1.
Understanding Transportation and
Sustainability Initiatives at Dalhousie
University
2014 Annual Sustainability and Transportation Survey Report
Prepared as part of MGMT 5000: Management without Borders
Authors:
Emily Colford
Erik Paige
Grace Okpala
Sean Tait
Takafumi Osawa
Group 11
December 5, 2014

2.
2014
Dalhousie
Office
of
Sustainability
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
Report
1
1. Acknowledgements
The
authors
would
like
to
thank
Rochelle
Owen,
the
director
of
the
Office
of
Sustainability,
whose
guidance
throughout
the
creation
of
the
annual
survey
and
report
was
invaluable.
Poh
Chua’s
instruction
and
training
for
the
Opinio
software
was
crucial
and
his
help
with
survey
troubleshooting
is
greatly
appreciated.
The
authors
would
also
like
to
thank
Jenny
Beachler,
Sandra
Toze,
and
Jessica
MacIntosh
who
created
the
foundation
on
which
this
project
could
be
manifested
through
their
dedication
to
the
Management
Without
Borders
course.
Thank
you
to
Dr.
Ahsan
Habib
for
his
additions
to
the
transportation
section
of
the
survey.
Finally,
it
goes
without
saying
that
our
team
is
indebted
to
all
of
the
groups
and
individuals
who
supported
the
survey.
In
particular,
Steven
Cushing,
whose
work
was
indispensable
during
the
recruitment
process,
not
to
mention,
the
countless
secretaries
and
promotional
contacts
throughout
the
faculties,
department,
libraries,
and
offices.
We
are
also
very
grateful
to
The
Wooden
Monkey
and
Just
Us!
Coffee
Roasters
Co-­‐op
for
their
generous
survey
prize
donations.
Last
but
not
least,
we
would
like
to
thank
all
Dalhousie
faculty,
staff,
and
students
who
took
the
time
to
participate
in
our
survey.

3.
2014
Dalhousie
Office
of
Sustainability
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
Report
2
2. Executive Summary
Working
to
integrate
campus
sustainability
through
operations
and
engagement,
the
Office
of
Sustainability
conducts
an
annual
sustainability
survey.
The
survey
is
released
to
students,
staff,
and
faculty
to
collect
data
on
sustainability
indicators
including:
sustainable
transportation,
waste
management,
energy
and
water
consumption,
natural
and
built
environment.
The
survey
gathers
sustainability
perceptions
of
student
and
employees.
In
tandem
with
the
Office
of
Sustainability
the
goal
of
the
2014
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
is
to
improve
sustainability
outcomes
on
Dalhousie
campuses.
The
objective
of
the
2014
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
is
to:
collect
opinions
of
student,
staff,
and
faculty
on
sustainability
initiatives;
determine
support
levels
for
cycling
infrastructure
(segregated
bike
lanes);
and
ascertain
opportunities
for
improvement
as
provided
by
respondents.
These
objectives
are
achieved
through
quantitative
and
qualitative
analysis.
The
discussion,
conclusions,
and
recommendations
of
the
paper
are
informative
for
new
and
ongoing
sustainability
initiatives
at
Dalhousie.
Key
updates
in
2014
survey
included
a
section
regarding
segregated
bike
lanes,
the
addition
of
new
questions
related
to
sustainability
reporting
and
green
infrastructure,
and
updates
to
the
transportation
section.
The
survey
was
administered
through
Opinio
survey
software
for
a
period
of
two
weeks.
1,949
respondents
accessed
the
survey,
while
1,508
respondents
completed
it.
Key
findings
from
the
survey
include:
• High
percentage
of
the
Dalhousie
community
support
sustainability
as
a
campus
wide-­‐
goal.
Similar
to
last
year’s
results,
students,
staff,
and
faculty
support
sustainability
as
well
as
STARS
reporting
and
Dalhousie’s
Green
Buildings
Policy
even
though
there
was
low
awareness
levels
of
these
initiatives.
• Increased
cycling
infrastructure,
reduction
of
paper
waste
and
recycling,
local
food
purchasing,
fossil
fuel
divestment,
and
solar
power
projects
are
areas
that
respondents
wants
to
see
progress
on
• There
was
support
for
the
installation
of
segregated
bike
lanes
on
Dalhousie
Campuses
with
safety
as
the
largest
opportunity
and
the
concerns
of
the
community
were
gathered.
• Local
food
sourcing
is
the
most
supported
of
all
the
sustainable
food
operations
options
• Most
respondents
are
unaware
of
the
formal
carpooling
programs
such
as
RideShare
and
CarShare
• There
was
a
drop-­‐off
in
respondents
at
the
first
open-­‐ended
question
(Question
6),
suggesting
either
respondents
do
not
know
enough
about
the
question
to
answer
it,
or
do
not
feel
comfortable
answering
open-­‐ended
questions
• Direct
email
was
the
most
effective
means
of
recruiting
respondents
for
the
survey
In
light
of
these
findings,
key
recommendations
are
as
follows.
The
Office
of
Sustainability
should
continue
advocacy
efforts
for
sustainable
transportation,
particularly
accommodations
for
cyclists,
and
also
either
re-­‐examine
the
structure
of
the
current
formal
carpooling
programs
(and
investigate
possible
reasons
for
their
lack
of
use)
or
direct
efforts

4.
2014
Dalhousie
Office
of
Sustainability
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
Report
3
elsewhere.
In
terms
of
awareness,
new
communication
strategies
should
be
considered
as
awareness
of
the
work
of
the
Office
of
Sustainability
is,
overall,
moderate
to
low.
A
key
recommendation
for
future
survey
facilitators
will
be
to
consider
putting
more
of
the
open-­‐
ended
question
nearest
to
the
end
instead
of
near
the
beginning,
where
you
might
lose
respondents
interest.
Initiating
the
survey
a
week
earlier,
or
in
a
time
where
the
survey
may
not
overlap
with
any
holidays
could
be
advantageous
as
more
people
will
be
available
to
recruit
during
regular
school
hours.
Finally,
the
authors
recommend
to
make
the
survey
shorter.
This
will
make
it
easier
for
more
people
to
start
and
complete
the
survey
in
a
smaller
amount
of
time
without
the
respondent
losing
interest
part
way
through.

5.
2014
Dalhousie
Office
of
Sustainability
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
Report
4
3. Table of Contents
1. Acknowledgements .................................................................................... 1
2. Executive Summary ................................................................................... 2
3. Table of Contents ....................................................................................... 4
4. Introduction ............................................................................................... 6
4.1 Office of Sustainability Background
.................................................................................................
6
4.2 Project Aim & Objectives
...................................................................................................................
7
4.3 Report Format
.....................................................................................................................................
7
4.4 Omissions & Exclusions
....................................................................................................................
7
5. Literature Review ....................................................................................... 8
5.1 Segregated Cycle Lanes and Increased Cycle Ridership
............................................................
8
5.2 Policy Development
...........................................................................................................................
8
5.3 Political Support
..................................................................................................................................
8
5.4 Local Business
....................................................................................................................................
8
5.5 Installation Cost vs. Financial Benefit
..............................................................................................
9
5.6 Safety
...................................................................................................................................................
9
5.7 Health
.................................................................................................................................................
10
5.8 Social Perceptions
............................................................................................................................
10
5.9 Ease of traffic
....................................................................................................................................
10
5.10 Connectivity and Directedness
.....................................................................................................
11
5.11 Physical Conditions (Weather, Topography, Vegetation)
........................................................
11
5.12 Research Key Points
.....................................................................................................................
11
6. Methods .................................................................................................. 12
6.1 Planning
.............................................................................................................................................
12
6.2 Research Ethics
................................................................................................................................
12
6.3 Recruitment Strategy and Survey Launch
....................................................................................
13
6.4 Data Collection & Analysis
..............................................................................................................
13
7. Results & Analysis ................................................................................... 15
7.1 Demographics
...................................................................................................................................
15
7.3 Cycling Questions
.............................................................................................................................
23
7.5 Other Questions
................................................................................................................................
36
8. Discussion & Recommendations ............................................................... 37
8.1 Summary and Implications of Results
...........................................................................................
37
8.1.1. Comparison to previous surveys
...........................................................................................
37
8.1.2. Campus Wide Sustainability and Key Initiatives
..................................................................
37
8.1.3. Cycling infrastructure
...............................................................................................................
38
8.1.4. Transportation
...........................................................................................................................
39
8.1.5. Mode of Transportation (Q 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 30)
......................................................
39
8.1.6. Timing of travel to and from campus (Q 18, 19, and 20)
....................................................
39
8.1.7. Carpooling (Q 12, 21, and 22)
................................................................................................
39

6.
2014
Dalhousie
Office
of
Sustainability
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
Report
5
8.1.8. Travel between campuses (Q 23, 24, 25, and 26)
..............................................................
40
8.2 Limitations and Recommendations
................................................................................................
40
8.2.1 Limitations
..................................................................................................................................
40
8.2.2 Recommendations for Future Survey Facilitators
................................................................
41
8.2.3 Recommendations for the Office of Sustainability
................................................................
42
9. Conclusion .............................................................................................. 43
10. References ............................................................................................ 44
11. Appendices ........................................................................................... 47
Appendix A: Project Description
...........................................................................................................
47
Appendix B: PESTE Analysis
................................................................................................................
48
Appendix C: Ethics / Informed Consent
...............................................................................................
55
Appendix D: Recruitment Strategies
....................................................................................................
56
Appendix E: Example Promotional Script
............................................................................................
57
Appendix F: Survey
................................................................................................................................
58
Appendix G: Full Results Section
.........................................................................................................
71

7.
2014
Dalhousie
Office
of
Sustainability
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
Report
6
4. Introduction
Dalhousie
University
has
been
pursuing
campus
sustainability
for
over
twenty
years.
Originally,
the
concept
of
sustainability,
in
terms
of
environment,
was
defined
as
the
maintenance
of
natural
capital,
which
has
source
and
sink
functions
for
human
beings
(Goodland,
1995).
In
other
words,
to
maintain
such
capital,
we
should
reduce
waste
emissions
(e.g.,
garbage
and
greenhouse
gas),
and
slow
down
the
speed
of
harvest/depletion
of
resource
input
(e.g.,
water
and
food)
(Goodland,
1995).
The
Office
of
Sustainability
attempts
to
improve
Dalhousie
campuses
in
environmental,
economic
and
social
aspects.
4.1 Office of Sustainability Background
Universities
are
often
large
and
influential
on
global
as
well
as
local
environments,
and
as
a
result
a
growing
number
of
universities
have
prioritized
the
issue
of
campus
sustainability.
Alshuwaikhat
&
Abubakar
(2008)
proposed
that
sustainability
activities
in
university
campuses
could
be
composed
of
the
following
three
approaches:
(i)
environmental
management
(systems)
in
university,
(ii)
public
participation
and
social
responsibility,
and
(iii)
sustainability
teaching
and
research.
The
Office
of
Sustainability
is
the
focal
point
of
the
first
two
of
the
three
approaches
having
made
many
sustainability
plans
and
implemented
them
with
the
aid
of
various
collaborators.
More
specifically,
the
office
released
the
Dalhousie
University
Sustainability
Operational
Plan
(DUOS,
2010),
suggesting
11
sustainability
indicators
(e.g.,
reduction
of
greenhouse
gas
emission)
and
quantitative/qualitative
targets
of
these
indicators
by
2020.
The
released
plan
of
DUOS
(2010)
also
proposed
mainstreaming
bikes
as
a
traffic
tool
as
one
of
its
key
strategies.
To
achieve
this
goal,
the
Office
of
Sustainability
has
conducted
a
survey
about
travel
behavior
of
commuters
at
Dalhousie
(DUOS,
2012),
and
implemented
cycling-­‐supportive
programs,
such
as
establishing
a
campus
bike
centre
and
installing
new
bike
racks,
between
2010
and
2013
(DUOS,
2014).
Furthermore,
Dalhousie
released
a
bikeways
plan
for
the
urban
Halifax
institutional
district
in
combination
with
Capital
Health,
IWK
Health
Centre
and
Saint
Mary’s
University
in
2012
(CEU,
2012).
This
plan
suggested
establishing
new
bike
lanes,
bike
parking
stations
and
other
bike-­‐related
infrastructure
in
specific
places
in
Halifax
(e.g.,
University
Avenue).
In
particular,
bike
lanes
are
acknowledged
as
an
effective
way
to
make
biking
mainstream
(Parker
et
al.,
2013).
Furthermore,
the
growing
interest
in
sustainability
efforts
at
other
universities
has
initiated
a
couple
of
sustainability-­‐related
reporting
and
ranking
systems
catering
to
higher
education
institutes
in
North
America
(Fonseca
et
al.,
2011).
In
line
with
such
movements,
sustainability
offices
at
some
universities
have
taken
initiatives
in
such
reporting
and
self-­‐
assessments
about
their
efforts
for
sustainability
(Fonseca
et
al.,
2011).
Dalhousie
is
one
of
the
registered
participants
of
the
Sustainability
Tracking,
Assessment
&
Rating
System
(STARS),
which
enables
universities
in
North
America
to
report
and
clarify
their
sustainability
performance.
This
system
is
characterized
by
its
extensive
scope,
positive
rating
of
environmentally
“good
practices”,
and
high
transparency
of
rating
process
(Wigmore
&
Ruiz,
2010).
Our
client
is
in
charge
of
submitting
reports
of
Dalhousie
to
STARS
as
well,
and
the
university
was
awarded
silver
rating
in
2011
(DUOS,
n.d.).
The
STARS
evaluation
is
supposed
to
be
conducted
once
in
every
three
years,
the
last
one
being
conducted
in
August
of
2011.

8.
2014
Dalhousie
Office
of
Sustainability
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
Report
7
The
Office
of
Sustainability
regards
the
perceptions,
opinions
and
ideas
of
students,
staff,
and
faculty
as
of
utmost
importance,
and
has
conducted
an
annual
questionnaire
survey
for
the
past
four
years.
This
report
outlines
the
objectives,
methods,
and
results
of
the
2014
Annual
Sustainability
Survey.
Both
quantitative
and
qualitative
analysis
of
results
are
presented
together
with
discussion
of
key
themes
as
identified
in
the
survey
results
and
recommendations.
4.2 Project Aim & Objectives
The
main
purpose
of
this
report
is
to
present
the
results
of
the
2014
survey
and
give
our
partner
organization
not
only
survey
results,
but
also
useful
recommendations
from
quantitative
and
qualitative
data
analysis.
The
survey
consists
of
four
different
sections.
The
first
part
questions
respondents
on
initiatives
at
Dalhousie,
including
their
understanding
of
STARS
and
LEED.
The
second
section
questions
respondents
on
their
perception
of
cycling
infrastructure,
while
the
third
questions
respondents
on
their
transportation
habits
to
and
from
the
university,
as
well
as
between
campuses.
The
final
section
of
the
survey
collects
demographic
information
about
respondents,
including
age,
gender,
and
faculty,
etc.
Results
and
trends
of
the
qualitative
and
quantitative
data
analysis,
provided
in
the
final
paper,
will
help
guide
major
concepts
to
be
incorporated
into
policy
creation,
project
planning,
and
campus
operations
in
the
Office
of
Sustainability.
As
such,
our
objective
is
to
gather
a
wide
range
of
participants,
while
also
leaving
enough
time
at
the
end
of
term
to
fully
examine
and
understand
the
results
of
the
survey.
4.3 Report Format
This
report
follows
a
consistent
format,
similar
to
the
precedence
set
from
previous
years.
The
following
sections
provide
a
literature
review,
methodology,
research
design,
recruitment
strategy,
survey
launch,
and
data
analysis.
In
the
conclusions
of
this
report,
the
implications
of
the
survey
results
are
outlined,
trends
are
identified
and
comparison
made
with
previous
survey
results.
Recommendations
are
made
for
the
proceeding
years
of
the
facilitators
of
the
annual
survey
and
the
Office
of
Sustainability.
4.4 Omissions & Exclusions
This
report
will
omit
the
questions
in
the
survey
regarding
the
bridge
(Questions
33
-­‐
37).
These
questions
were
an
addition
from
an
external
group
working
at
Dalhousie
University,
who
simply
wanted
to
use
the
2014
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
platform
in
order
to
gather
information
regarding
the
renovation
and
construction
of
the
bridges
from
Dartmouth
to
Halifax.
Other
exclusions
from
this
report
include
analysis
on
questions
whereby
the
results
were
skewed
or
unrealistic.
For
example,
Question
32
(How
much
on
average
do
you
spend
out-­‐of-­‐pocket
on
a
monthly
basis
for
transportation
purposes?)
had
some
abnormal
answers,
and
will
be
further
discussed
in
section
8.2.1.
Limitations.

9.
2014
Dalhousie
Office
of
Sustainability
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
Report
8
5. Literature Review
5.1 Segregated Cycle Lanes and Increased Cycle Ridership
This
year’s
survey
included
questions
about
segregated
cycle
tracks
in
accordance
with
the
bicycle
lane
being
implemented
on
University
Avenue.
The
Office
of
Sustainability
has
spearheaded
the
lane
project
with
the
hope
that
it
would
increase
cycle
ridership
at
Dalhousie.
5.2 Policy Development
Policy
development
is
an
effective
way
to
increase
cycle
ridership.
Pucher
and
Buehler
(2007)
synthesize
a
number
of
case
studies
about
policy
development
to
draw
conclusions
about
increasing
cycle
ridership
in
urban
areas.
The
study
concludes
that
the
key
to
increased
ridership
is
the
provision
of
facilities
and
infrastructure,
notably,
segregated
cycle
tracks.
In
addition
to
the
pro-­‐bike
facilities,
policies,
and
programs
being
put
in
place,
the
governments
examined
in
the
paper
(the
Netherlands,
Denmark
and
Germany)
not
only
made
driving
expensive,
but
also
inconvenient
through
tax
policies
and
restrictions
on
car
ownership,
use,
and
parking.
The
study
concludes
that
increasing
cycle
ridership
is
the
result
of
a
multifaceted
approach
that
supports
cycling,
ranging
from
strict
land-­‐use
policies
in
support
of
cycling,
to
taxes
and
restrictions
on
car
use,
all
in
addition
to
the
provision
of
segregated
cycle
tracks.
5.3 Political Support
Political
support
from
HRM
is
significant
to
the
discussion
surrounding
segregated
cycle
tracks
and
increasing
cycle
ridership
in
Halifax.
After
revising
the
Active
Transportation
Plan
of
2006,
the
Regional
Council
approved
the
“Making
Connection:
2014-­‐19
Halifax
Active
Transportation
Priorities
Plan”
in
September
2014
(Halifax
Regional
Municipality,
2014a).
One
of
the
recommendations
of
this
plan
is
to
consider
segregated
cycle
tracks
where
suitable,
and
aim
to
implement
at
least
one
segregated
bicycle
lane
pilot
project
in
the
next
five
years
(Halifax
Regional
Municipality,
2014b).
The
plan
acknowledges
the
nuances
of
segregated
cycle
tracks,
especially
in
Halifax,
but
also
identified
the
opportunity
available,
as
evidenced
by
other
Canadian
municipalities.
In
2013
Regional
Council
approved
a
report
emanating
from
the
“Mayor’s
Conversation
on
a
Healthy
Liveable
Community.”
This
report
recommends
that
Halifax
Regional
Municipality
(HRM)
liaise
with
other
municipalities
in
Canada
that
have
implemented
segregated
cycle
tracks
with
the
goal
of
including
protected
bicycle
lanes
as
a
part
of
HRM’s
revised
Active
Transportation
Strategy
(Halifax
Regional
Municipality,
2014b).
In
2014,
the
Nova
Scotia
Department
of
Energy
is
starting
a
segregated
bike
lane
pilot
project
along
University
Avenue
by
investing
$150,000
(McNutt,
2014).
5.4 Local Business
Urban
businesses
are
reported
to
experience
increased
retail
success
due
to
the
implementation
of
cycle
tracks.
It
was
found
that
bicycle
infrastructure
can
elicit
positive
economic
effects
to
business
communities,
as
urban
cyclists
are
a
desired
demographic
for
local
businesses.
“Bicycle
lanes
and
bicycle
parking
can
increase
the
capacity
of
roads
and
the
ability
of
people
to
shop
simultaneously,”
(Arancibia
et
al.,
2013).
Critical
findings
of
this
study
are
that
the
percentage
of
customers
who
arrive
by
walking,
cycling,
or
public
transit,
into
urban
neighborhoods
is
immensely
higher
than
those
people
who
arrive
by
car;
and
that
cyclists
are
responsible
for
greater
monthly
per
capita
spending
than
drivers
as
1)
they
have
more

10.
2014
Dalhousie
Office
of
Sustainability
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
Report
9
disposable
income
(not
spent
on
car
expenses)
and
2)
cyclists
in
Toronto
earn
a
higher
income
than
the
city’s
average
(Arancibia
et
al.,
2013).
Evidence
from
a
New
York
City
example
states
that
segregated
cycle
tracks
in
the
city
on
9th
Avenue
contributed
to
a
drastic
increase
in
retail
sales
in
businesses
and
fewer
store
closures
(Arancibia
et
al.,
2013).
Merchants
respond
positively
to
questions
that
review
the
general
impact
of
bicycle
lanes
on
businesses,
but
the
extent
of
these
benefits
will
vary
depending
on
factors
such
as
the
quality
of
infrastructure
available,
types
of
businesses,
the
demand
for
cycling
infrastructure,
and
space
constraints
for
lanes
and
on-­‐street
parking
(Arancibia
et
al.,
2013).
5.5 Installation Cost vs. Financial Benefit
The
installation
cost
of
segregated
cycle
tracks
is
high.
Compared
with
non-­‐segregated
cycle
tracks,
segregated
lanes
are
recognized
as
expensive
facilities
(Larsen
and
El-­‐Geneidy,
2012).
Approximately,
non-­‐segregated
cycle
tracks
cost
$100,000
per
km
to
install,
while
segregated
lanes
cost
$1
million
per
km
(Robb,
2014).
Macmillan
et
al.
(2014)
compared
the
financial
benefits
and
the
cost
of
increasing
bike
commuting
in
Auckland,
New
Zealand,
over
the
next
40
years,
by
assuming
introduction
of
segregated
cycle
tracks
and
some
other
scenarios.
In
terms
of
injury
risk,
physical
activity,
fuel
costs,
greenhouse
gas
emission,
as
well
as
air
pollution,
the
total
benefits
were
estimated
as
10-­‐25
times
larger
than
the
costs
(Macmillan
et
al.,
2014).
In
particular,
the
combination
between
segregated
bike
lanes
and
self-­‐explaining
roads
(designed
to
make
cars
run
at
low
speeds)
was
the
most
effective
increase
for
the
benefit-­‐cost
ratio
(Macmillan
et
al.,
2014).
A
general
supervisor
with
sustainable
transportation
in
Edmonton
stated
that
the
benefits
of
segregated
cycle
tracks
are
significant,
despite
their
relatively
expensive
cost
(Robb,
2014).
5.6 Safety
The
largest
social
factor
influencing
segregated
cycle
tracks
is
safety.
Many
individuals
are
not
willing
to
ride
bikes
due
to
concerns
about
danger
with
automobiles
driving
beside
cyclists
(Geller,
2009).
In
Portland,
United
States,
60%
of
citizens
were
likely
to
be
concerned
about
safety
but
remained
interested
in
cycling
all
the
same
(Geller,
2009).
In
other
words,
these
individuals
are
potential
cyclists.
A
global
review
based
on
21
observational
studies
reported
that
separation
of
cycling
from
other
traffic,
high
population
density,
as
well
as
“programs
of
safe
routes
to
school”
could
contribute
to
increasing
ridership
significantly
(Fraser
and
Lock,
2010).
Herein,
the
safety
programs
include,
the
California
Safe
routes
to
school,
for
instance,
which
provides
budget
allocations
for
constructing
bike-­‐related
facilities
around
schools.
In
Iowa,
segregated
cycle
tracks
could
reduce
accidental
risk
of
bike-­‐related
crashes
by
as
much
as
60%
(Hamnn
and
Peek-­‐Asa,
2013).
According
to
a
Canadian
questionnaire
conducted
in
the
Metro
Vancouver,
segregated
cycle
tracks
are
generally
safe,
and
people
prefer
them
to
other
pathway
types
(e.g.,
non-­‐segregated
cycle
tracks
or
regular
roads)
(Winters
and
Teschke,
2010).
Sanders
(2014)
reported
that
potential
cyclists
felt
uncomfortable
about
bike
lanes
without
separation
from
motorized
traffic.
A
GIS
analysis
to
quantify
the
association
between
bike
facilities
and
distance
traveled
by
cyclists
in
Montreal
(Larsen
and
El-­‐Geneidy
2012)
found
that
many
cyclists
would
travel
farther
than
non-­‐segregated
lane
users
by
as
much
as
2.0
km.

11.
2014
Dalhousie
Office
of
Sustainability
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
Report
10
Furthermore,
those
who
used
painted
lanes
traveled
more
than
cyclists
who
used
no
lanes
by
1.6
km.
Cyclists
were
willing
to
travel
farther
in
order
to
use
cycling
facilities.
5.7 Health
A
study
conducted
in
Montreal
showed
that
the
use
of
segregated
cycle
tracks
reduced
the
personal
exposure
of
cyclists
to
air
pollutants
(Hatzopoulou
et
al.,
2013).
The
impacts
of
segregated
cycling
tracks
on
personal
exposure
may
vary
between
regions.
De
Hartog
et
al.
(2010)
conducted
a
quantitative
comparison
between
benefits
and
risks
of
bikes
on
human
health
in
terms
of
traffic
accidents,
air
pollutions
and
physical
exercises
in
the
Netherlands.
Note,
however,
that
their
comparison
did
not
consider
separation/non-­‐separation
of
cycling
tracks.
They
concluded
that
the
benefits
outweigh
the
risks
remarkably,
also
finding
large
benefits
on
society,
such
as
reduction
of
air
pollution
and
greenhouse
gas
emission.
It
is
also
noteworthy
that
young
people
(15-­‐30
years
old)
have
equal
or
lower
traffic
mortality
with
bikes
than
that
with
cars
(De
Hartog
et
al.,
2010).
Given
that
the
mortality
of
cyclists
is
generally
5.5
times
higher
to
that
of
car
riders
across
all
ages,
traffic
risk
of
bikes
on
young
people
is
extremely
low.
5.8 Social Perceptions
There
is
a
perception
that
segregated
cycle
tracks
are
more
dangerous
than
multi-­‐use
paths
(wherein,
cyclists
share
with
pedestrians)
likely
because
they
are
not
familiar
with
cycle
tracks
(Winters
et
al.,
2012).
The
perception
is
partly
true,
however,
and
cyclists
should
be
prepared
to
deal
with
other
cyclists
in
the
same
lane.
As
such,
teaching
cyclists
how
to
interact
with
other
bikes
is
important
(Cohen,
2013).
Some
factors,
such
as
cyclist
age
or
phone
use,
could
lead
to
an
increased
risk
of
bike
accidents
(Asadi-­‐Shekari
et
al.,
2014).
Such
risk
factors
may
be
persistent,
irrespective
of
whether
tracks
are
segregated
or
not.
Perceived
risk
from
crime
also
discourage
people
to
ride
bikes
(Fraser
and
Lock,
2010),
and
this
may
be
the
case,
regardless
of
separation
of
cycle
tracks.
5.9 Ease of traffic
Based
on
observation
in
Delhi,
India,
Mohan
and
Tiwari
(1999),
argued
that
bike
lanes
should
be
segregated
in
roads
that
consist
of
two
or
more
lanes
to
make
use
of
limited
space
and
enable
efficient
traffic
flow.
In
other
words,
segregated
cycle
tracks
could
be
beneficial
to
improve
traffic
in
wide
roads.
A
study
conducted
in
Montreal
(Larsen,
et
al.,
2011)
showed
that
when
such
cycling
infrastructure
is
implemented,
it
has
a
significant
effect
on
the
street
routes
taken
by
cyclists.
Larsen
et
al.
(2011)
used
ArcGIS
(Geographic
Information
System)
to
analyze
the
routes
taken
by
cyclists
and
determine
that
cyclists
will
travel
farther
to
use
segregated
cycle
tracks
than
for
all
other
infrastructure
type.
Similarly,
cyclists
travel
farther
to
use
segregated
on-­‐street
infrastructure,
as
opposed
to
those
“delineated
by
road
paint
alone”
(Larson
et
al.,
2011).
According
to
a
study
in
Portland,
car
drivers
who
have
never
ridden
bikes
were
likely
to
ascribe
traffic
delay
to
new
segregated
cycle
tracks,
and
also
walkers
were
worried
about
accident
risks
when
crossing
the
bike
lanes.

12.
2014
Dalhousie
Office
of
Sustainability
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
Report
11
5.10 Connectivity and Directedness
Furthermore,
even
if
cycle
tracks
are
segregated
from
roads,
something
more
may
be
needed
to
increase
cycle
ridership
significantly.
By
analyzing
network
structures
in
74
cities
in
the
United
States,
Schoner
and
Levinson
(2014)
indicated
that
density,
connectivity
and
directness
of
bike
lanes
are
important
factors
to
increase
ridership.
In
other
words,
fragmentation
and
complexity
of
lane
networks
could
possibly
impede
positive
effects
of
segregated
cycle
tracks.
Also,
densifying
bike
lane
networks
was
recommended
in
specific
routes
between
universities
and
the
most
popular
residential
areas
of
students
(Schoner
and
Levinson,
2014).
5.11 Physical Conditions (Weather, Topography, Vegetation)
Steep
slopes
and
bad
weather
are
factors
that
negatively
affect
cycle
ridership
(Fraser
and
Lock,
2010).
Riding
bikes
on
slopes
takes
time,
and
also
exhausts
cyclist
commuters
before
they
arrived
at
schools
or
offices
(Rodríguez
and
Joo,
2004).
According
to
a
study
on
53
Canadian
cities,
the
numbers
of
rainy
days,
as
well
as
freezing-­‐temperature
days,
were
associated
with
lower
level
of
cycling
(Winters
et
al.,
2007).
Presence
of
snow
is
another
factor
that
could
affect
bike
lanes
and
ridership.
For
instance,
in
South
Burlington
in
the
United
States,
snow
plowing
operations
could
make
green
thermoplastic
pavement
markings
less
visible
than
before
in
non-­‐segregated
cycle
tracks,
resulting
in
a
drop
in
the
percentage
of
cyclists
who
use
green
bike
lanes
(Sadek
et
al.,
2007).
Segregated
cycle
tracks
are
unlikely
to
have
such
a
problem;
however,
snow
plowing
in
the
segregated
lanes
may
be
expensive.
As
argued
by
Winters
et
al.
(2007),
students
riding
bikes
are
insensitive
to
difference
in
climate
in
Canada,
likely
because
students
have
limited
transportation
choice
due
to
financial
constraints.
Also,
Titzre
et
al.
(2008)
found
an
inconsistent
result
with
the
aforementioned
negative
effect
of
slopes
or
the
positive
effect
of
vegetation
on
bike
ridership
in
Graz
in
Austria,
proposing
that
further
studies
would
be
necessary
to
make
substantial
claims.
5.12 Research Key Points
Though
many
of
the
above
case
studies
and
research
papers
are
not
focused
on
Halifax
specifically,
the
challenges
and
opportunities
that
have
been
encountered
by
other
municipalities
are
highly
relevant
to
the
implementation
of
cycle
infrastructure
in
the
city.
The
most
pressing
force
is
safety,
municipal
budgets,
and
conflict
with
traditional
modes
of
transportation.
As
previously
noted,
concerns
over
safety
are
significant
amongst
potential
cyclists
and
need
to
be
prioritized
when
considering
implementing
any
expansion
of
cycle
infrastructure
in
the
city.
This
is
an
opportunity
to
promote
the
use
of
segregated
cycle
tracks
as
it
has
been
shown
to
improve
the
perception
of
safety
and
reduce
accident
risks.
To
implement
any
new
infrastructure
in
the
city,
funds
need
to
be
obtained.
These
funds
are
likely
to
be
gathered
from
government
sources
and
how
these
bodies
will
be
engaged
for
buy-­‐in
support
is
a
necessary
considerations.
Finally,
one
of
the
largest
barriers
to
the
implementation
of
additional
cycle
infrastructure
in
Halifax
is
the
conflict
inevitable
with
other
modes
of
transportation.
Addressing
the
concern
that
roads
will
be
narrowed,
parking
lost,
or
access
decreased,
should
be
considered
a
threat
and
therefore
a
pressing
concern.
Many
of
the
forces
considered
are
inter-­‐connected,
and,
as
many
of
the
case
studies
address,
the
most
effective
approach
is
one
that
is
multi-­‐faceted.

13.
2014
Dalhousie
Office
of
Sustainability
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
Report
12
6. Methods
6.1 Planning
The
introductory
meeting
with
Rochelle
Owen,
the
director
of
the
Office
of
Sustainability,
guided
the
research
design
of
the
project.
A
project
work
plan
was
decided
upon
following
that
meeting,
including
project
objectives,
timeline,
deadlines,
and
roles.
The
major
phases
of
the
project
include
survey
design
and
review,
research
ethics
submission,
recruitment
strategies,
survey
launch,
data
analysis
and
recommendations.
To
generate
an
accurate
work
plan,
a
meeting
with
the
partner
organization
was
held
to
outline
the
timeline
of
the
project.
From
this
meeting,
the
Project
Team
was
able
to
understand
the
short
and
long-­‐term
expectations
of
survey
implementation,
as
our
partner
organization
has
created
and
employed
this
same
survey
in
previous
years.
Moreover,
the
Project
Team
understands
the
complexities
behind
drafting,
reviewing,
submitting
ethics
reviews,
editing
survey
questions,
effectively
delegating,
and
other
specific
tasks
that
come
with
the
responsibility
of
launching
this
annual
survey.
There
was
a
new
section
added
this
year
that
included
questions
regarding
segregated
bike
lanes.
In
the
general
section,
new
questions
related
to
Sustainability
reporting
and
green
infrastructure
were
also
added.
At
the
request
of
the
Office
of
Sustainability
and
personnel
in
charge
of
the
Macdonald
Bridge
construction,
survey
participates
were
asked
about
the
on-­‐going
construction
project
on
the
Macdonald
Bridge.
This
was
a
separate
add-­‐on
to
the
survey.
In
addition,
Dr.
Ahsan
Habib,
who
is
responsible
for
the
transportation
section
of
the
survey,
incorporated
new
changes.
6.2 Research Ethics
Submission
to
the
ethics
review
board
is
a
necessary
step
in
initiating
the
survey
activation
process.
This
ethics
review
process
required
a
full
submission
of
the
survey
questions
for
review,
as
well
as
a
document
outlining
the
study
parameters,
including:
methods
of
achieving
confidentiality
and
anonymity,
the
software
we
plan
on
using
to
gather
people’s
opinions,
the
recruitment
email,
the
plan
to
evaluate
the
information,
who
will
have
access
to
the
information
(external
parties),
as
well
as
information
management
plans
once
the
project
is
completed.
Once
we
obtained
ethics
approval,
after
a
review
by
our
faculty
member
and
teaching
assistant,
the
project
team
carried
out
the
survey
under
the
boundaries
set
in
the
ethics
review.
Portions
of
the
ethics
review
document
can
be
seen
in
the
appendix.
Appendix
C
is
the
“informed
consent”
document
that
resulted
from
the
ethics
review.
Although
the
authors
generated
the
“informed
consent”
document,
due
to
the
nature
of
the
survey,
it
was
an
implied
consent
to
the
conditions
outlined
in
the
form
once
the
participant
clicked
“start
survey”.
An
abbreviated
version
of
the
informed
consent
document
was
provided
on
the
“Start
Survey”
page
on
Opinio
and
can
be
seen
at
the
beginning
of
Appendix
E
(The
Survey).
There
was
no
exchange
of
signatures
or
any
interaction
of
the
participant
with
the
survey
team.
Appendix
D
and
E
outline
the
recruitment
email
sent
to
department
secretaries,
DSU
Executives,
etc.,
and
the
full
survey
questions,
respectively.

14.
2014
Dalhousie
Office
of
Sustainability
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
Report
13
6.3 Recruitment Strategy and Survey Launch
The
goal
of
recruitment
is
to
create
survey
awareness
within
the
Dalhousie
community
in
order
to
increase
the
number
of
respondents
and
strengthen
the
results.
Past
recruitment
methods
formed
the
foundation
upon
which
this
year’s
survey
recruitment
strategies
were
built.
The
Office
of
Sustainability
and
the
Project
Team
mapped
out
key
strategies
for
promoting
the
survey
to
the
Dalhousie
community.
Prizes
were
offered
to
survey
respondents
to
serve
as
an
added
motivation
for
filling
out
the
survey.
The
prizes
included
a
$100
Superstore
gift
card,
a
Sobeys
gift
card,
Just
Us!
Coffee
and
gift
basket,
and
gift
certificates
for
local
restaurants.
The
survey
was
promoted
predominantly
through
online
means.
A
recruitment
email
(Appendix
F)
was
developed.
It
contained
the
purpose
of
the
survey,
gifts
to
be
won,
confidentiality
clause,
and
link
to
the
survey.
The
recruitment
email
was
distributed
to
various
news
channels
such
as
“Today@Dal”
and
“StudentLife”
prior
to
the
launch
of
the
survey.
On
the
day
of
the
survey
launch,
the
recruitment
email
was
sent
to
all
Dalhousie
employees
via
the
Office
of
Sustainability
email
address;
Facebook
pages
of
Dalhousie
student
societies;
Administrative
Secretaries
of
departments
for
distribution
to
their
student
(see
Appendix
D);
Dalhousie
societies
through
the
Dalhousie
Student
Union
(DSU);
campus
LCD
screens;
and
Office
of
Sustainability
social
media
platforms
(Twitter,
Facebook,
and
sustainability
blog).
A
Facebook
event
was
also
created
by
the
Project
Team
to
invite
Dalhousie
students
and
friends
to
fill
out
the
survey.
The
survey
was
launched
on
November
3rd
at
9.00am
and
closed
two
weeks
later
on
November
18
at
7.00pm.
The
survey
had
1949
responses
with
1508
completed
responses.
During
the
duration
of
the
survey,
reminders
were
sent
to
Administrative
Secretaries
to
re-­‐distribute
the
recruitment
emails,
social
media
platforms
were
updated
as
well
as
the
Facebook
event
page.
To
garner
more
response,
the
project
team
had
a
recruitment
event
in
the
Student
Union
Building
(SUB)
during
the
survey.
The
survey
was
advertised
during
the
event
with
posters,
and
banner.
Laptops
were
made
available
for
students
to
give
out
their
email
addresses.
This
year’s
recruitment
event
was
a
bit
different
as
we
only
requested
for
email
addresses
of
students
at
the
event.
The
survey
link
was
thereafter
sent
to
students
who
gave
out
their
email
address
and
agreed
to
fill
out
the
survey.
6.4 Data Collection & Analysis
Data
collection
was
conducted
entirely
through
the
online
survey
software
Opinio,
provided
by
Dalhousie
University.
The
Project
Team
worked
closely
with
Dr.
Poh
Chua
to
input
the
survey
questions
and
create
the
survey.
The
survey
was
open
for
over
two
weeks
with
respondents
sought
from
all
campuses
and
from
all
Dalhousie
community
members,
including
students,
administrators,
and
professors.
The
breadth
of
scope
regarding
who
could
complete
the
survey
ensured
a
significant
volume
of
data.
As
in
the
past,
data
collection
for
this
year’s
project
was
bounded
by
the
requirements
Dalhousie
has
set
out
regarding
the
use
of
surveys.
As
noted
previously,
this
involved
an
extensive
exchange
with
the
research
ethics
department
to
enable
the
survey
to
be
approved
and
launched.
Fortunately,
as
much
of
the
questions
in
this
year’s
survey
mirrored
those
present
in
the
2013
survey,
the
ethics
review
process
only
focused
on
questions
which
were
new
to
the
survey
this
year.

15.
2014
Dalhousie
Office
of
Sustainability
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
Report
14
Qualitative
data
analysis
was
required
on
a
number
of
survey
questions
as
the
questions
were
open-­‐ended
and
relied
on
text
boxes
for
the
collection
of
responses.
In
the
case
of
these
questions,
responses
were
read
and
then
grouped
by
the
key
points
and/or
themes
presented.
Having
filtered
the
written
responses
in
this
way,
a
standard
analysis
of
the
frequency
of
certain
themes
or
concerns
was
conducted.
Quantitative
analysis
made
up
the
bulk
of
the
data
analysis
conducted.
The
majority
of
questions
was
multiple-­‐choice,
and
was
visualized
using
Microsoft
Excel.
Having
done
this
visualization
of
the
data
an
analysis
and
discussion
of
the
results
was
completed
for
each
question.

16.
2014
Dalhousie
Office
of
Sustainability
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
Report
15
7. Results & Analysis
Exactly
1949
members
of
the
Dalhousie
Community
accessed
the
2014
Annual
Sustainability
Survey.
Of
these,
1508
completed
all
(compulsory)
questions.
The
graph
below
illustrates
the
drop-­‐off
in
completed
questions
over
the
course
of
the
survey.
The
most
notable
drop-­‐off
in
respondents
occurred
early
in
the
survey,
at
approximately
Question
6
(Fig
1).
If
respondents
continued
from
this
point
they
were
highly
likely
to
complete
the
entire
survey.
7.1 Demographics
Around
58%
of
the
respondents
were
under
35
years
old
(Fig.
2),
most
likely
because
47%
of
the
sample
were
students
(Fig.
6).
However,
another
40%
of
the
respondents
were
staff
(which
does
not
include
faculty).
Around
71%
of
the
respondents
were
females
(Fig.
3).
We
do
not
know
the
proportion
of
females
at
Dalhousie,
though
the
proportion
of
females
among
students
is
55%.
Thus,
assuming
that
people
who
are
interested
in
sustainability
responded
to
our
survey,
our
results
may
indicate
that
females
are
more
interested
in
sustainability
than
males
(see
section
8.2.1).
1,300
1,350
1,400
1,450
1,500
1,550
1,600
1,650
1,700
1,750
Respondent
Frequency
vs.
Ques3on
Figure 1: Respondent frequency vs. question number
6.70%
27.28%
24.20%
15.35%
15.15%
9.79%
1.54%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
15-­‐19
20-­‐24
25-­‐34
35-­‐44
45-­‐54
55-­‐64
65
and
above
Q1
Demographics
-­‐
Age
Figure 2: What is your age?

17.
2014
Dalhousie
Office
of
Sustainability
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
Report
16
21.32%
11.66%
12.25%
8.61%
8.08%
19.60%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Less
than
$19,999
$20,000-­‐39,999
$40,000-­‐59,999
$60,000-­‐79,999
$80,000-­‐99,999
Above
100,000
Q40
-­‐
Annual
Household
Income
Annual
household
income
varied
from
less
than
$20,000
(21%
of
all
respondents)
to
above
than
$100,000
(20%)
(Fig.
4),
suggesting
that
there
was
minimal
deviation
in
the
income
among
the
respondents.
In
other
words,
people
are
interested
in
sustainability
regardless
of
their
income.
Of
all
respondents,
64%
work
or
study
mainly
in
the
Studley
campus
(Fig.
5).
In
terms
of
affiliation,
18%
and
12%
of
the
respondents
were
people
belonging
to
the
department
of
Science
and
Faculty
of
Arts
and
Social
Sciences
respectively
(Fig.
7).
As
well,
9%
of
them
were
people
of
the
department
of
Medicine.
70.82%
27.08%
0.13%
0.07%
0.33%
1.58%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Female
Male
Intersex
Trans
Other
Prefer
not
to
say
Q39
-­‐Gender
Figure 4: What is your Annual Income?
Figure 3: What is your gender?
Figure 4: What is your annual household income?

18.
2014
Dalhousie
Office
of
Sustainability
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
Report
17
47.46%
12.20%
40.34%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Students
Faculty
Staff
Q43
-­‐
Community
Group
Demographics
64.12%
16.49%
13.13%
6.27%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Studley
Carleton
Sexton
Agricultural
Q42
-­‐
Primary
Campus
of
Respondents
Figure 5: What is your primary campus?
Figure 6: Which of these community groups do you belong to?

19.
2014
Dalhousie
Office
of
Sustainability
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
Report
18
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Business
Process
and
Integraron
Office
Office
of
Industry
Liaison
&
Innovaron
Trace
Analysis
Research
Centre
Bookstores
Environmental
Health
and
Safety
Presidents
Office
Dalhousie
Arts
Centre
College
of
Conrnuing
Educaron
Human
Resources
Faculty
of
Computer
Science
Faculty
of
Denrstry
Student
Services
Dalhousie
Libraries
Informaron
Technology
Services
Faculty
of
Agriculture
Faculty
of
Architecture
and
Planning
Faculty
of
Engineering
Faculty
of
Management
Faculty
of
Arts
and
Social
Sciences
Q44
-­‐
Department
Affilia3on
Figure 7: What is your Faculty and/or department?
Figure 8: Geographical distribution of respondents by postal code

20.
2014
Dalhousie
Office
of
Sustainability
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
Report
19
7.2 General Questions
Results
from
this
year’s
survey
show
that
support
for
sustainability
initiatives
on
campus
remains
strong
(Fig.
9).
Responses
favoring
environmental
sustainability
on
campus
are
highly
skewed
toward
positive
(either
somewhat
agree
or
strongly
agree).
9%
of
respondents
strongly
disagreed
or
somewhat
disagreed
with
the
statement
that
sustainability
should
be
a
priority
for
Dalhousie.
81%
of
respondents
believe
that
Dalhousie’s
involvement
in
the
STARS
rating
system
is
either
‘important’
or
‘very
important’
(Fig.
10).
Qualitative
analysis
reveals
that
many
of
the
respondents
believes
that
participation
in
STARS
is
important
as
it
can
serve
as
a
tool
for:
tracking
and
measuring
progress;
comparison
and
accountability;
and
also
provides
some
form
of
international
recognition.
A
few
respondents
were
however
skeptical
of
the
intentions
of
participating
in
rating
systems,
highlighting
that
participation
is
only
relevant
for
promotional
purposes.
Also,
a
few
respondents
pointed
out
the
flaws
associated
with
international
rating
3.77%
15.54%
44.58%
36.12%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
not
important
somewhat
important
important
very
important
Q2
-­‐
Importance
of
STARS
6.94%
1.56%
1.27%
18.81%
71.41%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
strongly
disagree
somewhat
disagree
unsure
somewhat
agree
strongly
agree
Q1
-­‐
Environmental
Sustainability
as
a
Campus-­‐Wide
Goal
Figure 9: Environmental sustainability should be a campus-wide goal.
Figure 10: How important is Dalhousie’s participation in an international
rating system like STARS?

21.
2014
Dalhousie
Office
of
Sustainability
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
Report
20
systems
such
as
the
possibility
of
not
capturing
local
factors
or
determinants
in
the
rating
process.
Some
of
the
respondents
do
not
know
about
the
rating
system,
but
still
thinks
that
it
is
important
In
addition,
92%
of
respondents
believe
that
Dalhousie’s
goal
for
new
buildings
being
rated
LEED
Gold
or
above
is
either
‘important’
or
‘very
important’
(Fig.
11).
Many
of
the
respondents
believed
that
been
an
innovator
in
green
buildings
is
important
as
Dalhousie
is
a
leader
in
sustainability
and
innovation.
Some
of
the
respondents;
however,
are
of
the
opinion
that
LEED
certification
is
expensive
and
LEED
certified
buildings
has
some
complications,
and
are
also
skeptical
about
the
need
to
build
new
buildings
when
old
buildings
needs
upgrading.
Apart
from
been
a
leader
in
sustainability,
other
reasons
given
by
some
respondents
on
why
it
is
important
for
Dalhousie
to
be
an
innovator
in
green
buildings
are:
it
attracts
students
and
employees;
cuts
costs
and
resource
use
in
the
long-­‐term;
and
it
is
the
right
the
thing
to
do.
Dalhousie
community
members
had
a
range
of
differing
opinions
relating
to
food
choices
on
campus.
Locally
sourcing
(50%),
animal
welfare
(46%),
food
freshness
(70%),
energy
and
water
kitchen
efficiency
(47%),
and
the
reduction
of
food
waste
(61%)
all
had
strong
support
(Fig.
12).
Organic
food
had
the
lowest
level
of
support,
with
only
17%
of
respondents
rating
this
as
a
strong
priority
for
food
operations
at
Dalhousie.
Survey
respondents
provided
context
for
their
choices
in
an
open
text
comment
box.
That
organic
food
garnered
the
lowest
level
of
support
is
supported
by
respondents’
comments,
such
as
“all
super
important
except
organic
food.”
Further
information
about
the
perception
of
organic
food
is
suggested
by
comments
like
“Organic
is
a
money-­‐making
scam.
It
is
not
important.
Local
is
king.”
As
is
manifested
in
the
comment
“local
is
king”
most
respondents
who
added
comments
were
very
supportive
of
local
food
sources.
Of
141
comments
left
by
respondents,
only
one
individual
commented
negatively,
saying
that:
“Local
can
sometimes
have
a
bigger
eco-­‐
1.28%
6.67%
28.83%
63.23%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
not
important
somewhat
important
important
very
important
Q3
-­‐
(LEED)
Gold
Standard
or
Higher
at
Dalhousie
Figure 11: How important is it that Dalhousie is an innovator in the field of
green building?

22.
2014
Dalhousie
Office
of
Sustainability
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
Report
21
footprint.”
With
this
exception,
all
other
mention
of
local
food
was
very
supportive.
One
respondent
commented,
“above
all
I
believe
local
food
sources
are
the
most
important”,
while
another
added
that
Dalhousie
should
“do
its
part
in
supporting
local
food
sources.”
Of
the
individual
environmentally
sustainable
efforts
taken
by
Dalhousie
Community
members,
the
most
prevalent
was
turning
off
water
taps
followed
by
sorting
materials
into
recycling
and
compost
bins
(Fig.
13).
In
contrast,
choosing
the
stairs
rather
than
elevators
and
focusing
on
reducing
paper
were
relatively
uncommon
actions.
It
means
that
these
actions
have
room
to
be
improved
and
spread
among
community
members
at
Dalhousie.
In
the
open
text
comment
box,
survey
participants
provided
context
to
their
quantitative
responses.
Many
respondents
indicated
that
the
options
provided
by
the
question
are
“common
sense.”
Others
added
further
efforts
that
they
make,
including:
limiting
driving
and
air
travel,
walking
or
biking,
limiting
use
of
washer
and
dryers,
bringing
food
in
tupperware,
never
purchasing
bottled
water,
and
using
rags
instead
of
paper
towel.
Of
all
the
options
provided
in
this
question,
“turning
down
the
heat”
was
most
commented
upon.
In
almost
all
cases
where
heat
is
mentioned
respondents
made
it
clear
that
they
have
no
control
over
the
heat
at
Dal.
Furthermore,
many
of
these
individuals
indicated
dissatisfaction
with
the
temperatures
of
offices
and
classrooms
and
that
something
needs
to
be
done.
Some
respondents
commented
on
the
educational
aspect
of
this
question,
indicating
that
the
people
around
them
are
not
doing
enough
and
more
education
is
required.
Only
a
few
respondents
indicated
that
they
themselves
should
be
making
more
efforts.
Though
it
was
not
Organic
Food
Local
Sources
Animal
Welfare
Food
Freshness
Eco-­‐
footprint
(Resources
Consumed)
Energy
and
Water
Kitchen
Efficiency
Reducron
of
Food
Waste
1
12%
2%
3%
1%
2%
1%
1%
2
13%
4%
6%
1%
3%
3%
2%
3
31%
13%
19%
5%
17%
15%
9%
4
26%
31%
27%
24%
37%
34%
27%
5
17%
50%
46%
70%
41%
47%
61%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Q4
-­‐
Priori3es
for
Food
Opera3ons
at
Dalhousie
Figure 12: How important is the following criteria to you regarding food operations
at Dalhousie? (rate where 1 is not important and 5 is very important)

23.
2014
Dalhousie
Office
of
Sustainability
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
Report
22
an
option
on
this
question,
many
respondents
indicated
that
their
own
efforts
could
be
improved
by
more
education
on
the
proper
sorting
of
wastes
products.
A
qualitative
analysis
of
participant
responses
to
Q6,
“What
sustainability
projects
would
you
most
like
to
see
progress
on?”
elicited
a
wide
range
of
responses.
The
major
themes
from
the
responses
include
(in
decreasing
number
of
frequency):
energy
efficiency,
sustainable
transport,
waste
management,
sustainable
food,
divestment,
water
management,
outreach,
policy
enforcement,
and
uncertainty
about
current
projects.
Within
the
larger
themes,
there
were
a
number
of
recurring
sub
themes.
The
only
exception
to
this
general
rule
is
divestment,
which
was
unambiguous.
In
regards
to
other
themes,
however,
there
was
a
high
degree
of
ambiguity
of
terms
used,
such
as
the
salient
differences
between
local
and
sustainable
food,
and
recycling
and
waste
management.
For
this
reason,
major
sub-­‐themes
are
also
identified
to
differentiate
recurrent
themes
from
the
responses.
Open
text
survey
responses
indicated
that
green
building
and
green
roofs
are
desired
by
a
high
percentage
of
respondents,
in
addition
to
solar
power
and
heat.
Under
the
main
theme
Turning
down
the
heat
Turning
off
lights
Turning
off
computers
Choosing
the
stairs
Turning
off
water
taps
Reducing
paper
Using
a
reusable
mug
Not
Important
1%
0%
1%
1%
0%
0%
1%
Hardly
Ever
4%
1%
7%
3%
0%
1%
3%
Occasionally
4%
1%
6%
5%
0%
4%
4%
Somermes
10%
3%
17%
16%
2%
19%
12%
Frequently
23%
22%
23%
35%
12%
39%
29%
Always
32%
68%
41%
38%
82%
35%
49%
N/A
26%
4%
5%
2%
3%
1%
2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Q5
-­‐
Efforts
Taken
to
Reduce
Energy,
Water
Use,
and
Waste
on
Campus
Figure 13: What efforts do you make to reduce energy, water use, and waste on
campus?

24.
2014
Dalhousie
Office
of
Sustainability
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
Report
23
of
sustainable
transport,
bike
lanes
and
increased
cycle
ridership
was
the
most
commonly
desired
sub
theme.
Respondents
also
identified
a
need
for
covered
bike
shelters,
and
improvement
to
the
public
transit
system
(though
to
a
lesser
degree).
Under
waste
management,
recycling
and
paper
waste
were
the
most
common
concerns,
however,
improved
signage
and
more
outdoor
bins
was
also
common.
Respondents
identified
local
food
as
being
a
high
priority
as
it
was
suggested
most
frequently
in
comparison
to
organic
food
and
food
gardens,
which
were
less
frequently
identified.
Concerns
about
water
management
included
topics
such
as
increasing
water
fountains
and
decreasing
the
use
and/or
sale
of
bottled
water
on
campus.
The
most
frequent
sub-­‐theme
under
outreach
is
sustainable
education,
followed
to
a
lesser
degree
by
student
initiatives
and
workshops.
The
final
theme,
policy
enforcement,
was
the
least
frequently
identified
throughout
the
results.
A
need
was
identified
to
enforce
the
on-­‐
campus
smoking
ban,
as
well
as
the
idle
free
policy.
7.3 Cycling Questions
Around
27%
of
the
respondents
answered
that
they
use
bicycles,
and
most
of
them
(85%
of
cyclists)
use
bike
rack
facilities
(Fig.
13).
Studley
campus
is
the
most
frequently
used
place
to
park
bicycles
(60%)
(Fig.
14).
In
comparison,
17%
and
12%
of
the
respondents
indicated
that
they
park
their
bikes
at
the
Sexton
and
Carleton
campuses.
These
results
are
largely
affected
by
the
number
of
people
who
study
or
work
in
each
campus.
If
we
compare
the
results
of
Question
16
(number
of
people
who
park
bikes
in
each
campus)
and
that
of
Question
42
(number
of
people
who
study
or
work
in
each
campus),
Sexton
campus
has
the
highest
ratio
of
cyclists
to
campus
users.
22.62%
3.88%
73.50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Yes
No
Do
not
use
a
bicycle
Q15
-­‐
Use
of
Bike
Rack
Facili3es
Figure 14: If you bike to campus, do you use bike rack facilities provided
by the university?

25.
2014
Dalhousie
Office
of
Sustainability
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
Report
24
With
regard
to
concern
about
implementation
of
segregated
cycle
tracks,
around
39%
of
respondents
had
no
concern
(Fig.
15).
On
the
other
hand,
all
choices
of
concern,
except
accessibility
to
buildings,
were
chosen
by
more
than
10%
of
the
respondents
respectively.
In
other
words,
when
implementing
the
tracks,
these
choices
need
to
be
considered
as
common
concerns
among
Dalhousie
community
members.
Comments
by
respondents
addressed
the
fact
that
the
greatest
need
for
cycle
tracks
is
not
on
the
Dalhousie
campus,
but
throughout
the
city.
Other
concerns
related
to
cycle
tracks
were
emphasized.
On
the
topic
of
accessibility,
respondents
were
concerned
about
accessibility
for
the
elderly
and
medical
response
teams.
Though
it
was
not
provided
as
an
option
in
the
question,
some
respondents
indicated
concern
for
snow
removal.
Overall,
respondents
were
generally
positive
about
segregated
cycle
tracks.
One
respondent
indicated
“this
is
a
fantastic
project.”
60.39%
12.47%
16.90%
5.26%
4.99%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Studley
Campus
(ie.
the
primary
campus,
between
Robie
and
Oxford
St.)
Carleton
Campus
(ie.
the
health
professions
campus,
between
Robie
and
Summer
Sexton
Campus
(ie.
the
engineering,
architecture,
and
planning
campus)
Agriculture
Campus
(ie.
the
Truro
campus)
Other
(please
specify):
Q16
-­‐
Where
Do
You
Park
Your
Bike?
17.46%
14.93%
13.09%
4.17%
10.94%
39.41%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Loss
of
Parking
Narrower
Vehicle
Lanes
Connecron
to
Other
Cycle
Lanes
Accessibility
to
Buildings
Obstrucron
to
Pedestrian
Movement
No
Concern
Q7
-­‐
Concerns
Regarding
Segregated
Cycle
Tracks
Figure 15: If yes (to Q15), where do you park your bike?
Figure 16: What is your greatest concern regarding the implementation of
segregated cycle tracks?

26.
2014
Dalhousie
Office
of
Sustainability
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
Report
25
Many
of
the
respondents
(44%
of
all)
felt
as
though
the
greatest
opportunity
of
the
segregated
cycle
tracks
would
have
been
an
increase
in
safety
(Fig.
16).
In
addition,
23%
of
participants
felt
as
though
segregated
cycle
tracks
would
reduce
stress
for
drivers
and
cyclists
alike,
as
well
as
help
to
increase
cycling
ridership.
In
the
comment
box,
respondents
addressed
the
choices
they
made.
Opinions
expressed
on
the
topic
of
connectivity
were
polarized.
Some
respondents
questioned
whether
the
track
will
increase
cycle
ridership,
saying
“I
don’t
see
this
as
a
significant
enough
change
(only
a
few
blocks)
to
create
behavioural
(sic)
change
in
those
who
want
to
ride
their
bikes
but
won’t.”
Contrarily,
other
respondents
reflected
positively
saying
“I
think
the
track
would
increase
cycling
awareness
and
encourage
people
to
ride
the
bicycles.”
Another
respondent
wrote:
“more
bikers=
less
drivers=
less
carbon
emissions=
healthier
people
and
planet.”
Approximately
74%
of
respondents
perceived
cycling
infrastructure
to
be
very
valuable
or
of
some
value
(Fig.
17).
This
question
correlates
well
with
the
90%
response
rate
in
favour
of
sustainability
as
a
campus
wide
goal.
Many
people
find
that
campus
sustainability
is
important
and
also
see
the
value
in
cycling
infrastructure
at
Dalhousie
University.
The
other
26%
of
respondents
indicated
that
they
were
unsure
about
the
value
of
segregated
cycle
tracks
(21%),
that
is
was
not
valuable
(3%)
and
that
it
was
detrimental
(2%).
Text
responses
from
the
survey
comment
box
further
corroborate
the
quantitative
answers
of
respondents.
Many
respondents
indicated
a
positive
opinion
concerning
the
value
of
cycle
tracks,
and
further
explained
that
connectivity
throughout
the
city
is
a
critical
component
of
their
potential
value
in
Halifax.
A
further
condition
was
put
forth
in
the
comments,
with
some
survey
respondents
indicating
that
lanes
would
be
most
useful
“if
used
correctly.”
Other
reasons
provided
by
respondents
who
answered
negatively
to
the
value
of
cycle
infrastructure
addressed
the
issue
of
already
narrow
streets
as
well
as
the
loss
of
parking
in
Halifax.
44.24%
15.06%
3.42%
22.85%
8.04%
6.39%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Increased
Cycling
Safety
Increased
Cycling
Ridership
Reduced
Traffic
Congesron
Reduced
Stress
for
Drivers
and
Cyclists
Bever
Flow
of
Traffic
For
All
No
Opportunity
Q8
-­‐
Greatest
Opportunity
of
Segregated
Cycle
Tracks
Figure 17: What do you think is the greatest opportunity provided by the
implementation of segregated cycle tracks?

27.
2014
Dalhousie
Office
of
Sustainability
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
Report
26
7.4 Transportation
Most
respondents
(76%
of
all)
did
not
use
a
different
primary
commute
mode
in
comparison
to
each
commute
mode
in
2013-­‐2014.
An
average
time
to
commute
was
24
minutes,
but
this
result
may
be
skewed
by
a
few
exceptional
answers
(e.g.,
the
maximum
time
to
commute
was
240
minutes).
Around
8
and
9
am
were
the
most
common
times
to
arrive
at
Dalhousie
among
the
respondents
(Fig.
18).
In
contrast,
there
were
two
peaks
regarding
the
time
to
leave
Dalhousie;
one
was
around
4-­‐5
am
and
another
was
4-­‐5
pm
(Fig.
19).
However,
the
latter
peak
(45%
of
all)
was
larger
than
the
former
one
(14%).
1.95%
3.15%
20.93%
34.36%
39.60%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Detrimental
Not
Valuable
Not
Sure
Valuable
Very
Valuable
Q9
-­‐
Perceived
Value
of
Cycle
Infrastructure
Figure 18: In regards to infrastructure, do you think cycle tracks segregated
(from traffic) and connected (through intersections) on core routes would be
valuable?

28.
2014
Dalhousie
Office
of
Sustainability
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
Report
27
More
than
half
(56%)
of
the
respondents
owned
their
cars,
while
a
few
people
(3%)
were
involved
in
car
sharing
service
(Fig.
20).
23%
of
them
did
not
have
any
access
to
a
car.
As
well,
around
half
(48%)
of
them
possessed
their
bikes,
whereas
41%
of
them
did
not
have
any
access
to
a
bike
(Fig.
21).
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Q19
-­‐Average
3me
of
arrival
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
24:00:00
Q20
-­‐Average
3me
of
departure
Figure 19: At what time, on average, do you arrive at Dalhousie? Identify
the time in four digit 24 hour cycle
Figure 20: At what time, on average, do you leave Dalhousie? Identify the
time in four digit 24 hour cycle

29.
2014
Dalhousie
Office
of
Sustainability
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
Report
28
Primary
mode
of
transportation
of
the
respondents
was
occupied
by
walking
(34%
of
all),
automobiles
–
driving
alone
(21%),
public
transit
(21%),
and
automobiles
–
as
passengers
(13%)
(Fig.
22).
People
using
bicycles
as
primary
transportation
were
only
8%
of
the
respondents.
In
contrast,
as
a
second
mode
of
transportation,
public
transit
(27%
of
all)
and
walking
(19%)
were
the
most
common
among
others.
Again,
bicycles
were
used
as
second
mode
of
transportation
by
only
8%
of
the
respondents.
Only
seven
respondents
responded
to
the
question
with
“other.”
In
addition,
one
respondent
indicated
that
their
primary
mode
of
transport
is
an
electric
scooter
(not
one
of
the
options
provided
by
the
question),
while
another
indicated
that
they
were
participating
in
distance
education.
56.44%
3.40%
16.14%
22.68%
5.06%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
I
own
a
car
I
am
a
member
of
a
car
sharing
service
I
can
borrow
a
car
or
get
a
ride
most
rmes
I
need
it
I
do
not
own
or
have
access
to
a
car
Not
Applicable
Q30
-­‐
Access
to
a
car
47.54%
8.05%
40.51%
6.96%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
I
own
a
bicycle
I
can
use
or
borrow
a
bicycle
most
rmes
I
need
it
I
do
not
own
or
have
access
to
a
bicycle
Not
Applicable
Q31
-­‐
Access
to
a
bicycle
Figure 21: Do you own or have access to a car? (Choose all that apply).
Figure 22: Do you own or have access to a bicycle (Choose all that apply)

30.
2014
Dalhousie
Office
of
Sustainability
Annual
Sustainability
Survey
Report
29
Carpooling
was
supported
by
17%
of
all
the
respondents
(43%
of
the
respondents
who
drive
cars
alone)
(Fig.
24).
On
the
other
hand,
14%
of
all
(35%
of
those
who
drive
cars
alone)
were
unwilling
to
carpool,
whether
it
was
with
their
co-­‐worker
or
with
their
friends.
21.47%
13.23%
21.35%
0.25%
8.99%
34.14%
0.12%
0.44%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Q10
-­‐
Primary
Mode
of
Transporta3on
22.28%
10.05%
10.80%
26.84%
0.19%
8.43%
19.60%
0.62%
1.19%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Q11
-­‐
Secondary
mode
of
transporta3on
Figure 23: What is your primary mode of transportation (70% of the time or
more) for your daily commute to campus throughout the year?
Figure 24: What is your secondary mode of transportation (less than 70%
of the time) for your daily commute to campus?