This document discusses the need for higher education institutions to align their sustainability goals and metrics with the specific environmental conditions and needs of their ecoregion, rather than just focusing on campus-level improvements. It analyzes sustainability performance data from over 260 colleges and finds that metrics grouped by ecoregion reveal important patterns, such as rising water usage in water-scarce regions. The author argues that the next generation of sustainability in higher education should reconnect campus performance with ecoregional drivers, coordinate metrics to assess collective regional impact, and encourage third parties to value alignment with local environmental priorities over just campus-level progress.

1. Sustainability
Performance
in
Higher
Educa8on:
Aligning
Collec8ve
Impact
with
Ecoregional
Drivers
ISCN
2014
Cambridge,
MA
Shana
S.
Weber,
Ph.D.
Director,
Office
of
Sustainability
Princeton
University

2. Are
we
asking
the
right
quesJons?

3. Campus
X
purchases
50%
“sustainable”
food
with
goal
of
75%
• “sustainable”
defined
as
local
or
organic
or
cerJfied
humane,
free
range,
etc
• DefiniJon
is
the
same
no
maTer
the
locaJon
• Campus
X
is
in
a
water
scarce
region

4. What
quesJons
should
we
ask?
• Should
those
regional
condiJons
influence
the
definiJon
of
“sustainable”
food?
And
therefore
campus
goals?
• What
is
the
actual
desired
impact
of
the
goal?
• What
research
do
we
need
to
conduct
to
define
meaningful
targets?

5. Next
Genera8on
Sustainability:
CollecJve
Impact
Ecoregional
PaTerns
From
this…
to
this:

6. Are
metrics
about…
CompeJJve
advantage?
CollecJve
impact?

7. CollecJve
impact:
• 262
STARS
reporJng
insJtuJons
(2005
–
2013)
GHG
emissions
down
5.4%
Water
usage
down
6.3%
“Sustainable”
food
purchases
=
24%
Per
person
waste
up
7.4%

8. • When
organized
by
ecoregions,
collecJve
insJtuJonal
performance
data
reveal
interesJng
and
significant
paTerns.

9. Consider:

10. Consider:

11. • Almost
all
campus
water
usage
is
the
same
=

12. Even
more
interesJng…
• STARS
reporJng
insJtuJons
in
water
scarce
regions
increased
their
use
by
10%
• STARS
reporJng
insJtuJons
in
water
rich
regions
decreased
their
use
by
7%

13. Ecoregions

14. By
ecoregion…
• NE
demonstrated
significantly
lower
water
usage
per
person
today
than
the
average,
with
average
reducJon
rates
over
Jme
• The
Desert
demonstrated
increasing
water
usage
per
person
over
Jme,
with
current
usage
on
par
with
the
average

15. What
is
the
next
generaJon
thinking
required?
• Re-­‐connect
campus
performance
with
ecoregional
needs
• Re-­‐think
metrics
to
align
with
desired
ecoregional
impact
• Work
with
other
insJtuJons
in
the
ecoregion
toward
collecJve
impact
• Coordinate
consistent
metrics
protocols
among
insJtuJons
to
assess
collecJve
impact

16. What
is
the
next
generaJon
thinking
required?
• Encourage
3rd
party
raters
to
value
the
alignment
between
campus
performance
and
ecoregional
condiJons
• IdenJfy
specific
ecoregional
drivers
(water
scarcity,
soil
vitality,
water
quality,
biodiversity,
etc)
• Replace
campus
baselines
that
are
prevalent
today
with
ecoregional
targets
• Tell
collecJve
impact
stories
as
well
as
individual
campus
innovaJons

17. Thank
You

18. ObservaJons:
• Performance
oien
based
on
improvement
to
campus
baselines
(inward
focus)
• Not
on
improved
performance
in
response
to
eco-­‐regional
needs
(outward
focus)

19. NE
Ecoregion:
• Waste
ProducJon:
– Significantly
elevated
per
FTE
compared
to
average
today
– BUT,
reduced
waste
4%
over
study
period
• GHG
Emissions:
– Significantly
reduced
emissions
than
average
today
– 13%
reducJon
over
study
period