 10.0%, research projects, 4.6% and faculty, 3.9%. In the ‘university management’, the information exchange category accounted for the highest, 61.1%, followed by monitoring, 38.9%. In the 'community engagement' category, local residents participated was 54.4% followed by 45.6% of cooperation.

We have summarized the activities of Green Leader based on the results of Table 8 through Table 12 for the universities located in metropolitan areas such as Seoul, Incheon, Gyeonggi and non-metropolitan areas such as the Middle region (Gangwon, Chungnam and Chungbuk) and Yeongnam region(Gyeongnam, Gyeongbuk). According to this, from 2010 to 2015, a total of 34 universities and 35 campuses participated in the Green Leader Program. A total of 20 universities located in metropolitan areas and 15 universities located in non-metropolitan areas participated. The number of participating universities in the non-metropolitan areas was smaller than that in the metropolitan areas, but the number of green leader activity programs was slightly higher. Of 34 universities, 33 were four-year universities and one was a two-year colleges.

2010 Green Leader Project by Each University

2011 Green Leader Project by Each University

2012 Green Leader Project by Each University

2013 Green Leader Project by Each University

2015 Green Leader Project by Each University

According to the results of this study, participation of universities in Honam (Jeonnam, Jeonbuk) was very low. One of the reasons is that unlike the Gyeonggi, Busan, and Chungbuk areas, there is no green campus-related regional council in the Honam area. As a result, it can be assumed that green campus-related information was not provided smoothly. However, it is a limitation of this study that the reasons were not clarified through survey or in-depth interviews with university officials.

Analysis of Green Leader Projects by Sub-Category

The following is a summary of the opinions of the person in charge or the participating students through the contents of the Green Leader Training Program of each university. First, the promotion of awareness about the seriousness of climate change and environmental problems will lead to the spread of awareness about green campuses, which will stimulate students' voluntary green campus activities. Second, special lectures, seminars, and campaigns should be continuously held in the university to improve awareness of green campuses. Third, for a university lacking support for the Green Leader, a system to guide and support student activities is needed by government agencies such as the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Education and non-profit organizations such as the Korean Association for the Green Campus Initiative.


6. Conclusion

The Green Leader Training Program was conducted through the participation of university students at domestic universities. It showed various activities to cope with climate change at each university and it is believed that it became an opportunity to inform the importance of environmental preservation and energy saving on university campuses.

During the five years of the Green Leader Training Program, 13 universities participated in 2010, 14 universities in 2011, 16 universities in 2012, 19 universities in 2013, and 12 universities in 2015. A total of 74 universities participated with 16 universities participating once out of four times, 6 universities participating twice, 6 universities participating three times, 3 universities participating four times, and 3 universities participating five times.

In terms of activities in the five year period, the ‘environment’ category was the highest, 264 cases (55.0%) in Green Leader activities at national universities, followed by 130 cases (27.1%) of ‘university members’ participation’, 68 cases (14.2%) of ‘community engagement’, and 18 cases (3.7%) of ‘university management’.

In the ‘environment’ category, ‘waste’ (47.3%) and ‘energy’ (34.1%) accounted for 81.4%, while in ‘members’ participation’ category, ‘student’ accounted for the highest, 81.5%. In ‘university management’ category, ‘information exchange’ (61.1%) and ‘monitoring’ (38.9%) were two factors. The ‘community engagement’ category consisted of ‘local residents participation’(54.4%) and ‘cooperation’(45.6%).

As a result of categorizing the universities by the region participating from 2010 to 2015, the participation ratio of the metropolitan universities was high.  In the ‘environment’ and ‘university management’ category, the universities in metropolitan area were similar to those in the non-metropolitan area, but in the ‘community engagement’ category, the universities in the non-metropolitan areas were more active. In the metropolitan area, 81.7% of Green Leader activities were conducted at universities in Seoul, while those in non-metropolitan area were active in the Middle region (51.3%) and Yeongnam region (48.7%).

In order to revitalize climate change activities on a regional basis, cooperation and consensus should be formed with local communities. Therefore, in the future, the Green Leader Training Program should be conducted in a direction to establish a cooperative system so that activities within the campuses can be connected with the community. Also, taking into consideration that there was no university participation from the Honam region and the participation rate of 2-year colleges was very low, it is necessary to take measures to encourage the participation of these universities in the green campus model university project of the Ministry of Environment and to promote public relations.

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the Korea Ministry of Environment (MOE) as a Knowledge-based Environmental Service Human Resource Development Project.

Reference

  • Alshuwaikhat, H. M., Abubakar, I., “An integrated approach to achieving campus sustainability: Assessment of the current campus environmental management practices”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(16), (2008), [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.12.002] .
  • Finlay, J., Massey, J., “Eco-campus: Applying the ecocity model to develop green university and college campuses”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 13(2), (2012), [https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371211211836] .
  • Fisher, R. M., “Applying ISO 14001 as a business tool for campus sustainability: A case study from New Zealand”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 4(2), (2003).
  • Koester, R. J., Eflin, J., Vann, J., “Greening of the campus: A whole-systems approach”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 14, (2006), [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.055] .
  • Hussin, R., Kunjuraman, V., “Exploring strategies for sustainable ‘ecocampus’: The experience of Universiti Malaysia Sabah”, Malaysian Journal of Society and Space, 11(3), (2015).
  • Sharp, L., “Green campuses: The road from little victories to systemic transformation,”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 3(2), (2002), [https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370210422357] .
  • Ryan, A., Tilbury, D., Corcoran, P. B., Abe, O., Nomura, K., “Sustainability in higher education in the Asia-Pacific: Developments, challenges, and prospects”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 11(2), (2010), [https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371011031838] .
  • 김동현, 이현, 전강은, 김세용, “그린캠퍼스 운영체계에 대한 사례연구: 미국 그린캠퍼스 지원기관 및 하버드대학을 중심으로”, 한국교육시설학회논문집, 20(4), (2013). Kim, Dong-Hyun, Lee, Hyun, Jeon, Kang-Eun, Kim, Sei-Yong, “A case study on the green campus operating system”, Jounal of the Korean Institute of Educational Facilities, 20(4), (2013).
  • Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE), “2015 Annual Report”, (2016).
  • International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU), “Green Guide for Universities”, (2014).
  • Ravn, C., “Climate actions at university of Copenhagen: Who, what, why, how”, Sustainable SCANdinavia event, (2009).
  • Tan, H., Chen, S., Shi, Q., Wang, L., “Development of green campus in China”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 64, (2014), [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.019] .
  • Geng, Y., Liu, K., Xue, B., Fujita, T., “Creating a “green university” in China: A case study of Shenyang University”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 61, (2013).
  • 구자건, 정민재, 박희범, 김성헌, “AHP 기법을 이용한 그린캠퍼스 운영 요소의 중요도 분석”, 한국환경교육학회지, 28(2), (2015). Koo, Ja-Kon, Jung, Min-Jae, Bak, Hui-Beom, Kim, Seong-Heon, “Analysis of the importance of management elements of the green campus in Korea”, Journal of Korean Society of Environmental Education, 28(2), (2015).
  • 신은영, 김준하, “그린캠퍼스를 위한 국내·외 대학시설관리(FM) 비교분석”, 한국교육시설학회논문집, 19(1), (2012). Shin, Eun-Young, and Kim, Jun-Ha, “A comparative analysis of domestic and foreign universities’ facility management for green campus”, Jounal of the Korean Institute of Educational Facilities, 19(1), (2012).
  • 김광수, 정진주, “자연친화 그린캠퍼스 청주대학교-캠퍼스 80% 지열냉·난방시스템 운영”, 한국교육시설학회지, 22(5), (2015). Kim, Kwang-Soo, Jung, Jin-Ju, “Cheongju university, natural and environment-friendly green campus, geothermal heating and cooling system, 80% of campus”, Jounal of the Korean Institute of Educational Facilities, 22(5), (2015).
  • 박미옥, “지속가능한 대학캠퍼스 계획 지표 연구: 그린캠퍼스 체계를 중심으로”, 한국공간디자인학회 논문집, 10(6), (2015). Park, Mi-Ok, “A study on the sustainable campus indices”, Journal of Korea Institute of Spatial Design, 10(6), (2015).
  • 김찬국, 정혜진, “그린캠퍼스의 개념 정립과 그린캠퍼스 평가틀 개발”, 한국환경교육학회 2012년 상반기 학술발표대회 논문집, (2012). Kim, Chan-Guk, Jeong, Hye-Jin, “Developing concept of green campus and evaluation of green campus”, The Korean Society for Environmental Education 1st Half Academic Conference Symposium, (2012).
  • 정철, “대학생들의 환경에 대한 인식과 정신 모형”, 한국환경교육학회지, 21(2), (2008). Jung, Cheol, “Undergraduate students' perceptions and mental models of the environment”, Journal of Korean Society of Environmental Education, 21(2), (2008).
  • 김선영, 조운복, “부산 지역 대학생들의 환경 소양에 관한 인식 조사”, 한국환경교육학회지, 23(1), (2010). Kim, Sun-Young, Jo, Woon-Bok, “A study on the exploration of college students' environmental literacy in Busan”, Journal of Korean Society of Environmental Education, 23(1), (2010).
  • 이빛나라, 이은희, “기후변화 교육이 대학생의 환경인식에 미치는 영향 연구”, 한국환경교육학회지, 26(4), (2013). Lee, Bit-Na-Ra, Lee, Eun-Hee, “A study on the recognition of university students change through climate change education”, Journal of Korean Society of Environmental Education, 26(4), (2013).
  • 이선경, 이재영, 이순철, 이유진, 민경석, 심숙경, 김남수, 하경환, “지속가능발전 및 지속가능발전교육에 대한 대학생과 교사들의 인식”, 한국환경교육학회지, 19(1), (2006). Lee, Sun-Kyung, Lee, Jae-Young, Lee, Soon-Chul, Lee, Yu-Jin, Min, Gyeong-Seok, Shim, Suk-Kyung, Kim, Nam-Soo, Ha, Kyung-Hwan, “The awareness of teachers and college students towards sustainable development and education for sustainable development”, Journal of Korean Society of Environmental Education, 19(1), (2006).
  • 지승현, 남영숙, “나눔과 순환에 대한 대학생 장터 체험 활동을 통해 살펴본 대학교 지속가능 발전교육 시사점”, 한국환경교육학회 학술대회 자료집, (2010). Ji, Seung-Hyun, Nam, Young-Sook, “Implications for education for sustainable development in university students through experience of sharing the college students on sharing and circulation”, The Korean Society for Environment Education Academic Conference, (2010).
  • 한국에너지공단 통계분석실, “2015년도 에너지사용량 통계”, 한국에너지공단, (2016). Korea Energy Agency, “2015 Annual end-use energy statistics”, (2016).
  • 김경수, 신문수, 구자건, “대학 캠퍼스의 에너지 소비 실태 조사를 통한 탄소 인센티브 제도 연구”, 한국환경교육학회지, 23(2), (2010). Kim, Kyung-Su, Shin, Moon-Su, Koo, Ja-Kon, “A study on carbon incentive system based on investigation of energy consumption in Korean universities”, Journal of Korean Society of Environmental Education, 23(2), (2010).
  • 윤지인, 이기석, 최윤기, “국내 대학시설 에너지 절감을 위한 국내·외 그린캠퍼스 사례연구”, 대한건축학회 창립70주년기념대회 및 추계학술발표대회논문집, (2015). Yun, Ji-In, Lee, Ki-Seok, Choi, Yoon-Ki, “A case study of domestic and foreign for energy-saving of the domestic university facilities”, Architectural Institute of Korea Academic Conference, (2015).
  • 전태응, “온실가스·에너지 목표관리제 시행에 따른 대학 전력 사용 실태 및 원단위 분석 연구”, 한양대학교, 석사학위 논문, (2016). Jeon, Tae-Eung, “Analysis of university power usage at actual situations for greenhouse gas and energy target management system enforcement”, Hanyang University, Korea, Master thesis, (2016).
  • 유성준, 이정희, 양정훈, 권종욱, “학생 주도 그린캠퍼스운동의 성과 및 과제”, 한국건축친환경설비학회 춘계학술발표대회 논문집, (2011, Mar). Yoo, Sung-Jun, Lee, Jung-Hee, Yang, Jeong-Hoon, Kwon, Jong-Wook, “The performance and the challenge of the student-led green campus movement”, Korean Institute of Architectural Sustainable Environment and Building Systems Spring Academic Conference, (2011, Mar).
  • 방민애, 최윤정, “국내 그린캠퍼스의 개념 및 조성계획현황 고찰”, 생활과학연구논총, 20(1), (2016). Bang, Min-Ae, Choi, Yoon-Jung, “Literature review on conceptual categories and present condition of proposals for green campus in Korea”, Journal of Human Ecology, 20(1), (2016).
  • 서동현, “대학의 그린캠퍼스 추진 현황”, 설비저널, 43(1), (2014). Seo, Dong-Hyun, “University's green campus status”, The Magazine of the Society of Air-Conditioning and Refrigerating Engineers of Korea, 43(1), (2014).
  • 연세대학교 산학협력단, “그린캠퍼스 장기적 발전방안 연구”, 2012년 녹색성장위원회 정책연구과제 최종보고서, (2013). Yonsei University Office of Research Affairs/Univeristy Industry Foundation, “Long-term development plan of green campus”, Committee on Green Growth Final Report on Policy Research Projects, (2013).
  • 윤용권, 이명식, “지속 가능한 그린 캠퍼스 조성계획에 관한 연구”, 한국교육시설학회논문집, 20(5), (2013). Yun, Yong-Kwon, Lee, Myung-Sik, “A study of the comprehensive planning of sustainable green campus”, Jounal of the Korean Institute of Educational Facilities, 20(5), (2013).
  • 연세대학교 산학협력단, “그린캠퍼스 장기적 발전방안 연구”, , 2012년 녹색성장위원회 정책연구과제 중간보고서, (2012). Yonsei University Office of Research Affairs/Univeristy Industry Foundation, “Long-term development plan of green campus”, 2012 Committee on Green Growth Interim Report on Policy Research Projects, (2012).
  • American College & University Presidents' Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), http://reporting.secondnature.org/home/, Site accessed December 27, 2016.
  • Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE), “Stars Technical Manual Version 2.1”, (2016).
  • Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE), http://stars.aashe.org, Site accessed December 27, 2016.
  • The College Sustainability Report Card, http://www. greenreportcard.org, Site accessed December 27, 2016.
  • 김태영, 엄희상, 최은화, 이승묵, “영국 그린리그에서 살펴본 지속가능 캠퍼스의 방향과 시사점”, 한국대기환경학회 학술대회논문집, (2014, Oct). Kim, Tae-Young, Eom, Hee-Sang, Choi, Eun-Hwa, Lee, Seung-Muk, “Directions and implications of sustainable campus with the green league in UK”, Korean Society for Atmospheric Environment Academic Conference, (2014, Oct).
  • People&Planet, http://peopleandplanet.org/university-league/2015/tables, Site accessed January 5, 2017.
  • Campus Climate Challenge Japan (CCC), “Introduction of Eco League”, (2011).
  • 연세대학교 산학협력단, “저탄소 녹색성장을 위한 대학의 그린캠퍼스 추진 계획”, Korean Association for Green Campus Initiative, (2009). Yonsei University Office of Research Affairs/Univeristy Industry Foundation, “University's green campus plan for low carbon green growth”, Korean Association for Green Campus Initiative, (2009).

Fig 1.

Fig 1.
Comparison of Green Leader Activities by Year

Fig 2.

Fig 2.
Ratio of Categories by 5 years

Fig 3.

Fig 3.
Ratio of Categories by Each Year(%)

Fig 4.

Fig 4.
Results of Green Leader Activity

Table 1.

Green Campus Evaluation Index

Category Sub-Category The Details
Source : Presidential Committee on Green Growth, 2012
Environment Sustainable energy - Using renewable energy
- Energy saving program
Resource recycling waste management - Purchase eco-friendly products
- Recycling food waste
- Waste classification Discharge and recycling
Water (sustainable water resources) - Using rainwater and dehydration
- Water saving program
Air (low carbon emission) - Air pollution prevention facility
- Vehicle Restrictions
- Reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Sustainable space management - Secure green space
- Environment-friendly building / space management
- A flawless environment
University Members' Participation Curriculum - Establish and operate lectures on sustainable development
Research projects - Conduct research projects on sustainable development
Student participation - Environmental club and student council activities
- On-campus green campus project / program participation
Faculty participation - Faculty green campus building participation program- Faculty awareness program
University Management Planning - Green campus construction plan
- Establish sustainable university management plan
Operational guidelines - Guidelines / statements for green campus construction
Information exchange - Information disclosure through homepage, report
Related organizations - Green campus department
Continuous monitoring - Conduct monitoring after execution of plans
- Conducting environmental audits
Community Engagement Local residents participation - Public education promotion program
- Campus events for local residents (lectures, events)
Build cooperation - Collaboration between universities at home and abroad
- Establishment of public institutions, corporations, NGOs, and governance systems in Korea
- Research, education and service programs for sustainable regional development

Table 2.

Evaluation Criteria of AASHE's STARS (AASHE, 2016)

Category Details Score
1. Academics Curriculum 40
Research 18
2. Engagement Campus Engagement 21
Public Engagement 20
3. Operations Air & Climate 11
Buildings 8
Energy 10
Food & Dining 8
Grounds 3-4
Purchasing 6
Transportation 7
Waste 10
Water 6-8
4. Planning & Administration Coordination & Planning 8
Diversity & Affordability 10
Investment 7
Wellbeing & Work 7
5. Innovation & Leadership Exemplary Practice 0.5 each
Innovation 1 each

Table 3.

STARS Scores and Grades for Each University (AASHE, 2016)

Name AC EN OP PA IL Score Rating
S University 46.81 36.30 47.61 25.63 4.50 81.02 Gold
M University 45.88 34.38 33.33 21.79 3.50 70.52 Gold
A University 41.09 31.85 45.28 21.63 4.00 75.35 Gold
Each part is scored independently

Table 4.

S, M, A University Green Report Rating (The College Sustainability Report Card)

Name AD C&E F&R GB SI TR ET IP SE Overall grade
S University A A A A A A C A A A-
M University B A A B A A F C F B-
A University A A A B A A B A F B+

Table 5.

Green League 2015 Ranking (People&Planet)

Rank Name of University Score
1 Plymouth University 83.0
2 University of Worcester 76.7
3 Manchester Metropolitan University 73.1
4 Nottingham Trent University 72.6
5 City University London 70.3
6 University of Gloucestershire 69.6
7 Bournemouth University 69.1
8 University of Wales Trinity Saint David 68.8
9 Edinburgh Napier University 68.3
10 Glasgow Caledonian University 67.8

Table 6.

Participating Universities for Green Leader Training Program by Year

2010 2011 2012 2013 2015
Note : Shaded cells indicate the universities located in Seoul metropolitan area.
†National universities are indicated in italics.
‡University of Seoul is maintained by a municipal fund.
1 Kangnam Univ., Gyeonggi UNIST, Ulsan Kyunghee Univ., Seoul Keimyung Univ., Daegu Keimyung Univ., Daegu
2 Keimyung Univ., Daegu Dankook Univ., Gyeonggi Dankook Univ. Gyeonggi Dankook Univ., Gyeonggi Korea Univ., Seoul
3 Korea Univ., Seoul Sangji Univ., Gangwon Pusan National Univ. Busan Dongguk Univ., Seoul Paichai Univ., Daejeon
4 Kwangwoon Univ, Seoul Seoul Women's Univ., Seoul Busan University of Foreign Studies, Busan Dongduk Women's Univ. Seoul Sangji Univ., Gangwon
5 Kookmin Univ., Seoul Sookmyung Women's Univ.,Seoul Sangji Univ. Gangwon Myongji Univ, Seoul Seoul Women's Univ., Seoul
6 Dongguk Univ., Seoul Shinheung Univ., Gyeonggi Seoul Women's Univ. Seoul Pukyong National Univ. Busan Shinhan Univ., Gyeonggi
7 Myongji Univ., Seoul Yonsei Univ.(Seoul), Seoul Sookmyung Women's Univ. Seoul Sangji Univ., Gangwon Yonsei Univ.(Wonju), Gangwon
8 Sogang Univ., Seoul Yonsei Univ.(Wonju), Gangwon Shinheung Univ. Gyeonggi University of Seoul, Seoul Yeungnam Univ., Gyeongbuk
9 Yonsei Univ.(Wonju), Gangwon Yeungnam Univ., Gyeongbuk Yonsei Univ.(Seoul) Seoul Seoul Women's Univ., Seoul Jungwon Univ., Chungbuk
10 Yeungnam Univ., Gyeongbuk Ewha Women's Univ., Seoul Yeungnam Univ. Gyeongbuk Sookmyung Women's Univ. Seoul KAIST, Daejeon
11 Jungwon Univ., Chungbuk Jungwon Univ., Chungbuk UNIST, Ulsan Shinheung Univ., Gyeonggi KOREATECH, Chungnam
12 Chungnam Univ., Daejeon KOREATECH, Chungnam Incheon National Univ. Incheon Yonsei Univ. (Seoul) Seoul Korea Maritime and Ocean Univ. Busan
13 KOREATEC, Chungnam Korea Maritime and Ocean Univ. Busan Jungwon Univ., Chungbuk Yeungnam Univ., Gyeongbuk
14 Hongik Univ, Seoul Chungnam Univ., Daejeon Incheon National Univ. Incheon
15 KAIST, Daejeon Jungwon Univ., Chungbuk
16 Korea Maritime and Ocean Univ., Busan KAIST, Daejeon
17 Korea National University of Education Chungbuk
18 Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Seoul
19 Korea Maritime and Ocean Univ. Busan
Total( ) 13 (0) 14 (2) 16 (6) 19 (6) 12 (2)

Table 7.

Results of Participation Sector by Year

Year Environment (ratio,%) Participation (ratio,%) Management (ratio,%) Community (ratio,%)
2010 40 (15.1) 14 (10.8) 2 (11.1) 9 (13.2)
2011 38 (14.4) 24 (18.5) 1 (5.6) 4 (5.8)
2012 57 (21.6) 30 (23.0) 1 (5.6) 19 (28.0)
2013 77 (29.2) 23 (17.7) 0 (0.0) 19 (28.0)
2015 52 (19.7) 39 (30.0) 14 (77.7) 17 (25.0)
Total 264 (100) 130 (100) 18 (100) 68 (100)

Table 8.

2010 Green Leader Project by Each University

2010 Environment Participation Management Community
Kangnam Univ. 1 1
Keimyung Univ. 7 4 3
Korea Univ. 2 2 1
Kwangwoon Univ. 1
Kookmin Univ. 1
Dongguk Univ. 7 1
Myongji Univ. 2 1 2
Sogang Univ. 1
Yonsei Univ. (Wonju) 1
Yeungnam Univ. 5 1 1
Jungwon Univ. 9
Chungnam Univ. 3 1 2
KOREATECH 2 2 1

Table 9.

2011 Green Leader Project by Each University

2011 Environment Participation Management Community
UNIST 2 2
Dankook Univ. 2 3
Sangji Univ. 3 1
Seoul Women's Univ. 3 2 2
Sookmyung Women's Univ. 3 2
Shinheung Univ. 3 1
Yonsei Univ. (Seoul) 1
Yonsei Univ. (Wonju) 4 3
Yeungnam Univ. 4 2
Ewha Women's Univ. 4 1
Jungwon Univ. 2 1 2
KOREATECH 2 1
Korea Maritime and Ocean Univ. 4 3
Hongik Univ. 4

Table 10.

2012 Green Leader Project by Each University

2012 Environment Participation Management Community
Kyunghee Univ. 5 2 1
Dankook Univ. 6 1
Pusan National Univ. 4 1
Busan University of Foreign Studies 3 3
Sangji Univ. 4 2 2
Seoul Women's Univ. 3 2 1
Sookmyung Women's Univ. 3 2
Shinheung Univ. 2 1 1
Yonsei Univ. (Seoul) 2 4 1
Yeungnam Univ. 6 2
UNIST 1 2 3
Incheon National Univ. 4 2 1
Jungwon Univ. 3 3 3
Chungnam Univ. 2 3
KAIST 3 3 1
Korea Maritime and Ocean Univ. 6 1 2

Table 11.

2013 Green Leader Project by Each University

2013 Environment Participation Management Community
Keimyung Univ. 5
Dankook Univ. 9 3
Dongguk Univ. 4
Dongduk Women's Univ. 5 1 1
Myongji Univ. 1 1
Pukyong National Univ. 2 1
Sangji Univ. 3 2 1
University of Seoul 1 1
Seoul Women's Univ. 3 2 3
Sookmyung Women's Univ. 5 1
Shinheung Univ. 6 2
Yonsei Univ. (Seoul) 4 2
Yeungnam Univ. 3 1 1
Incheon National Univ. 5 3 1
Jungwon Univ. 5 3
KAIST 6 2
Korea National University of Education 5 2
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies 3 1
Korea Maritime and Ocean Univ. 5 1 3

Table 12.

2015 Green Leader Project by Each University

2015 Environment Participation Management Community
Keimyung Univ. 14 14 1 10
Korea Univ. 10 1 1
Paichai Univ. 4 2 3
Sangji Univ. 4 1 1
Seoul Women's Univ. 6 1 2
Shinhan Univ. 3 3 2 2
Yonsei Univ. (Seoul) 2 5 2 1
Yeungnam Univ.
Jungwon Univ. 1 5 1
KAIST 5 5 2
KOREATECH
Korea Maritime and Ocean Univ. 3 3 1 1

Table 13.

Analysis of Green Leader Projects by Sub-Category

Category Sub-Category 2010 2011 2012 2013 2015 Sub-Total Ratio(%)
Environment Air 2 1 0 2 2 7 2.7
Energy 9 12 17 35 17 90 34.1
Sustainable Space 11 2 4 7 9 33 12.5
Waste 18 21 34 30 22 125 47.3
Water 0 2 2 3 2 9 3.4
Total 40 38 57 77 52 264 100
University Members' Participation Student 13 20 23 19 31 106 81.5
Research Projects 1 1 0 2 2 6 4.6
Education Curriculum 0 3 5 1 4 13 10.0
Faculty 0 0 2 1 2 5 3.9
Total 14 24 30 23 39 130 100
University Management Monitoring 1 1 1 0 4 7 38.9
Plan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Information Exchange 1 0 0 0 10 11 61.1
Operation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Related Organizations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Total 2 1 1 0 14 18 100
Community Engagement Cooperation 8 1 5 6 11 31 45.6
Local Residents Participation 1 3 14 13 6 37 54.4
Total 9 4 19 19 17 68 100