1. AN EVALUATION OF EFFECTIVE STRUCTURES FOR CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAMS AT INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION Lauren Edmonds Dr. John Swaddle

2. Sustainability in Higher Education  Increasing number of campus sustainability “programs” of every shape & size Number of Sustainability Officer Positions Created, data from AASHE

3. Goal  To identify the institutional structures most strongly associated with positive campus sustainability outcomes in order to recommend feasible, sustainable solutions to The College of William and Mary

4. Research Approach  Comparative case study  Case selection  Brandeis University  Clemson University  Rutgers University  University of California – Irvine  University of California – Santa Barbara  University of Georgia  University of New Hampshire  Wake Forest University  Virginia Military Institute  Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University

5. Research Approach  Data collection  Interviews  Further research

6. Data Analysis  Variable Identification  Institutional make-up  Programmatic characteristics  Involvement and initiation  Funding  Participation in sector-wide organizations/commitments  Variable Measurement

7. Data Analysis  Measuring Outcomes  Recalculated SEI Green Score For the College of William and Mary Year Climate Change & Energy Food & Recycling Green Building Student InvolvementTransportation Modified Score New Grade 2007n/a 20080.02.0 n/a0.01.0D 20092.03.0 2.02.6C+ 20102.03.0 4.03.0 B 20113.04.03.04.03.03.4B+

8. Results

9. Principal Component Analysis Component Matrix Component 123456 2010 Endowment.394-.620-.266.450.424.071 Public/Private.484-.532.272.505.211-.327 Enrollment -.101.402-.810-.140.189-.028 Involvement, Staff.564-.528-.156-.572-.165-.112 Involvement, Faculty.294.826.085-.154-.126.403 Involvement, Students.830-.182.459.213-.049.080 Funding, Relative Amount.939.122.278.019.108-.113 Funding, Reliability.971.090-.076-.083-.082.147 Student Fee.270-.326-.001.438-.754.058 Top-down Initiation -.565.219.713-.075.338.044 Bottom-up Initiation.755.086-.570.099-.261.100 Physical Space.765-.257.229-.438.272.151 Scope.018.069.286.475.244.785 Program Size.806.305-.233-.296.296.007 Age.500.550.362-.516-.141.104 AASHE.555.284-.452.555.070.250 STARS.843.121.108.049.298-.385 PCC.192.594.452.424-.262-.218 Climate Action Plan.268.793.072.298-.083-.439 Sustainability Action Plan -.335.654-.303.306.322-.178

10. Quantitative Analysis  Principal Component 3  + enrollment  - top-down initiation  + bottom-up initiation  Principal Component 2  + faculty involvement  + existence of planning documents  Principal Component 1  + student involvement  + relative funding  + reliability of funding  + bottom-up initiation  + physical space  + program size  + participation in STARS Principal Component Percent of Original Variation Explained 135.0% 219.9% 314.0% 412.7% 57.94% 67.38%

11. Qualitative Analysis  Brandeis University  Clemson University  University of New Hampshire  Rutgers University  Virginia Military Institute  Virginia Tech  Wake Forest University  The College of William and Mary

12. The College of William & Mary President Committee on Sustainability Sustainability Fellow

13. The College of William & Mary Green Fee instituted Committee on Sustainability created Sustainability Fellowship created

14. Qualitative Support of Principal Component 1 School Funding Amount Funding Reliability SizeSpace Bottom-up Initiation Brandeis+000+ Clemson+++0- New Hampshire +++++ Rutgers++++0 VMI+++++ Virginia Tech+++++ Wake Forest++++0 William and Mary ----+

15. Qualitative Support of Principal Component 2 SchoolFaculty InvolvementPlanning Documents Brandeis00 Clemson++ New Hampshire+0 Rutgers00 VMI++ Virginia Tech0+ Wake Forest00 William and Mary++

16. Qualitative Support of Principal Component 3 SchoolEnrollment Bottom-up Initiation Top-down Initiation Brandeis0+0 Clemson0++ New Hampshire 0+0 Rutgers000 VMI0++ Virginia Tech++0 Wake Forest000 William and Mary 0+0

17. Qualitative Support of Variables Not in Principal Components SchoolScopeAge Participation in PCC Brandeis-0- Clemson00- New Hampshire -00 Rutgers000 VMI000 Virginia Tech000 Wake Forest000 William and Mary 000

18. Discussion  Characteristics of Most Effective Institutional Structures  High levels of funding  Reliable funding  Large program size  Dedicated physical space  Bottom-up initiation

19. Discussion  Unrelated characteristics:  Scope  Age

20. Broader Implications  Application to develop recommendations for institutions of higher education  Potential for future research

21. Acknowledgments  My interview participants  My advisor, Dr. John Swaddle  My thesis committee, Dr. David Feldman and Dr. Randy Chambers  The Committee on Sustainability and the Student Environmental Action Coalition at William & Mary  My friends and family

22. FOR QUESTIONS ON MY RESEARCH: LAUREN EDMONDS, LCEDMONDS11@GMAIL.COM FOR QUESTIONS ON THE WM SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM: WWW.WM.EDU/SUSTAINABILITY SARAH HANKE, SMHANKE@EMAIL.WM.EDULCEDMONDS11@GMAIL.COM WWW.WM.EDU/SUSTAINABILITYSMHANKE@EMAIL.WM.EDU QUESTIONS?