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

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).

Table 1.

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.

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.

Table 2.

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].

Table 3.

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].

Table 4.

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].

Table 5.

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].

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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