Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e11

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education

mez a, *, Ce
Francisco Urquiza Go
sar Sa

ez-Navarrete b, Solange Rencoret Lioi b,
c
Vartan Ishanoglu Marzuca
a
lica de Chile, Ocina de Sustentabilidad, Libertador Bernardo O'Higgins 340, Santiago, Chile
Ponticia Universidad Cato
b
lica de Chile, Libertador Bernardo O'Higgins 340, Santiago, Chile
Ponticia Universidad Cato
c
lica de Chile, Escuela de Ingeniera, Direccio
Ponticia Universidad Cato
n de Responsabilidad Social, Subdireccio

n de Sustentabilidad,
Avenida Vicun~ a Mackenna 4860, Santiago, Chile

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Many universities have started to measure sustainability, and many tools have been developed to assist
Received 24 December 2012 them in this process. For universities at an early stage of sustainability implementation, choosing a tool
Received in revised form that ts their specic context is an important step in their assessment process. The goal of this paper is to
24 May 2014
introduce an Adaptable Model for Assessing Sustainability into higher education institutions that enable
Accepted 20 July 2014
the assessment of sustainability within different implementation stages and data availability scenarios.
Available online xxx
The model's design was based on previous experiences in the eld of sustainability in higher education,
and takes into account international declarations and other assessment models. The result is a model
Keywords:
Assessment
based on a four tiered hierarchy, with three main criteria: institutional commitment, example setting,
Sustainability in HEIs and advancing sustainability. In order to establish the weight assigned to each tier of the proposed hi-
Flexible model erarchy, the analytic hierarchy process was applied. The results of this process showed a preference for
AMAS institutional commitment and example setting/leadership criteria, with weights of 36.1%and 38.2%
Universities respectively, and less preference for the advancing sustainability criterion, with a weight of 25.7%. The
Comparison of sustainability tools in resulting model enables the assessment of sustainability within different contexts while maintaining a
universities universal methodological approach; this allows for comparison within a cluster of institutions with
similar contexts. The assessment model could be used to improve other assessment tools by following
the same process used to build the model, facilitating the participation of stakeholders and experts.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction practices of sustainability in all aspects of educational processes

Sustainable development (SD), dened as development that
meets the needs of the present generations without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their needs and aspira-
tions (Brundtland, 1987), represents a major challenge of the XXI
century. Within this context, there are numerous strategies and
means through which SD may be implemented; SD education, in
particular, has been recognized as a key element in this quest
(UNESCO, 1997).
The United Nations declared the period 2005e2014 as the
'Decade of Education' for SD. In so doing, they established an in-
ternational mandate to incorporate the principles, values and
* Corresponding author. Ponticia Universidad Cato
lica de Chile, Ocina de
Sustentabilidad, Libertador Bernardo O'Higgins 340, Santiago 8331150, Chile.
Tel.: 56 2 23547509; fax56 9 98288284.

mez).
E-mail address: fjurquiz@uc.cl (F. Urquiza Go
(UNESCO, 2005). At the university level, the mandate requires
integrating sustainability into education, research, operations and
assessment.
Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) have a moral re-
sponsibility to increase the awareness, knowledge, skills, and
values needed to create a just and sustainable future (Cortese,
2003), especially because they prepare most of the professionals
that will play a key role in the adaptation of our society to a sus-
tainable model of living (Cortese, 2003). Actually we can only have
a sustainable world if universities actively promote sustainability
(Lukman and Glavi c, 2007).
When considering how universities can inuence future pro-
fessionals is important to consider that students learn from
everything around them, including curricula, research, operations
and outreach activities, all of which establish a complex network of
experiences that dene the prole of graduates (Cortese, 2003; Orr,
1991); Because of this, HEIs should implement sustainable pro-
cesses covering its functions and activities.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047
0959-6526/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

mez, F., et al., Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education, Journal of Cleaner
Please cite this article in press as: Urquiza Go
Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047
2
mez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e11
F. Urquiza Go
Abbreviations
AISHE Auditing Instrument for Sustainability in Higher
Education
AHP Analytical Hierarchy Process
AMAS Adaptable Model for Assessing Sustainability
AUA Alternative University Appraisal
AUSP Assessment of University Sustainability Policies and
their relation to the International Campus of
Excellence program
BIQ Benchmark Indicator Questions
GASU Graphical Assessment of Sustainability in
Universities
GM Green Metrics
GRI Global Report Initiative
HEIs Higher Education Institutions
MESA Mainstreaming Environment and Sustainability into
African Universities
ProsPER Promotion of Sustainability in Postgraduate
Education and Research Network
SAQ Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire for
Colleges and Universities
STARS Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating
System
STAUNCH Sustainability Tool for Assessing UNiversities'
Curricula Holistically
TUR Three dimensional University Ranking
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
USAT Unit-Based Sustainability Assessment Tool
To facilitate this process, HEIs require guidance and methods of
comparison to assess their advancement with regard to each other
as to a vision of sustainability in higher education (Shriberg, 2002).
That vision has been in part elaborated in a series of international
declarations (e.g. Talloires, Abuja, Barcelona) which had provided
guidelines for HEIs to facilitate the understanding of sustainability
and how to embed it into their system (Lozano et al., 2013). Tools
complement this vision focusing campus efforts on continual
improvement, through comprehensive metrics and by the identi-
cation of best practices (Shriberg, 2002).
Many tools have been developed in order to assess advancement
towards sustainability in HEIs. Shriberg's 2002 analysis of eleven of
those tools provided valuable insight into essential attributes of
sustainability in higher education (Shriberg, 2002); however, in
most cases tools did not permit comparison among campuses
(Lukman et al., 2010). The latter may be due to the many differences
between frameworks, which focus mainly on the way SD is
conceptualized into dimensions, the inter-linkages between cate-
gories and the justication for the selection and aggregation of
indicators (Waheed et al., 2011). Furthermore, most tools do not
consider all dimensions of the concept of sustainability, and only
measure the impacts of resource management within an institution
(Lozano and Young, 2012).
More recently, new tools have been developed such as the
Sustainability Tracking and Assessment System, Green Metric,
Green Plan among others. These tools present interesting proposals
that integrate sustainability assessment for HEIs with other
assessment and reporting methods. However, even though these
tools have been applied to an increasing number of institutions
around the world, measuring sustainability remains a complex and
challenging process for universities that are at an early stage of SD

mez, F., et al., Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education, Journal of Cleaner
Please cite this article in press as: Urquiza Go
Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047
implementation, as is the case in South America. These institutions
lack the resources and structure to complete most assessments
comprehensively, a key factor when trying to obtain results that
accurately reect the reality of an institution and which serve as a
basis for comparison with other institutions. One example of this is
the International pilot developed by Association for the Advance-
ment of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) for their STARS
program, in which only two South American institutions
participated.
Considering the lack of comparative assessments in the region
and faced by a scenario in which there is low institutional interest
and divergent levels of sustainability development amongst HEIs,
we thought it necessary to develop a methodology that would
permit the assessment and comparison of institutions with similar
contexts, for example the Chilean context. This assessment tool
would be complementary to other tools which are helpful in
particular cases of self-assessment, or, eventually, as part of a more
detailed, collaborative effort to compare sustainability amongst
different institutions.
This paper presents a revision and discussion of new ap-
proaches, followed by a proposal for an Adaptive Model of Sus-
tainability Assessment (AMAS) based on a exible framework. This
model allows for continuous improvement and local calibration in
order to facilitate the assessment process in a broader context,
including countries where the effort to implement sustainability in
HEIs is at an early stage of development. Future papers will cover
the full application of the model in the Chilean context.
1.1. A sustainability framework for HEIs
International declarations on sustainability give us an idea of
what kinds of transformations are required to fulll the goal of
embedding sustainability in HEIs. Key elements from these decla-
rations have been numbered and are depicted in Fig. 1.
To understand how these elements can be integrated into HEIs,
it is important to understand how this type of system works, and
how it can be understood from a sustainability point of view.
Cortese (2003) proposed a model of four interdependent di-
mensions: Education, Research, Operations and Community
Outreach, to which Lozano added a fth dimension named
'Assessment and Reporting' (Lozano, 2006b, 2012). Similar di-
mensions are pointed out by Velazquez (2005, 2006) as strategies
for fostering sustainability in HEIs. However, these dimensions only
cover what HEIs do, without considering who is behind those
practices and how they are both interrelated and carried out
(Rencoret, 2011). In order to clarify how the elements stated above
can be related to an HEI's system, a reorganized model is presented
in Fig. 1. This gure includes a new dimension, following Lozano's
suggestion, as well as a visual representation to illustrate the re-
lationships that exist among its parts.
The base of the model is assigned to the operations dimension
which includes all institutional activities, including all resource
consumption and human resource management processes. The
upper level is related to the main channels through which an
institution inuences society; academic activities are assigned to
the education & research dimension and community outreach can
be found in the public engagement dimension. Finally, at the
center of the model, there is the administration dimension, which
covers all policies, strategies and high-level decisions inuencing
all other dimensions. This dimension, while uncommon in other
sustainability frameworks, has been recognized as being an
important factor in the implementation of sustainability initiatives
in HEIs, and is sometimes referred to as 'governance' or 'organ-
ization'(AUA, 2012; CADEP, 2010; Velazquez et al., 2005). To illus-
trate how these elements of sustainability might be interrelated in

mez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e11
F. Urquiza Go
2. Educating- 3. Encouragement
the- educators of SD research
1. Inclusion of SD
throughout the
curricula EDUCATION & RESEARCH
8. Transdisciplinarity
ADMINISTRATION
OPERATIONS
5. Implementing SD
through campus
experiences
Fig. 1. Sustainability elements linked to the dimensions of the HEI system.
HEIs, they are represented as linked to their respective dimensions
in Fig. 1.
It is important to highlight that these dimensions are interre-
lated (Cortese, 2003; Lozano, 2006b), and that the sustainability
effort requires an incremental integration of functions in a HEI's
system.
1.2. Comparing new assessment approaches
As indicated by Lozano there are three main approaches for
assessing and reporting sustainability in organizations: accounts,
narrative assessments and indicator-based. Each of them has
strengths and weaknesses, but in general, indicator-based as-
sessments have an overall higher performance and are more easily
measurable and comparable than the other two approaches
because they tend to be more objective (Lozano, 2006a).
In the development of the assessment model, an indicator-based
approach was used that took into account several tools aiming to
assess sustainability in higher education. To understand the
different tools mentioned in previous research, a comparison was
made between tools considering ve criteria: complexity, weight-
ing method, major strengths, major weakness and potential use
(Table 1). In 2002, Shriberg analyzed eleven tools then in existence.
Important among these were the Auditing Instrument for Sus-
tainability in Higher Education tool (AISHE 1.0) (Roorda, 2001) and
the Sustainable Assessment Questionnaire for Colleges and Uni-
versities tool (SAQ) (ULSF, 2001) as they are still used today and
cover a wide spectrum of themes. Although Shriberg (2002)
recognized that the tools provide a valuable contribution to un-
derstanding the essential aspects of sustainability in higher edu-
cation, he did not recommend any of them. Furthermore, Lukman
et al. (2010) state that these tools do not allow for comparison
between campuses. This is debatable in the case of AISHE 1.0, and
especially its most recent version, as it claims that it can be used for
benchmarking so long as the auditing process is conducted by a
certied external AISHE consultant (Roorda et al., 2009).
Since 2002, new tools or new versions of tools, like AISHE 2.0,
have been developed. These tools and innovations present inter-
esting approaches that contribute to sustainability assessment as
well as support the development of sustainability strategies among
higher education institutions around the world. This paper includes
a short revision of some of the new approaches presented in these
new tools that we considered valuable in the development of our
assessment model.
In the case of AISHE 2.0, although it seems an excellent instru-
ment for self-assessment, it nonetheless is a narrative assessment.

mez, F., et al., Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education, Journal of Cleaner
Please cite this article in press as: Urquiza Go
Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047
3
6. Stake holders
7. Fostering university engagement and
collaboration outreach
9. Assessment
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT and reporting
10. Including SD
in the
institutional
framework
4. Move towards more
sustainability orientated
university operations
Given that we are aiming to build an indicator-based model, AISHE
2.0 was not as relevant for the present study. The Sustainability
Tool for Assessing Universities Curricula Holistically (STAUNCH)
(Lozano and Peattie, 2011, 2009; Lozano and Young, 2012) focuses
on auditing sustainability in university curricula, which, although it
is not useful for our purposes, seems appropriate as a complement
to an internal auditing process, as it is particularly difcult to cover
curricular aspects of the sustainability implementation process.
The tools were analyzed considering the attributes proposed by
Shriberg (2002), and were compared as to their complexity,
weighing method, major weaknesses and strengths, and potential
eld or scope of application (Table 1). According to Shriberg the
ideal cross-institutional sustainability assessment tools have the
following attributes:
- They identify important issues: They address contextually
appropriate issues related to campus sustainability.
- They are calculable and comparable: They must be based on
measurement methods that are exible enough to capture
organizational complexities and differences, but that are also
specic and comparable.
- They move beyond eco-efciency: A focus on eco-efciency is
more narrow and deals with the use of resources. Assessing
sustainability requires a broader approach that covers envi-
ronmental, educational and social issues.
- They measure processes and motivations: Considering that
sustainability is a process of continual improvement, sustain-
ability assessment tools should cover dynamic processes and
motivationsdincluding direction, strategy, intent and
comprehensivenessdas well as present impacts.
- They stress comprehensibility: They must be comprehensive
to a broad audience. It is important that methods and results are
presented in a clear manner, enabling both the verication and
effective communication of results.
The Graphical Assessment of Sustainability in Uni-
versities(GASU) model is based on an adaptation of the Global
Report Initiative (GRI) methodology. It adds education to its list of
social, economic and environmental dimensions, followed by 8
categories, 43 sub-categories (aspects) and 126 indicators. The
model allows for a complete image of the institution's performance
covering all important issues, but the numerous indicators mean
that it requires large amounts of data. This makes implementing
GASU difcult and also complicates longitudinal comparisons and
benchmarking (Lozano, 2006a). GASU is a useful method for
facilitating the understanding and communication of information
4
mez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e11
F. Urquiza Go

Table 1
Comparison between assessment tools.

Tool Complexity Weighting method Major strengths Major weakness Potential use

GASU 5 levels - Author proposal - Covers all important issues - Requires large amounts of data. - Internal, facilitating comprehension
126 indicators - Fully explained - Uses AMOEBA graph to - Hard to apply in HEIs without and communication of data presented
facilitate understanding. GRI reports on sustainability in GRI reports on sustainability.
TUR 3 levels - Expert driven - Simplicity and complements - Oversimplies and limits - International. Rapid assessment of
15 indicators - Based on the AHP university ranking tools. sustainability issues to just university.
- Use of triangle graph to ve indicators
facilitate understanding
STARS 4 levels - Author proposal - Detailed rationale - Functions in contexts in which - For comparison of HEIs with
67 indicators - Partially explained methodology for calculating SD is already advanced. advanced SD.
indicators. - Guideline for beginners.
- Active support from AASHE
GM 3 levels - Author proposal - Active support from - Narrowed to eco-efciency - International benchmarking of
34 indicators - Not explained Universitas Indonesia measures environmental efforts in HEIs
AUSP 3 levels - Author proposal - Active support from CADEP - It requires a big effort on the - Internal, facilitating a comprehensive
176 indicators - Not explained - Has state funding. part of institutions and the self-auditing process.
- Covers all important issues assessment group to compile
results.
BIQ (AUA) 4 levels - Author proposal - Active support from ProSPER - Does not cover social - Internal, for institutions intending
16 indicators - Not explained members responsibility issues. to develop sustainability strategies.
50 questions - It is used alongside a - It does not cover environmental
qualitative assessment. management indicators.
USAT 4 levels - No weighting - Active support from UNEP - Does not cover social - Internal, facilitating a comprehensive
75 indicators method and MESA responsibility issues. self-auditing process.
(expansive) - Use of triangle graph to - Guideline for beginners.
facilitate understanding
- Allows for exible self-
assessment by individual
units/faculties; also capable
of evaluating the institution
as a whole.
The Green 3 levels - Authors proposal - Active support from ESDS - The 2010 framework is different - For comparison of HEIs with
Plan 44 indicators - Fully explained - Covers all important issues to the 2012 framework, making advanced SD.
it difcult to compare or show - Guideline for beginners.
progress in HEIs

compiled by a sustainability report. It provides a visual represen-
tation of HEI performance, relying on the use of AMOEBA graphs
(Ten Brinks et al., 1991).
The Three dimensional University Ranking (TUR, 2010) model
proposed by Lukmann, seeks to improve the methodology and
indicators of the existing ranking tables for Universities, incorpo-
rating an environmental dimension (Lukman et al., 2010). The
model is divided into three dimensions, and takes into account a
total of 15 indicators. The proposal introduces the use of the
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Saaty, 1987) as a means to
establish the weights of selected indicators in a participative and
expert driven manner. This tool is relatively simple to apply and
might be tting for use in international benchmarking of sustain-
ability in HEIs, as it uses the same logic as other international
university ranking systems, such as the Academic Ranking of World
Universities (ARWU, 2012) and QS (QS World University Rankings,
2012). TUR also makes use of the triangle method, in which results
are depicted in a simple, graphical representation. By our own
analysis, this helps to visualize multi-dimensional comparisons
amongst institutions. On the other hand, since it simplies the
sustainability dimension down to a set of ve indicators, TUR might
not be appropriate if a more comprehensive sustainability assess-
ment is needed.
The Sustainability Tracking and Assessment Rating System
(STARS) is an initiative of the Association for the Advancement of
Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE). It has become one of
the most comprehensive and popular tools used today (Saadatian
and Salleh, 2011). STARS is divided into three main categories, 17
sub-categories and covers a total of 67 indicators (AASHE, 2011).
The model is continually being improved, given its open consul-
tation process. There are two main impediments to applying this
tool: rst, it was initially designed for a context in which there is
greater development, such as the United States or Canada (Garca,
2010), where sustainability efforts are more widespread and are
supported by the institutions. Second, it requires active participa-
tion and payment on the part of institutions in order to acquire all
the necessary information. STARS is useful for supporting the sus-
tainability journey of HEIs, working as a road map where the ex-
periences of more advanced institutions are presented through the
proposed indicators, rationale and criteria.
The GreenMetric (GM) ranking system is an initiative of the
Univesitas Indonesia and was launched in 2010. The aim of this tool is
to generate an alternative international ranking system that enables
the assessment of Green Campus and Sustainability in the Univer-
sities all over the world (Universitas Indonesia, 2012). The tool is
divided into 5 dimensions and considers a total of 34 indicators. It has
a clear eco-efciency focus, failing to consider other key aspects of
sustainability such as diversity and equity performance.
The Assessment of University Sustainability Policies and their
relation to the International Campus of Excellence program
(AUSP), is a project funded by the Ministry of Education of Spain
and is coordinated by the sustainability assessment group. Its' main
purpose is to contribute to strengthening sustainability policies in
Spanish universities (CADEP, 2010)The tool was rst put into use in
2010 when a survey was sent out inviting institutions to self-assess
their progress. A consultant visited each institution to review and
correct, if necessary, the answers so as to compute a nal score. The
tool is divided into three main categories, 12 sub-categories and
considers 176 indicators. Although the tool covers all important
issues related to sustainability in higher education, it is highly
dependent on the institutions' commitment to self-asses and re-
quires the support of a third part to review the process.

mez, F., et al., Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education, Journal of Cleaner
Please cite this article in press as: Urquiza Go
Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047

mez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e11
F. Urquiza Go
The Alternative University Appraisal project (AUA), was
created by the ProSPER network (Promotion of Sustainability in
Postgraduate Education and Research Network), which is an
AsiaePacic academic alliance. The project aims to create a system
capable of acknowledging diversity, innovation and change to-
wards sustainable development (AUA, 2012). It has three compo-
nents: Self-Awareness questions, Dialogue and BIQ (Benchmark
Indicator Questions). We only focus on this last component which is
indicator-based and allows for comparisons among institutions.
The BIQ tool is divided into four main categories, 15 sub-categories,
and includes 16 indicators and 50 questions. The tool has a
maximum score of 100 points which are equally distributed among
categories.
The Unit-Based Sustainability Assessment Tool (USAT) is a
Swedish/African International Training initiative. USAT is an initia-
tive supported by the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP) and Mainstreaming Environment and Sustainability into
African Universities (MESA). It is used for the development and use
of educational tools that aim towards SD in African universities
(Togo and Lotz-Sisitka, 2009). This tool can be used (independently)
by different units/faculties at a given university. It also provides the
option to integrate or compare all the assessed units, thus giving a
total score for the institution. USAT is divided into four main cate-
gories, six sub-categories and covers 75 indicators. The four main
categories attempt to integrate the various units of the university
(faculties, departments, research and administrative units) and thus
promote SD in education, research, community service, manage-
ment and public initiatives engagement.
The Green Plan is an initiative supported by the Environmental
Association for Universities and Colleges from UK, the UK Higher
Education Funding Councils for England, the Scottish Funding
Council, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, the
Department for Employment and Learning Northern Ireland and
the Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability. This tool is
divided into ve main categories, 18 sub-categories and uses 44
indicators. The Green Plan helps universities develop their
administration, SD measurement, SD improvements and promotes
social responsibility and sustainability performance (The Green
Plan, 2012). The system meets the needs of institutions (univer-
sities) that are working on their own sustainability initiatives. Thus,
each institution can demonstrate the impact of their current ac-
tivities, practices or measures.
The following conclusions can be extracted after having
reviewed and compared the above tools:
Impact of weighing methods/importance of justication: the
weighing method can have a signicant impact on the nal ranking
obtained by an HEI after using any of the aforementioned tools
(Lukman et al., 2010; Mayer, 2008), so it is important for the user to
understand its' rationale and justication. Although most tools do
explain their weighing system, they do not present any justication
for it. In the case of the TUR tool, they use an expert driven
approach based on the AHP method. This has the advantage of
allowing for continual improvement of the assessment tool by
repeating the consultation process.
Flexibility/need for adaptability to different contexts: When the
various assessment tools are compared with respect to their
adaptability to different contexts, the GM, STARS, BIQ and AUSP
tools are more rigid. This is because without a guide for assigning
weights, it is just not possible to add or remove indicators. As for
GASU, given that it is based on GRI methodology, it allows for the
incorporation of new indicators based on how relevant they are to
the institution being assessed. The TUR tool is explicitly described
as exible (Lukman et al., 2010), and enables the inclusion of
additional indicators, provided, of course, that the AHP process is
carried out using the new set of indicators.

mez, F., et al., Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education, Journal of Cleaner
Please cite this article in press as: Urquiza Go
Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047
5
Access to information/institutional disposition is a factor: any
assessment approach will be limited by the accessibility of insti-
tutional sustainability information, and in the case of self-
assessment approaches, institutional disposition to self-
assessment is also a factor.
Given the considerations described above, all of the tools thus
far compared have advantages, but we believe that at the moment,
none of them seems to be appropriate to compare implementation
stages of sustainability in HEIs within the South American context.
Furthermore, they are not exible enough to be able to adapt them
without losing common ground criteria.
2. Constructing the assessment model
In order to create an assessment model that is both adaptable
to different contexts but also capable of establishing common
ground criteria, a methodology based on a four-step process
(Fig. 2) was used, that went from the general to the context-
specic. This process was developed after reviewing different
assessment methodologies, where we found certain common
stages of development. In spite of this, the tools are not easily
adaptable, so we decided to explain how we performed each step
in a simplied and transparent manner. Hopefully, this allows
others to improve their models by reworking the process from any
a given step, thus making the model far more adaptable. The
process goes as follows:
1) Structure the problem in a four tiered hierarchy, starting with
the goal being assessed, followed by assessment criteria, sub-
criteria, and, at the bottom level, a set of potentially useful in-
dicators conceived to cover all sub-criteria.
2) Build weighing criteria based on international consultation
in order to integrate a wide spectrum of experiences and
opinions, using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) (Saaty,
1987). Although some authors are not in favor of using
weights to combine indicators, we believe that this helps in
two different ways. First, it allows for simplied communi-
cation using an index to show the overall ranking of an
institution with respect to others. This has the potential to
attract the attention of institutions and other stakeholders,
which, hopefully, would analyze the results in detail. Second,
we believe that weighing will inevitably take place and, given
that, it is preferable to set weights in a participative and
systematic manner.
3) Calibrate according to context so as to have a viable selection
of indicators that correspond with available information, and so
that indicator's weights are determined by local consultation
using the AHP.
4) Calculate and show results by normalizing and aggregating
data so as to obtain a nal ranking. Select appropriate graphic
support so as to permit visual evaluation of the institutions.
The four step process
International scope Local scope
Local adjustment
Calibrate
Structuring the Build weighing Calculate and
according to
problem criteria show results
1 2 3
context 4
Restructuring International
the hierarchy calibration
Fig. 2. Adaptable method for creating an assessing model.
6
mez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e11
F. Urquiza Go

Table 2
Sustainability elements and dimension of HEI in connection with level two criteria.

Level two of the four tiered hierarchy HEI dimension Sustainability element

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Support for sustainability - Education & research

- Public engagement
Institutional commitment - Administration
Example setting/leadership - Operations

2.1. Structuring the problem: assessment hierarchy
The assessment model was designed in order to take into ac-
count all the elements highlighted by the aforementioned HEI's
declarations on sustainability (Table 2), and their relationship to
various dimensions of the university system, as shown in Fig. 2.
As a result, a four tiered hierarchy was proposed (Fig. 3), with
the overall goal of implementing sustainability in HEIs on the rst
level (A), followed by three criteria at level two: Institutional
commitment (B1), example setting/leadership (B2) and advancing
sustainability (B3).At level three, there are nine sub-criteria (Cj), and
at the fourth level there is a list of 25 indicators that could be
applied to the Chilean context, given available data (Ik).
a) The Institutional Commitment Criterion (B1)
Stronger assessment tools consider systemic changes, which
include incentive and reward structures, mission and goals state-
ments, procedures, annual reports and other organizational
decision-making processes (Shriberg, 2002). The institutional
commitment criterion covers these aspects, and attempts to assess
the existence of symbolic, political and management platforms
aimed at implementing sustainability in a HEI's context. It corre-
sponds to a central part a HEI's system, as shown in Fig. 1.
To assess this criterion, three sub-criteria are proposed:
- Statement (C1), which recognizes the existence of formal dec-
larations and public statements made by the institution in re-
gard to sustainability in higher education.
- Strategies (C2), which aims at recognizing the incorporation of
sustainability in institutional planning and evaluation.
- Coordination (C3), which recognizes the existence of entities in
charge of coordinating and promoting the sustainability efforts.
b) Example Setting/Leadership Criterion (B2)
Although the main activities of HEIs are research and education,
it is important to consider that if students hear about global re-
sponsibility while being educated in institutions that often invest
their nancial weight in the most irresponsible things the les-
sons being taught are those of hypocrisy and ultimately despair
(Orr, 1991). Therefore, internal institutional practices should be a
key element of an institution's sustainability efforts; these should
cover social and environmental components as well as cross-
functional initiatives that integrate teaching, research and opera-
tion activities (Cortese, 2003; Shriberg, 2002).The B2 criterion
corresponds to a HEI's system as shown in Fig. 1.
To assess this criterion, the present study considers three sub-
criteria:
- Diversity and equity (C4), which aims to assess the diversity and
inclusiveness of the institution, covering issues such as wage
schemes, equal gender opportunities and access for students
from low socioeconomic backgrounds.
- Resource consumption (C5), which aims to assess the environ-
mental performance of campuses and measures being taken to
improve this performance, covering issues such as energy and
water consumption and waste management.

First level Second level Third level Fourth level

Goal Criteria Subcriteria Indicators
I1
I2
C1: Statement I3
I4
I5
B1: Institutional C2: Strategies I6
Commitment I7
C3: Coordination I8
I9
I10
C4: Diversity and I11
Equity I12
A: Sustainability in B2: Example I13
C5: Resource
the HEI Setting/Leadership consumption
I14
I15
C6: Experience on I16
campus I17
I18
19
C7: Education
B3: Advancing I20
I21
sustainability C8: Research
I22
C9: Public I23
Engagement I24
I25

Fig. 3. Four level hierarchy for sustainability assessment in HEIs.

mez, F., et al., Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education, Journal of Cleaner
Please cite this article in press as: Urquiza Go
Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047

mez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e11
F. Urquiza Go
- Experience on campus (C6), covers the efforts being taken to
increase the perception and participation with the sustainability
effort in day to day activities on campus, covering issues such as
internal communications, community training programs and
events.
c) The Advancing Sustainability Criterion (B3)
Higher education institutions can contribute to sustainable
development in many ways, but especially through the inuence of
their graduate students, the innovations and discussions catalyzed by
research activities, and the promotion of sustainability within the
local and international community through engagement activities. B3
corresponds to the upper part of the HEI's system, as shown in Fig. 1,
covering education, research and public engagement dimensions.
To assess this criterion, the study considers three sub-criteria:
- Education (C7), which aims at recognizing the efforts made to
teach students the necessary skills to contribute to the con-
struction of a more responsible, equitable and environmentally
concerned society.
- Research (C8), which aims at recognizing research that con-
tributes to the general comprehension of difculties regarding
sustainable development, as well as the development of new
technologies, strategies and approaches that enable people to
confront these problems and create new opportunities.
- Public engagement (C9), which aims at recognizing the efforts
being made to connect institutional activities with the chal-
lenges faced by SD outside of the HEI's campus.
2.2. Selecting a set of indicators
It is important to bear in mind that even if the process of
selecting a set of indicators for assessing sustainability is conducted
in an objective manner, the selection is always going to reect value
judgment about what is valuable enough to be measured (Rencoret,
2011; Shields et al., 2002).Therefore, it is important to do it in a
transparent and systematic way so as to the subjectiveness
imposed by the researcher and, when possible, it is important to
carry out this process in a participative manner. For this study, the
process conducted went as follows:
An initial list of potential indicators was obtained from different
existing assessment tools (AASHE, 2011; Lozano, 2006a; Lukman
et al., 2010; Roorda, 2001; ULSF, 2001; Universitas Indonesia,
2012). Following this, the indicators were classied according to
the proposed sub-criteria, and were narrowed down through the
elimination of duplicates and by a ltering process based on the
principles proposed (Hezri, 2004):
- Robustness: Indicators should cover key issues and be based on
models with a broad and interconnected perspective.
- Democratic inclusion: Inclusion of stakeholders in the process
of selecting indicators.
- Longevity: Indicators should allow for repeated measurement,
and be adaptive to change.
- Relevance: Indicators selection should consider capacity for
data collection, maintenance and documentation. Meeting the
needs of audience and users.
In keeping with these principles, indicators that were too spe-
cic were eliminated, preference was given to indicators covering
key issues (Robustness principle); next, indicators that were dif-
cult to assess were eliminated (Longevity principle) in order to
propose a set of indicators that could be periodically audited.

mez, F., et al., Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education, Journal of Cleaner
Please cite this article in press as: Urquiza Go
Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047
7
Finally, in accordance with the Relevance and Democratic Inclusion
principles (Hezri, 2004), a fundamental part of the process selecting
a set of indicators that takes into account local priorities and data
availability constraints.
To illustrate this process, the Chilean context was considered
due to multiple reasons: there is lack of research on SD assess-
ment for HEIs in South America; Chilean organizations are at an
early stage of sustainability implementation; there was relative
easy access to this kind of information since the authors of the
present study live in this country. Furthermore, Chile brings an
interesting case to study because sustainability is a growing topic
in different Chilean institutions (private and public), especially in
the university communities. The growing interest in sustainability
is reected in the active participation of the different proles
(students, faculty and staff) involved in various university activ-
ities and how they relate to the care of the environment. Finally,
there are no studies or publications about sustainability in HEIs in
Chile.
In order to incorporate local priorities, a group of eight Chilean
experts were asked to prioritize indicators within each sub-
criterion in terms of how important they were for sustainability
assessment in HEIs. Then, the list was compared to the available
data of four Chilean HEIs with sustainability reports or equivalent.
As a result, a nal list of 25 indicators that were viable for calcu-
lation was obtained. This process should be repeated in order to
apply the model to a different context.
2.3. Using the AHP method
To calculate a nal index using the proposed hierarchy it is
necessary to establish the relative importance of criteria, sub-
criteria and indicators. This is very difcult to determine with
sufcient accuracy (Afgan, 2004; Krajnc and Glavi c, 2005), because
we deal with complex phenomena, where, in many cases there, is
no simple and objective comparison among the issues being
assessed. As a strategy to overcome this problem, an expert
consultation was conducted and processed using the analytic hi-
erarchy process (Saaty, 1987). This method has been used to solve
many complex decision making and prioritizing problems (Vaidya
& Kumar, 2006), and has been previously used for sustainability
assessments (Krajnc and Glavi c, 2005; Lukman et al., 2010; Singh
et al., 2007).
The AHP method breaks down the problem into a hierarchy of
criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives (Lukman et al., 2010), then the
various criteria at a particular level of the hierarchy are subse-
quently compared pair-wise in relation to the corresponding
criteria in the immediate upper level by a group of experts. The
comparisons are aggregated by geometric mean (Wu and Lin, 1998),
and organized on a judgmental (NxN) matrix D where each
element Dij corresponds to aggregated pair-wise comparisons be-
tween criteria i and j. This is a positive reciprocal matrix, where the
diagonal Dii 1and Dij (1/Dji), for i, j 1, ,N.
The priorities are obtained by nding and normalizing the
principal eigenvector W of the matrix D, correspondent to its
largest eigenvalue lmax.
Once the judgment matrix is obtained, its consistency can be
using the consistency ratio:
CR CI=R (1)
I
where RI is a random index (Saaty, 1987)that provides values from
randomly generated matrices (Table 3), CR is the consistency ratio
and CI corresponds to a consistency index for a matrix of order N
dened as:
8
mez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e11
F. Urquiza Go

Table 3 X
n X
n

Average consistencies of random matrices (RI values). Cj wIk Cj IN;k wIk Cj IN;k (6)
jk jk
Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RI 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.89 1.11 1.25 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.49
X
n  
Bi w Cj B Cj (7)
i
ij

CI lmax  N=N  1 (2) X

Consistency ratios of 0.1 or less are generally considered
acceptable, but for matrices of size four and three the suggested
thresholds are 0.08 and 0.05, respectively. If the value exceeds this
threshold the judgments might not be reliable and should be
redone (Berrittella et al., 2007).
2.4. Stakeholder consultation
The consultation processes were conducted by sending a survey
with pair-wise comparison to experts. In order to facilitate the
consultation, they were asked to express their preferences based on
a 4 point scale so as to transform verbal judgments into numerical
quantities, adapted from the one proposed (Saaty, 1987).
Two consultations were made, starting with an international
consultation whose aim was to establish weights for criteria and
sub-criteria of the proposed hierarchy. Surveys were sent to 112
experts and 23 answers were obtained from various countries (UK,
Sweden, Ireland, USA, Canada, Chile). A second local consultation
was conducted in order to establish the indicators weights appro-
priate for the local context.
Both consultation process results showed satisfactory consis-
tency ratios. For matrices of order 3 the maximum obtained CR was
0.032 (<0.052), for matrices of order 4 it was 0.032 (<0.089) and for
matrices of order 6 it was 0.049 (<0.1) (Saaty, 1987).
Once obtained, the weights for each level were aggregated in
order to obtain the nal weights of the indicators with respect to
the goal A, It went as follows:
n h
X   i
wIk A wBi A wIk Cj w Cj B
i criteria and sub-criteria weighting scheme. This is done by
ij
w(Ik)A is the weight of indicator Ik with respect to the goal A,
w(Bi)A the weight of criterion Bi with respect to goal A, wCj Bi the
weight of sub-criterion Cj with respect to criterion Bi and w(Ik)Cj the
weight of the indicator Ik with respect to sub-criterion Cj (Saaty,
1987).
n X
n

A wIk A IN;k wIk A IN;k (8)
k jk
where Cj is the performance for the sub-criterion j, Bi is the per-
formance for criterion i and A is the nal overall score of the HEIs.
To facilitate the communication of results, the triangle method
could be used to illustrate the nal ranking as well as level two
results. Besides, the AMOEBA graph for the third level result, could
allow a more detail comparison between HEIs regarding the
assessment sub-criteria.
3. Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in (AMAS)
HEIs
After implementing the four step process mentioned in section
2, the Adaptable Model for Assessing Sustainability (AMAS) in HEIs
was created.
a) Adaptation possibilities
The model can be modied in order to be used in different
contexts or it can be updated depending on the user's needs, as
illustrated in Fig. 2. The possible adaptations are:
Local adjustment: If recalibration of indicator weights is
needed, implementation of the assessment model should start at
step three. This should be done in order to include new available
data, or to expand local consultation to include more
stakeholders.
International calibration: The assessment model should be
implemented starting at step two in order to improve the
(3)
extending the international consultation to include more or new
stakeholders.
Restructuring the hierarchy: The model should be imple-
mented starting from step one if it is necessary to consider new
approaches in the eld of sustainability assessment that could
affect the proposed theoretical framework of the model.

b) Weighted hierarchy
2.5. Normalization and aggregation of results

As a result of the full application of the four step process, a full

Considering that the indicators may be expressed in different
model was obtained for application in the Chilean context. This
units and probably include a wide range of data, to be able to
model could be adapted to t any other context without changing
aggregate them the following normalization method could be used:
the results obtained through international consultation in level two

  
IN;k Ik  Imin;k Imax;k  Imin;k (4) o three.
The resulting weighting scheme for criteria and sub-criteria,

   obtained from the international consultation, is presented in
IN;k Imax;k  Ik Imax;k  Imin;k (5) Table 4 and the nal indicator's weights, once local consultation is
taken into account, are shown in Table 5.
where Imax,k and Imin,k represent the maximum and minimum According to these results, example setting/leadership cri-

values obtained by indicator k. IN;k is the normalized value of in- terion (B2) is the most important, closely followed by institu-
dicator k, for which a higher value is considered to be better. The tional commitment. On the sub-criteria level, strategy (C2),
 where a lower value is best (Saaty, 1987).
opposite is true inIN;k resource consumption (C5) and education (C7) are the most
Once all data is normalized the nal results are obtained by important sub-criteria for evaluating the criteria that each one is
applying the following equations: a subdivision of.

mez, F., et al., Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education, Journal of Cleaner
Please cite this article in press as: Urquiza Go
Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047

mez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e11
F. Urquiza Go 9

Table 4 It should be noted that 'performance' requires that the indicator

The criteria and sub-criteria results show a preference for setting an example in the be assessed, so the verbal rating should always be understood as
criteria level and resource consumption in the sub-criteria level.
one that is unique to each situation.
Bi Criterion w(Bi)A Cj Sub-criterion wCj Bi w(Cj)A For quantitative information, there are three kinds of indicators:
B1 Institutional 0.3614 C1 Statement 0.1879 0.0679 binary, total amount, and performance. The binary indicators have
commitment C2 Strategies 0.4558 0.1647 only two possible outcomes; meet or do not meet the criterion, so
C3 Coordination 0.3564 0.1288 that an indicator is assigned a 1 or 0 respectively. Total amount
B2 Example 0.3816 C4 Diversity and equity 0.1593 0.0608
indicators; refer to indicators whose raw data is sufcient for
setting/leadership C5 Resource consumption 0.5025 0.1917
C6 Experience on campus 0.3382 0.1291 comparison. Finally, performance indicators require information to
B3 Advancing 0.2570 C7 Education 0.4677 0.1202 be compared against the relative size or impact of the HEI, to avoid
sustainability C8 Research 0.2842 0.0730 contextual distortions as much as possible. In order to do this, it is
C9 Public engagement 0.2481 0.0638
necessary to gather general information to build a base line for
HEIs, such as: number of students, academics and workers (ideally
as an amount that is equivalent to the full-time person load), total
On the lower level, the most important indicators are: sus- gross oor area, number of programs and courses, web presence
tainability related programs (I22), followed by sustainability in HEIs, and total number of research papers.
the strategic institutional plan (I4) and the recycling program Considering the previous recommendations, indicators ob-
coverage (I19), all of which have a cumulative weight of 32.8%. tained for implementation of the model in Chile are separated into
qualitative and quantitative groups, as shown in Table 6.
c) Indicators rationale
4. Discussion
In order to calculate the indicators, it is important to consider
that they might be based on quantitative and qualitative data. So, to The internalization of sustainability in a HEI can be facilitated by
adequately process this information we suggest the following the use of sustainability assessment tools, by benchmarking either
process: in reference to other institutions or to a vision of successful sus-
For qualitative information, the user can grade each indicator by tainability development. Although the tools proposed to date
applying a verbal rating scale such as the one proposed by Lozano deliver valuable contributions in this regard, they are not appro-
(2006a) with ve different choices, 0e4, where: priate to assess sustainability efforts in HEIs within different con-
texts and data availability scenarios.
0. There is a total lack of information for the indicator, it is non- The tools reviewed in this paper show some new approaches to
existent. SD assessment. These assessment proposals do not necessarily
1. The information presented is of poor performance. compete with each other; each delivers a solution that responds to
2. The information presented is of regular performance. different needs or levels of implementation. For international
3. The information presented is considered to be of good ranking, the TUR model has more potential than the rest, given the
performance. relative simplicity of the proposed indicators. For national bench-
4. The information has an excellent performance. marking, the STARS tools could be used if we are dealing with a

Table 5
The most valued indicators are recycling program coverage and sustainability related programs.

Ik Indicator Cj wIk Cj wIk B1 wIk B2 wIk B3 w(Ik)A

I1 Signed sustainability commitments C1 0.1075 0.0202 e e 0.0073

I2 Authority's declarations related to sustainability C1 0.0690 0,0130 e e 0.0047
I3 Sustainability in the HEI's vision and mission statement C1 0.3440 0.0646 e e 0.0234
I4 C1 0.4795 - -
Sustainability in the institutional strategic plan 0.3150 0.1138
C2 0.4934
I5 Sustainability plan C2 0.3421 0.1559 e e 0.0564
I6 Sustainability report C2 0.1645 0.0750 e e 0.0271
I7 Sustainability coordination C3 0.7115 0.2536 e e 0.0916
I8 Environmental management coordination C3 0.1256 0.0448 e e 0.0162
I9 Social responsibility coordination C3 0.1629 0.0581 e e 0.0210
I10 Women in high-level governance positions C4 0.1554 e 0.0247 e 0.0094
I11 Students from low socioeconomic background C4 0.4803 e 0.0765 e 0.0292
I12 Average tuition fees C4 0.1153 e 0.0184 e 0.0070
I13 Minimum wage C4 0.2490 e 0.0397 e 0.0151
I14 Energy consumption C5 0.2899 e 0.1457 e 0.0556
I15 Energy efciency measures C5 0.0943 e 0.0474 e 0.0181
I16 Water consumption C5 0.2306 e 0.1159 e 0.0442
I17 Water efciency measures C5 0.0772 e 0.0388 e 0.0148
I18 Hazardous waste management C5 0.1154 e 0.0580 e 0.0221
I19 C5 0.1927 e -
Recycling program coverage 0.2484 0.0948
C6 0.4481
I20 Sustainability web site C6 0.1331 e 0.0450 e 0.0172
I21 Sustainability outreach campaigns C6 0.4188 e 0.1417 e 0.0541
I22 Sustainability related programs C7 1.0000 - - 0.4677 0.1202
I23 Sustainability related research C8 1.0000 e e 0.2842 0.0730
I24 Sustainability related presence on the web C9 0.6500 e e 0.1613 0.0414
I25 Inter-campus collaboration on sustainability C9 0.3400 e e 0.0844 0.0217

mez, F., et al., Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education, Journal of Cleaner
Please cite this article in press as: Urquiza Go
Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047
10
mez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e11
F. Urquiza Go

Table 6
List of indicators with description and type.

Ik Indicator Description Type of indicator

I1 Signed sustainability commitments Total number of commitments signed by the HEI Quantitative
I2 Authority's declarations related to sustainability Number of public declarations by the HEI's highest authority related to sustainability Quantitative
efforts being made by the HEI
I3 Sustainability in the HEI's vision and Presence of Sustainability in the HEI's vision and mission statement Qualitative
mission statement
I4 Sustainability in the institutional strategic plan Presence of sustainability in the institutional strategic plan Qualitative
I5 Sustainability plan Does the HEI have a sustainability plan? (Binary indicator yes/no) Quantitative
I6 Sustainability report Does the HEI have a sustainability report? Does this report cover all important issues? Qualitative
I7 Sustainability coordination Does the HEI engage in some kind of sustainability coordination? Quantitative
I8 Environmental management coordination Does the HEI engage in some kind of environmental management coordination? Quantitative
I9 Social responsibility coordination Does the HEI engage in some kind of social responsibility coordination? Quantitative
I10 Women in high-level governance positions Women in high-level governance committees/total amount of people in high level Quantitative
governance committees
I11 Students from low socioeconomic background Students from fully and partially public funded schools/total students Quantitative
I12 Average tuition fees Average tuition for one year for all programs offered by the institution Quantitative
I13 Minimum wage Lowest wage paid by the institution Quantitative
I14 Energy consumption Total direct energy consumption (Electric, gas, diesel)/gross oor area Quantitative
I15 Energy efciency measures What efforts are being made to reduce energy consumption? Qualitative
I16 Water consumption Total direct water consumption/(total students plus equivalent of the Quantitative
full-time person time load)
I17 Water efciency measures What efforts are being made to reduce water consumption? Qualitative
I18 Hazardous waste management What efforts are being made to minimize and safely dispose of all hazardous waste? Qualitative
I19 Recycling program coverage What efforts are being made to reduce waste and conserve resources Qualitative
by recycling and composting?
I20 Sustainability web site Does it have a comprehensive and dynamic sustainability web site? Qualitative
I21 Sustainability outreach campaigns What efforts are being made to spread and promote sustainability principles within the Qualitative
institution's community through the use of outreach campaigns?
I22 Sustainability related programs Total sustainability related programs/total programs Quantitative
I23 Sustainability related research Total sustainability related research/total research Quantitative
I24 Sustainability related presence on the web Total sustainability related web presence of the HEI/total web presence of the institution Quantitative
I25 Inter-campus collaboration on sustainability What efforts are being made to collaborate with other HEIs on sustainability issues? Qualitative

context of advanced sustainability efforts, and is appropriate as a
road map toward sustainability for beginners. The GASU tool is
useful as a complement for a sustainability report based on GRI
guidelines.
The four step process (Fig. 2), provides a proposal for the cre-
ation and improvement of assessment models. This paper deal
with the rst three steps of the process in order to create the
AMAS tool, which includes; a four tiered assessment hierarchy
with the corresponding criteria, sub-criteria and indicators (Fig. 3);
a complete set of weights for the criteria and sub-criteria level
(Table 4), applicable in any context; and a complete set of in-
dicators with their respective weights (Table 5), applicable to the
Chilean context.
The weights obtained from the international consultation pro-
cess showed a preference for institutional commitment and
example setting/leadership criterion, with weights of 36.1% and
38.2% respectively, and less preference for advancing sustainability
criterion with a weight of 25.7%. On the sub-criteria level (Fig. 4),
criteria dealing with resource consumption were shown to be more
important, as in other tools such as STARS and GreenMetric, where
the added points of indicators related to resource consumption are
superior to 30% and 75% of their total points respectively, in both
cases the most valued issue. Also the weights obtained on the sub-
criteria level are more balanced that other tools such as STARS, to
illustrate this we can compare the standard deviation of the
weights for our results in was 0.05, signicantly lower that for the
STARS tool with a value of 0.1. The fact that our results are more
balanced could be evidence of a more integral understanding of
what it is sustainability in the higher education context.
The consultation process required formulating a survey and
building a database of experts. Both of these processes were very
time consuming to carry out for the rst time, but if the process is
repeated, the work load would be signicantly less as researchers
would be able to build off of previous experience. The process could
be facilitated with the aid of a web platform that would help
explain (or show) the hierarchical assessment model, and, if
necessary, could serve to answer questions that experts might have
related to the survey.
5. Conclusions
The increasing interest of higher education institutions around
the world to improve their sustainability performance can be aided
along with the use of assessment tools that allow for comparison
among institutions. Tools available today are difcult or even
impossible to apply in contexts where sustainability efforts are at
an early stage of development. The AMAS tool delivers a trans-
parent methodology, intentionally divided into four steps in such a
way as to permit local calibration without discarding international
agreements concerning the relative importance of key issues
related to sustainability in higher education. This process also could
be used to recalibrate existing tools in a more participative manner,
resetting their weight at the indicator or criteria level.
The AMAS tool could allow for the creation of national and
regional rankings, thus encouraging discussion and promotion of
sustainability in countries where these issues are still not a priority,
and giving institutions that have made an effort towards sustain-
ability development a chance to show their results. The model can
be applied by any person or organization interested in promote
sustainability in higher education, as long as they have access to
some level data and the capability to show results to different au-
diences, is possible to use this models as a powerful communica-
tion tool that could highlight sustainability attracting the attention
of leaders and institutions.
We must highlight that even though AMAS can give an overall
idea of the sustainability performance of a group of institutions, it

mez, F., et al., Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education, Journal of Cleaner
Please cite this article in press as: Urquiza Go
Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047

mez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e11
F. Urquiza Go 11

Lozano, R., 2006b. Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities:

Diversity and equity 6.1%
breaking through barriers to change. J. Clean. Prod. 14 (9e11), 787e796. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.12.010.
Public engagement 6.4%
Lozano, R., Lukman, R., Lozano, F.J., Huisingh, D., Lambrechts, W., 2011. Declarations
for sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through
Statement 6.8%
addressing the university system. J. Clean. Prod., 1e10. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.006.
Research 7.3% Lozano, R., Young, W., 2012. Assessing sustainability in university curricula:
exploring the inuence of student numbers and course credits. J. Clean. Prod.
Education 12.0% http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.032.
Lozano, Rodrigo, Lukman, Rebeka, Lozano, Francisco J., Huisingh, Donald,
Coordination 12.9% Lambrechts, Wim, June 2013. Declarations for sustainability in higher educa-
tion: becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system.
Experience on campus 12.9% Journal of Cleaner Production. ISSN: 0959-6526 48, 10e19. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.006. First published in 2009 by Share Net, PO Box 394,
Strategy 16.5% Howick, 3290, South Africa.
Lukman, R., Glavi c, P., 2007. What are the key elements of a sustainable university?
Resource consumption 19.2% Clean. Technol. Environ. Policy 9, 104e114.
Lukman, R., Krajnc, D., Glavi c, P., 2010. University ranking using research, educa-
Fig. 4. Predominance of sub-criteria. tional and environmental indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (7), 619e628. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.09.015.
Mayer, A.L., 2008. Strengths and weaknesses of common sustainability indices for
does not compete with other assessment tools or report systems. multidimensional systems. Environ. Int. 34 (2), 277e291. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.envint.2007.09.004.
Instead, it serves as a catalyst for institutions that have had dif- Orr, D., 1991. What Is Education For;? In the Learning Revolution, p. 52. Retrieved
culties adapting tools to t their campus specic needs to start from. http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC27/Orr.htm.
reporting on their sustainability performance. QS World University Rankings, 2012. University Rankings in 2011. Top Universities.
Retrieved February 27, 2012, from. http://www.topuniversities.com/university-
The AHP method proved to be useful and relatively simple to rankings.
implement, in order to establish weights for criteria, sub-criteria Rencoret, S., 2011. Sustainability Performance Evaluation Model for Ponticia Uni-
and indicators. It allows for continual improvements by expand- versidad Catolica de Chile. Degree thesis. Ponticia Universidad Cato
lica de
Chile, Chile.
ing consultation to more or new groups of experts. The aggregation Roorda, N., 2001. Auditing instrument for sustainability in higher education.
of weights is simple and allows for one indicator to be associated December High. Educ., 1e119.
with different sub-criteria, which is practical considering that Roorda, N., Rammel, C., Waara, S., Paleo, U.F.P., 2009. AISHE 2.0 Manual.
Saadatian, O., Salleh, E.I., 2011. Identifying strength and weakness of sustainable
sustainability efforts require an incremental integration of func-
higher educational assessment approaches. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2 (3), 137e146.
tions in a HEI system. Saaty, T.L., 1987. The analytic hierarchy processdwhat it is and how it is used. Math.
Future research will consider a full application of the four step Model. 9 (3e5), 161e176.

Shields, D.J., Solar, S.V., Martin, W.E., 2002. The role of values and objectives in
process to the Chilean context, in order to establish the rst
communicating indicators of sustainability. Ecol. Indic. 2 (1e2), 149e160.
comparative sustainability assessment for HEIs being made in this http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-160X(02)00042-0.
country and also allowing to evaluate the applicability and possible Shriberg, M., 2002. Institutional assessment tools for sustainability in higher edu-
improvements of the AMAS model. cation: strengths, weaknesses, and implications for practice and theory. Int. J.
Sustain. High. Educ. 3 (3), 254e270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
14676370210434714.
References Singh, R.K., Murty, H.R., Gupta, S.K., Dikshit, a. K., 2007. Development of composite
sustainability performance index for steel industry. Ecol. Indic. 7 (3), 565e588.
AASHE, 2011. Technical Manual STARS. Retrieved from. https://stars.aashe.org/. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.06.004.
Afgan, N., 2004. Sustainability assessment of hydrogen energy systems. Int. J. Ten Brinks, B.J.E., Hosper, S.H., Colijn, F., 1991. A quantitative method for description
Hydrog. Energy 29 (13), 1327e1342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ and assessment of ecosystems: the AMOEBA approach. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 23,
j.ijhydene.2004.01.005. 265e270.
ARWU, 2012. Ranking Methodology of Academic Ranking of World Universities e Togo, M., Lotz-Sisitka, H., 2009. Unit Based Sustainability Assessment Tool. A
2011. Retrieved June 26, 2012, from. http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU- Resource Book to Complement the UNEP Mainstreaming Environment and
Methodology-2011.html#2. Sustainability in African Universities Partnership. Share-Net, Howick, ISBN 978-
AUA, 2012. Alternative University Appraisal. Model for ESD in Higher Education 1919991-09-2. Artwork by: Tammy Grifths.
Institutions, pp. 0e35. ULSF, 2001. Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) for Colleges and Uni-
Berrittella, M., Certa, A., Enea, M., Zito, P., 2007. An analytic hierarchy process for the versities, pp. 1e12.
evaluation of transport policies to reduce climate change impacts. SSRN Elec- UNESCO, 1997. Educating for a Sustainable Future: a Transdisciplinary Vision for
tron. J. I http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.962379. Concerted Action. In Development. EPD-97/CONF.401/CLD.1. Retrieved from.
Brundtland, G.H., 1987. Our common future. In: Brundtland, G.H. (Ed.), Oxford pa- http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001106/110686eo.pdf.
perbacks. Oxford University Press, p. 400. Retrieved from. http://www.un- UNESCO, 2005. Decenio de las Naciones Unidas de la Educacio
n para el Desarrollo
documents.net/wced-ocf.htm. Sostenible El Decenio en pocas palabras.
CADEP, 2010. Evaluacio
n de las polticas universitarias de sostenibilidad. Universitas Indonesia, 2012. UI GreenMetric World University Ranking. Retrieved
Cortese, A., 2003. The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable June 05, 2012, from. http://greenmetric.ui.ac.id/.
future. Plan. High. Educ., 15e22. Vaidya, O.S., Kumar, S., 2006. Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applica-
Garca, J.H., 2010. Assessment of Education for Sustainable Development in Uni- tions. Eur. J. Operat. Res. 169 (1), 1e29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
versities in Costa Rica: Implications for Latin America and the Caribbean. In: j.ejor.2004.04.028.
Higher Education. Pepperdine University. Velazquez, L., Munguia, N., S
anchez, M., Sanchez, M., 2005. Deterring sustainability
Hezri, a a, 2004. Sustainability indicator system and policy processes in Malaysia: a in higher education institutions: an appraisal of the factors which inuence
framework for utilisation and learning. J. Environ. Manag. 73 (4), 357e371. sustainability in higher education institutions. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 6 (4),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.07.010. 383e391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14676370510623865.
Krajnc, D., Glavic, P., 2005. How to compare companies on relevant dimensions of Waheed, B., Khan, F.I., Veitch, B., 2011. Developing a quantitative tool for sustain-
sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 55 (4), 551e563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ ability assessment of HEIs. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 12 (4), 355e368. http://
j.ecolecon.2004.12.011. dx.doi.org/10.1108/14676371111168278.
Lozano, R., 2006a. A tool for a graphical assessment of sustainability in universities Wu, W., Lin, C., 1998. Comparing the aggregation methods in the analytic hierarchy
(GASU). J. Clean. Prod. 14 (9e11), 963e972. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ process when uniform distribution. WSEAS Trans. Bus. Econ..
j.jclepro.2005.11.041.

mez, F., et al., Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education, Journal of Cleaner
Please cite this article in press as: Urquiza Go
Production (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047