Sustainable Campus Group

Australian Tertiary Education Sector Sustainability Report 2011

September 2011

 Sustainable Campus Group 2011 Acknowledgements: The SCG reporting process 2011 was facilitated by Stephen Derrick, Belinda Towns and Benjamin Meyer at the Monash Sustainability Institute. Published by the Monash Sustainability Institute (MSI) Monash University, VIC 3800 Australia T: +61 3 990 59323 E: enquiries@msi.monash.edu.au W: www.monash.edu/research/sustainability-institute

DISCLAIMER: Monash University disclaims all liability for any error, loss or consequence which may arise from relying on any information in this publication.

Table of Contents
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Participating Institutions .............................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Reporting Methodology ............................................................................................................... 4 Sustainability in the Australian Tertiary Education Sector .............................................................. 5 2.1 Institutional Commitment ............................................................................................................ 6 2.2 Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions ...................................................... 7 2.3 Transport .................................................................................................................................... 10 2.4 Waste and Recycling ................................................................................................................... 11 2.5 Water .......................................................................................................................................... 14 2.6 Buildings ..................................................................................................................................... 15 2.7 Purchasing .................................................................................................................................. 17 2.8 Information Technology (IT) ....................................................................................................... 19 2.9 Education for Sustainability (EfS) ............................................................................................... 20 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................. 21 References ................................................................................................................................. 22 Appendix 1 - Data Completeness ................................................................................................. 23 Table A 1.1 Ranked data completeness for selected sections of the workbook .............................. 23 Appendix 2 Data by Institution ................................................................................................. 24 Table A 2.1 Staff, Students and Gross Floor Area by Institution ...................................................... 24 Table A 2.2 Institutional Commitment to Environmental Policies Indicator .................................... 24 Table A 2.3 Facilities Energy Consumption....................................................................................... 24 Table A 2.4 GHG Emissions by Facilities, Air Travel and Automotive Travel by Institution.............. 24 Table A 2.5 Mains Water Purchased (Per Capita and Gross Floor Area) by Institution ................... 24 Table A 2.6 Waste to Landfill (Per Capita and Gross Floor Area) by Institution............................... 24

Introduction
In March 2010, the Sustainable Campus Group (SCG) and Monash Sustainability Institute (MSI) launched the first nation-wide assessment of sustainability in the tertiary education sector in Australia. This is the second nation-wide SCG report and it showcases the 2010 environmental performance of SCG members. The SCG is a national environmental sustainability reporting initiative begun in Victoria in 2006. In 2009 membership was opened to tertiary education institutions Australia wide. SCG members consist of universities and TAFE institutes that are working to improve their environmental performance and choose to report publicly on their progress. The SCG also facilitates professional networking and encourages green campus best practice. SCGs main annual activity is the sustainability reporting project. The SCG reports make the environmental sustainability performance of participating member institutions publicly available and accessible. Sharing this information creates a constructive climate for positive change in tertiary education. It showcases best practice among leading institutions and stimulates improved effort among peer institutions. It is recognised that institutional peer pressure can be a catalyst for senior management to commit to sustainability.

1.1 Participating Institutions

NSW Charles Sturt University TAFE NSW - Sydney Institute NT Charles Darwin University QLD Brisbane North Institute of TAFE Sunshine Coast Institute of TAFE SA Flinders University of South Australia Vic Box Hill Institute of TAFE Chisholm Institute of TAFE Deakin University Gordon Institute of TAFE Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE Kangan Institute of TAFE Monash University Sunraysia Institute of TAFE WA Central Institute of Technology Murdoch University

1.2 Reporting Methodology

SCG provides its member institutions with the SCG Workbook, which is a data management and reporting instrument. Each year the workbook is revised and expanded through further consultation with experts and member institutions. To avoid duplication of data collection for members, the SCG Workbook reporting tool is aligned where possible with existing Australian regulations and standards, such as National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) framework and other reporting instruments. 4

The modules collected both quantitative and qualitative data on different aspects of sustainability. All qualitative sections contained questions on systems to support sustainability (such as policies, strategies, plans, committees and staff) and on sustainability targets. Member institutions were given 68 weeks to complete as much of the Workbook as they could with their 2010 data before returning a copy to the SCG for use in this report. As this Sector Sustainability Report is a self-reporting initiative, SCG did not verify or audit the data submitted in the SCG Workbooks. Data was accepted as provided, except in cases where it appeared obviously incorrect. In such cases SCG liaised with the members to correct the data. Appendix 1 contains a table of Data Completeness which shows how many member institutions completed each section of the workbook for 2009 and 2010 and therefore how complete the data sets are. All members were given the opportunity to review the draft findings of this report before publication. The data provided by the participants was analysed on a total institution basis (that is, the total of all campuses). To allow comparisons between institutions of very different sizes, most of the results reported here were first standardised either by each institutions total students and staff (equivalent full-time student load (EFTSL) and full-time equivalent (FTE) staff) or by its building gross floor area (GFA - in square metres). The EFTSL, FTE, GFA and other data are reported by each institution are provided in detail in Appendix 2. Note: Throughout the main body of the report, all of the charts and figures are shown on a like with like basis. That is, all 2009 data are for the same group of members that reported in 2010 (see section 1.1 Participating Institutions). With two exceptions (institutions that were not members in 2009 and did not report 2009 data), the data set is complete. The tables in Appendix 2 include data from all of the members that reported in 2009. This complete set is provided to enable a broader range of comparisons.

Sustainability in the Australian Tertiary Education Sector

This section reports on and discusses the sector averages for 2010 and 2009 data provided by the 2011 SCG member institutions (see section 1.1 Participating Institutions). Institutional-level data is provided in Appendix 2. Results are a snapshot of measuring and reporting at each institution and do not necessarily reveal the full picture of sustainability work and management at each institution. The approach of this report is not to name and shame but rather to create a collaborative environment for engaging the tertiary education sector in measuring, monitoring and reducing its collective environmental footprint and improving its sustainability performance. A snap shot of performance can be seen in table 1, below. This table is based on 2009 and 2010 data from 14 current SCG Members that provided relevant information for 2009 and 2010. If data was not provided it is indicated with a na (not available). This table shows that institutions have grown their student and staff numbers and floor area, but have managed to reduce relative water consumption and net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Encouragingly, energy consumption has not increased at the same rate as the growth in student and staff numbers and floor area. Tertiary Institutes can vary greatly from one another. Some are located in the CBD, others in suburban or rural areas and some provide residential accommodation for students. This has an impact on land use, transport access and resource use, for example. Other variations include the type of training, teaching and research that is conducted on the campus. Some is conducted mainly in classrooms while others will require workshops, laboratories, and agricultural land etc. These variations should be kept 5

in mind when looking at the results in this report. SCG membership for this Report was 16, down from 27 in 2009. Nevertheless, SCG Members for 2011 represent 25 per cent of total EFTSL for Australia, so the results are representative of the sector as a whole.
Indicator Institutional Commitment Average number of Staff in environmental improvement roles (FTE) per 1000 students Number of institutions that ran cultural change/green office programs Number of institutions with an Environmental Management System (EMS) Student and Staff numbers (Effective Full Time Student Load + Full Time Equivalent) Gross Floor Area (GFA) meters squared (m) Energy and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Total facilities energy consumption (Gigajoules) Average percentage of total green electrcity consumption (total green electricty consumption (kWh)/ total electricity consumption (kWh)) Net facilities and automotive emissions (tonnes CO2-e) Net facilities GHG emissions per head (tonnes CO2-e/(EFTSL + staff FTE)) Automotive emissions (owned and leased) per head (tonnes CO2-e/staff FTE) Water Mains water purchased per head (kilolitres/(EFTSL + staff FTE)) Waste Waste to landfill per head (kilograms/(EFTSL + staff FTE)) Percentage of waste diverted from landfill (recycled) 68.8 21.8% 67.8 23.4% -1.4% 7.7% 5.3 4.9 -6.5% 1,441,644 7.44% 299,887 1.46 0.12 1,463,507 7.49% 318,547 1.45 0.14 1.5% 0.65% 6.2% -1.04% 16.9% na na na 199,851 2,050,628 0.15 11 4 210,449 2,097,117 5.3% 2.3% Value in 2009 Value in 2010 % Change

Table 1 Snapshot of Sustainability Performance Indicators by 14 SCG Members in 2009 and 2010

2.1 Institutional Commitment

Measuring institutional commitment to sustainability is an attempt to show how well sustainability initiatives are funded, integrated and supported by an institution. This is measured in a quantifiable manner so that results can be monitored and compared to other institutes. Measures used include number and types of committees and the level of management represented on these committees; number of staff (FTE) employed to work on sustainability programs; the existence of relevant staff training and performance reward programs; and sustainability considerations in strategies, targets and contracts. Chart one shows the number of staff employed (FTE) to work on operational environmental programs at each institute, for every 1,000 students (EFTSL). Individual Member data can be found in Appendix 2, table 2.2. Other topics include sustainable catering, socially responsible investments, environmentally responsible campus master plans, biodiversity on campus and green leases for tenants to build environmentally responsible behaviour into lessees contracts. Four SCG Members had money invested in Socially Responsible Investment funds and none used green leases for tenants. Seven institutions had sustainability principles included in campus master planning and very few institutes had sustainable catering principles. Two institutions contractually required on campus caterers to use re-usable/recyclable/biodegradable packaging. No institutions contractually required on-campus caterers to source foods locally and only one contractually required caterers to provide seasonal menus. Eight institutions provided vegetarian and culturally sensitive meals on campus.

Average Number of Staff (FTE) Employed in Sustainbility Roles per 1000 Students (EFTSL)

2010

Average TAFE University 2009

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15 Average FTE Employed

0.20

0.25

0.30

Chart 1 Average Number of Staff (FTE) Employed in Sustainability Roles, per 1,000 Students (Equivalent Fulltime Student Load) in 2010

Biodiversity was slightly better addressed at an institutional level as six members had a biodiversity policy, plan, strategy, committee, working group or taskforce and five had a policy to plant native and indigenous plants on their campuses.

2.2 Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

The majority of energy consumption at Australian tertiary education institutions is for building management; the big energy consumers are often heating, cooling, and air handling. Energy consumed on campus for running buildings and infrastructure is referred to in this report as facilities energy. The majority of facilities energy is electricity and natural gas. As electricity in Australia is largely generated from burning coal, most of the GHG emissions at tertiary institutes can be directly linked with maintaining buildings. GHG emissions from Members facilities energy consisted of at least 80 per cent of all their GHG emissions (from facilities, vehicular travel and air travel). The percentage of GHG emissions from facilities energy is higher at institutes with less vehicular and air travel. The focus on facilities energy consumption is understandable as it accounts for a very large component of institution operating costs. It therefore follows that there are significant opportunities for saving energy and costs. There is also an increasing requirement for some institutions to report energy consumption and/or emissions. For example, some of the larger institutions already have to report under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act. This focus is reflected by both the comprehensiveness of the data reported by the participants and by the large number of policies and targets they held in relation to this area, such as 100 per cent of all 15 respondents to this question reporting a target to reduce energy consumption and/or GHG emissions. Additionally, two thirds of members reported commitments to increase the proportion of accredited GreenPower purchases. Other SCG Members conducted energy audits to identify areas where savings could be made: five had a committee, working group or task force dedicated to reducing energy consumption and GHG emissions, and nine ran behavioural change programs to encourage staff and students to reduce energy use. 7

Members reported a total facilities energy consumption of 1,773,465 gigajoules (GJ) for 2010. This total included all sources of stationary energy generation, including grid electricity, purchased GreenPower, on-site renewable generation, natural gas and diesel oil. Electricity accounted for 59.8 per cent (58.6 per cent in 2009) of all energy consumption and non-transport natural gas was 36.2 per cent (36 per cent in 2009). Charts 2 and 3 show the university and TAFE averages for facilities energy consumption per head and per floor area. As Chart 2 shows, universities reported much higher energy consumption per head relative to TAFEs, being more than three times higher in 2010.

Facilities Energy Consumption/Head (GJ/(EFTSL+FTE))

14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 GJ 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 University TAFE Institution type All

2009 2010

Chart 2 Facilities Energy Consumption in Gigajoules (GJ) per Equivalent Fulltime Student Load (EFTSL) plus Full-time Equivalent Staff (FTE) for 2009 and 2010

However the difference between TAFEs and universities is not as marked when energy consumption is considered per floor area as chart 3 shows.

Facilities Energy Consumption/Floor Area (GJ/GFA m)

1.00 0.80 0.60 GJ 0.40 0.20 0.00 University TAFE Institution type All 2009 2010

Chart 3 - Facilities Energy Consumption in Gigajoules (GJ) per Gross Floor Area (GFA) in metres squared (m ) for 2009 and 2010

For both indicators, TAFEs have the lowest energy consumption by a significant margin. This difference is likely to reflect the more energy-intensive research facilities and laboratories in universities. Some electricity purchased is GreenPower (see chart 4 for percentages of GreenPower purchased at each institute) which is sourced from renewable energy, and therefore reduces overall GHG emissions. Several SCG member institutes generate renewable energy-on campus. Some use this energy directly on-campus and others feed it into the grid. Figure 1 shows the solar panel array at Murdoch University which is used to provide power for the library. Eight SCG members also purchased emission offsets. Some of these are general offsets, whilst others specifically offset the emissions from their vehicle fleet.
Figure 1 - Solar Panels being Installed on the Library Roof at Murdoch University, bringing the Universitys Total Electricity Production from On-site Solar Panels to 56kW; enough to Power 45 Houses.

Chart 4 shows the percentage of GreenPower purchased of the total electricity purchased for each member. In 2010 all Government departments and agencies in Victoria were required to purchase 10 per cent GreenPower increasing to 25 per cent in July 2010. This was not the case in other states and territories. Subsequent to a change of Government in Victoria this requirement to purchase GreenPower is no longer in effect.

Proportion of GreenPower Purchased

30% 25%

20%

2009
% Purchased 15%

2010

10%

5%

0%

Chart 4 Percentage of Electricity Purchased that is GreenPower, for each SCG Member in 2009 and 2010

2.3 Transport
The environmental impact of transport falls into two main categories: direct and indirect. Direct impacts generally include transport conducted as part of operating an organisation, such as air travel and vehicles for staff use whether they be owned or leased by the institute. SCG Members were given the opportunity to report their energy consumption for vehicles as well as their air travel. This data was then used to calculate resulting GHG emissions. As only seven Members reported air travel for both 2009 and 2010; GHG emissions from air travel are not displayed. No members had a program to reduce air travel. For TAFE members, automotive travel net emissions per FTE are slightly higher than emissions from air travel and are at a level comparable with universities. University staff undertake a much higher level of air travel which is related to their research programs, conference attendance and operation of international campuses.
Figure 2 - Monash University's Bike Share Program

The indirect impact of transport at tertiary institutions includes staff and students travelling to and from campuses. Indirect impacts are difficult to measure and have not been included in this report. Rather SCG members were given the opportunity to report on initiatives they have in place to reduce the environmental impact of travel such us encouraging staff and students to walk, cycle or use public transport rather than driving to and from, and between, campuses. Commitment to reduce the indirect environmental impact of transport varied among members: five had a committee, taskforce or working group dedicated to sustainable transport and four ran an awareness campaign to encourage alternatives to vehicle use (see chart 5). Almost all members utilised video conferencing. Finally, most members had programs to increase sustainable transport modes. For example, Monash University has a bike share program to encourage students to cycle rather than drive around their largest campus (see figure 2), and Deakin University successfully lobbied the Victoria Government for two additional bus services that run every twenty minutes in peak periods to the Melbourne Burwood campus, which have eased congestion and encouraged commuter use (see figure 3).
Figure 3 - One of the two Public Transport Buses that now serve the Deakin University campus, on site

10

Sustainable Transport Indicators

All Video Conferencing Facilities Available TAFE Awareness Campaign to Encourgage Alternative Vehicle Use University Committee to Develop Sustainable Transport Initiatives 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

% of Positive Responses

Chart 5 - Percentage of Respondents with Listed Sustainable Transport Initiatives in 2010

2.4 Waste and Recycling

Waste is a large environmental impact of the sector. It is often one of the first programs that institutes work on when they develop an environmental plan. Waste infrastructure is highly visible and public recycling and waste stations can be used to demonstrate to students and staff that an institute takes responsibility for its impacts. The most visible aspects of waste are recycling stations (see figure 4) and landfill bins on campuses. Chart 6 shows what percentage of internal and external waste bins also had recycling bins accompanying them. Less visible is the waste generated from building construction, grounds maintenance and teaching spaces such as laboratories and workshops. Both types of waste can be monitored and measured, however Members more commonly reported quantities of visible waste from recycling and landfill stations found in buildings and public areas on campus. The proportion of recycling to total waste is shown in charts 7 and 8.

Proportion of Waste Stations with Recycling Facilities

External All TAFE Internal University

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Chart 6 - Percentage of Internal and External Waste Bins accompanied by Recycling Facilities in 2010

11

Recycling recorded by SCG Members included paper, cans, bottles and recyclable take-away containers. Some Members have contracts with their waste management contractors to provide data on recycling rates and composition of waste to landfill and others use physical audits to determine amounts. It should be noted that waste and recycling measurement is based on certain assumptions which vary according to waste management providers and institutions. For example if waste is counted by volume (numbers of wheelie bins collected) and then converted to weight, assumptions are made regarding how full the wheelie bins are when collected and what the composition of the waste/recycling was so that a volume to weight converter can be applied.

2010 University Waste and Recycling Proportions

23% Total Waste to Landfill (tonnes) Total Waste Recycled (tonnes) 77%

Chart 7 - Proportion of Recycling (1,651 tonnes) to Waste to Landfill (5,416 tonnes) at Universities in 2010

2010 TAFE Waste and Recycling Proportions

16% Total Waste to Landfill (tonnes) Total Waste Recycled (tonnes) 84%

Chart 8 - Proportion of Recycling (1,691 tonnes) to Waste to Landfill (8,858 tonnes) at TAFE Institutions in 2010

The waste and recycling module asked the institutions for data on the amount and composition of waste they sent to landfill and the amount of waste recycled or composted. It also asked them about the institutional support systems for waste reduction and recycling, such as waste audits, waste reduction campaigns, and prevalence of recycling stations: ten institutes had waste committees; nine had a target to reduce waste and/or increase recycling; 12 included the provision of waste collection 12

data in their waste management contracts and 11 had allocated staff time to reducing the environmental impact of waste. Finally, across all the members on average 51% of internal waste stations and 43% of external waste stations had recycling components, as depicted in chart 6.
Figure 4 - Recycling Station at Charles Darwin University

In 2010, SCG members sent over 22,000 tonnes of waste to landfill and reported recycling over 4,800 tonnes. The proportions sent to landfill and recycled did not differ significantly between universities and TAFEs as shown in charts 7 and 8. Charts 9 and 10 below provide details per head and per floor area. Universities sent more waste to landfill per head and recycled more than for TAFEs for both 2009 and 2010 as shown in chart 9.

Total Waste to Landfill and Recycled/Head (kg/(EFTSL+ FTE))

80 70 60 50 Mass (kg) 40 30 20 10 0 University TAFEs Institution type All

to landfill 2009 to landfill 2010 recycled 2009 recycled 2010

Chart 9 Total Waste to Landfill and Recycled in kilograms (kg) per Equivalent Full-time Student Load (EFTSL) plus Full-time Equivalent Staff (FTE) for 2009 and 2010

As can be seen in chart 10, when this is compared to waste per floor area, the situation is reversed as TAFEs sent more waste to landfill and recycled more than universities on this measure.

13

Total Waste to Landfill and Recycled/Floor Area (kg/GFA m2)

12 10 8 Mass (kg) 6 4 2 0 University TAFEs Institution type All to landfill 2009 to landfill 2010 recycled 2009 recycled 2010

Chart 10 Total Waste to Landfill and Recycled in kilograms (kg) per Gross Floor Area (GFA) in metres squared 2 (m ) for 2009 and 2010

2.5 Water
Tertiary education institutes are often large water users. Areas of high water consumption include grounds maintenance, cooling towers, student residences, laboratories, on-campus agriculture and other areas of teaching, training and research. For example, figure 5 shows rain water tanks at Sydney institute used to provide water for Fire Services and Plumbing training. Water reduction has long been a focus for the sector often due to water restrictions and availability of water. As well as reduction initiatives, sources of non-mains water have been developed, such as rainwater tanks, bores and dams.
Figure 5 - An array of Water Tanks at Sydney Institutes Randwick College used to collect Water for Fire Services Training and Dampening the Sand Pit for Plumbing Training

SCG members used a total of 2,303,642 kL of water during 2010 from several sources including mains, bore and rain water. For those members that provided both 2009 and 2010 data, a four per cent decrease in the proportion of mains water consumed was noted, from 1,015,222 kL (96% of total 2009 water consumption) to 1,004,001 kL (92% of total 2010 water consumption). Between 2009 and 2010 water use decreased at universities by head and by floor area and increased slightly at TAFEs by head and floor area. This is illustrated in charts 11 and 12. Commitment to reducing water use was evident amongst members: 10 had a committee, taskforce or working group dedicated to water reduction; 10 had reduction targets; 10 were regulated by water 14

restrictions; 10 conducted a behavioural change program for staff and students to encourage water reduction; 11 collected rain water and 3 conducted water audits to identify water saving measures and technology. One of the SCG Members had a grey water system (unmetered) and none had black water systems. Reliance on potable mains water is still high.

Mains Water Purchased/Head (kL/(EFTSL+ FTE))

9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 Mains Water 5.0 Purchased (kL) 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 University TAFE Institution type All

2009 2010

Chart 11 Mains Water Purchased in kilolitres (kL) per Equivalent Full-time Student Load (EFTSL) plus Full-time Equivalent Staff (FTE) for 2009 and 2010

Mains Water Purchased/Floor Area (kL/GFA m2)

0.7 0.6 0.5 Mains Water Purchased (kL) 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 University TAFE Institution type All 2009 2010

Chart 12 Mains Water Purchased in kilolitres (kL) per Gross Floor Area (GFA) in metres squared (m ) for 2009 and 2010

2.6 Buildings
Buildings have both a long lasting and immediate impact on the environment. The construction of a building has an immediate impact with regard to existing biodiversity on site, building materials and the waste created during the construction process. The long lasting environmental impacts are largely 15

influenced by the amount of energy and water a building requires for heating, ventilation, cooling and occupant usage, such as lighting and IT equipment. Sustainable buildings are designed to have a much lower impact on the environment and use technologies such as double glazed windows, night cooling and rain water harvesting to reduce on-going energy and water consumption. Many buildings in the sector are not sustainable as they are old buildings and /or they have not had a sustainable retrofit. An example of a sustainable building at Central Institute of Technology is in figure 6. SCG Members were given the opportunity to report on how much of the GFA retrofitted was sustainable; either by their own internal assessment or according to an externally accredited assessment such as the Green Building Council of Australia, and responses to this question was high. A total of 37,944 m2 of new GFA was added during the year by Members. One Member recorded a new building of 1,900 m2 (GFA) that was accredited 4 Stars according to the National Australian Built Environment Rating System (NABERS). Other new buildings and retrofits may operate as sustainable spaces even if they were not externally accredited.

Figure 6 - New Sustainable Building at Central Institute of Technologys Perth Campus

SCG Members were asked to self assess how well sustainability was integrated into the building process at various levels, from the planning and procurement processes to the leadership and support provided by senior management, as well as the reporting processes to ensure sustainable buildings were the most desired outcome. Chart 13 below highlights these responses. Each of the four categories could score a maximum of 25 per cent and the best score would be 100 per cent. When averaged, the lowest score was for Project Procurement processes (8.2 %), such as selecting appropriate consultants and contractors and setting environmental targets. The highest average score was for ongoing Facilities Management processes (11.2 %), such as staff environmental programs and utilities metering.

16

Integration of Sustainability in New Buildings

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Box Hill Institute of TAFE Brisbane North Institute of TAFE Central Institute of Technology Charles Darwin University Charles Sturt University Chisholm Institute of TAFE Deakin University Flinders University of South Australia Gordon Institute of TAFE Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE Kangan Institute of TAFE Monash University Murdoch University Sunshine Coast Institute of TAFE Sunraysia Institute of TAFE TAFE NSW - Sydney Institute
0 20 40 60 80 100

Strategic Planning Project Procurement Facilities Management Leadership

Frequency of integration in each stage of the process (%)

Chart 13 Integration of Sustainability into each Process of Building Planning, Construction and Use, for each SCG Member in 2010

2.7 Purchasing
Green purchasing means selecting environmentally preferable products from environmentally responsible suppliers. According to ECO-Buy environmentally preferable products (and services) are those that are less damaging to human health and the environment than comparable or competing products that serve the same purpose. Green products and services can include high recycled content office furniture or green cleaning services. Green criteria can be used to assess suppliers, such as ensuring that an environmentally responsible company is engaged to provide staff recruitment, telecommunication or marketing services. Environmental considerations can be given a weighting for tender proposals and tendering organisations can be required to complete environmental assessment criteria. On-campus vendors can be contractually obliged to provide environmentally responsible packaging and organic Fairtrade produce. Contracts with these criteria can also form part of a green lease (see 2.1 Institutional Commitment for more information about green leases). Very few of the practices above have been implemented within the tertiary education sector, although it is a growing are of concern and interest for the Sector. SCG Members were given the opportunity to provide data on green purchasing such as the dollar value of procurement that had environmental criteria applied to it, the number of staff trained in green procurement, the average weighting given to environmental considerations across all procurement and the existence of green procurement targets. Seven members had provided green purchasing 17

training for procurement staff in 2010 and all members responded to this question. The average weighting given to environmental considerations, from the six members that responded to this question, was 13% and the average dollar value was $22.75 million. Quantitative data on some items were collected. These are items that members and stakeholders, such as students, have deemed to be important, such as a commitment to purchasing Fairtrade tea and coffee for staff tea rooms (chart 14) and recycled content copy paper (chart 15).

Proportion of Fairtrade Tea & Coffee vs. Tea & Coffee Purchased
9% Tea & Coffee (kg) Tea & Coffee Fairtrade (kg) 91%

Chart 14 Proportion of Fairtrade Tea & Coffee Purchased vs. Total Tea & Coffee Purchased in 2010

Data shown in chart 14 is representative of the seven institutions that provided data in 2010 and as can be seen, Fairtrade tea and coffee purchased is nine per cent (485 kilograms) of non-Fairtrade tea and coffee purchased (4,918 kilograms). Data shown in chart 15 is representative of the 14 institutions that provided data for this section.

Total Copy Paper Purchased 2010

180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 Reams 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0

Other

50 - 99% Recycled

100% Recycled

Plantation

Chart 15 Total Copy Paper Purchased (reams of A4 equivalent) in 2010 by Institution

18

2.8 Information Technology (IT)

IT is an area that can have a large impact on sustainability in the workplace. Electricity and paper consumption can be reduced by including the appropriate criteria when purchasing IT equipment, electronic waste can be re-used and recycled rather than going to landfill and the technology itself can be used to reduce travel and paper, such as video conferencing and lecture downloads. Other criteria for IT equipment have been developed by EPEAT, a resource for environmentally preferable IT equipment which several members use when making purchasing decisions. Chart 16 shows data collected on green IT for this report. This included the existence of behaviour change programs and green IT committees. Additionally results from surveys regarding the automatic installation of low energy and low paper use options in all IT equipment are included. TAFEs show a better performance than universities however this may be due to the higher number of participating TAFE members.

Green IT Performance Indicators

All

Institution Type

TAFE

University

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% of Positive Responses

Behaviour Change Programs Auto Installation of Low Energy Settings

Auto Installation of Double Sided Printing Committee for monitoring and improving IT Practices

Chart 16 Percentage of Respondents with Listed Green IT Initiatives in 2010

19

2.9 Education for Sustainability (EfS)

Although universities and TAFEs have large day-to-day environmental impacts by far the greatest contribution they can make to sustainability is to educate students to understand and apply sustainability principles in all that they do: in their work, careers, communities and society.
Figure 7 - Little Red Murdoch Universitys endangered baby Forest Red-tailed Black Cockatoo with students Neil Goldsborough, Robin Scott, Adjunct Professor Ron Johnstone and Environmental Program Manager Caroline Minton.

The SCG introduced an EfS data collection section in its 2009 Workbook not only to gauge progress, but also to encourage institutions to collect and report data in this area and bring this topic to the attention of senior staff members and decision makers. EfS can be taught, researched or applied on campus, such as Murdoch Universitys engagement of academic staff and students with biodiversity on campus, depicted in figure 7.

EfS Performance Indicators

All

Institution Type

TAFE

University

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% of positive responses

Environmental or Sustainability Aspects Included in Orientation Strategy or Plan for Implementing EfS

Environment or Sustainability Subject Required to Graduate EfS Committee

Chart 17 Percentage of Respondents with Listed EfS Initiatives in 2010

20

EfS has a long way to go before it can be considered embedded in universities, however senior management is beginning to show an interest in delivering strategic approaches to support EfS at their institutes. Senior management commitment and support is crucial to the success of EfS at any institute. As can be seen in chart 17, TAFEs have a better record when it comes to embedding sustainability in their education and training packages. The Green Skills Agreement, which is an agreement between the Australian Government and state and territory governments to build the capacity of the vocational education and training sector to deliver the skills for sustainability required in the workplace mandated that Australian TAFEs review their training packages for any gaps in their skills for sustainability by the end of March 2010 (COAG 2009). Many TAFE courses and subjects have been updated to embed sustainability content and TAFEs have supported staff to attend relevant training and education programs.

Conclusion
Environmental responsibilities of TAFEs and universities fall into two main areas: 1. Academia, such as teaching, training, and research; and 2. Operations, such as finance, procurement, IT, building and grounds management, and other student and staff support services. Most TAFEs and universities take an active role in promoting their environmental capabilities and performance in this area and publicise this through their web sites and reports. Operations based environmental impacts such as energy and water consumption, GHG emissions and waste have been the focus of the sector for several years and efforts in these areas are quite advanced. This has been evidenced in this report by decreases on 2009 figures (per EFTSL/FTE) of mains water use (down 6.5%), waste (down 1.4%) and GHG emissions (down 1.04%) and by an increase in energy consumption of only 1.5 per cent despite increases in student numbers of 5.3 per cent and GFA of 2.3 per cent. The impacts directly related to the operation and maintenance of buildings and grounds are usually the responsibility of one department within an institution. These direct impacts on the environment are relatively easy to measure and monitor. Other areas within operations are not as well as advanced when it comes to measuring, monitoring and reducing the environmental impacts. There are several reasons for this. Environmental impacts that are not under the direct control of the institution are difficult to affect and measure, such as how students and staff travel to and from work every day and the sustainability performance of suppliers. These may be considered within the influence of an institution, but not direct control. Also, as so much of the focus of environmental impacts has been on those associated with buildings and grounds there have been fewer resources to concentrate on other areas of responsibility within institutions. For example, areas such as Socially Responsible Investment may be the responsibility of the finance department, or green purchasing which may be the responsibility of the procurement department, or green IT etc. As seen in the report the sector is aware of these issues and some steps have been taken to reduce their impact, such as $22.75 million of green purchasing in 2010 and seven members running behaviour change programs specifically related to Green IT. These will be areas of greater focus in future. 21

Academically, large positive environmental impacts can be made via teaching, training and research. Impacts on students behaviours once they leave an institution and enter the workforce are extremely difficult to measure. However the efforts made to ensure they are exposed to the knowledge and learning necessary to help reduce their impact are within the powers of the sector to deliver and measure. This is another emerging area of concern for the sector and more resources will be directed this way in future. It is apparent that government support and encouragement for EfS (i.e. the Green Skills Agreement) does have an impact, as it has in the TAFE sector which is more advanced than the university sector in imbedding EfS in 2010. Six TAFE members but only one university member had a strategy or plan in 2010 for implementing EfS.

References
Council of Australian Governments (COAG), (2009), Green Skills Agreement: An Agreement between the Australian Government and the state and territory governments EPEAT, http://www.epeat.net/resources/criteria-verification/, accessed 04/09/2011 Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA), http://www.gbca.org.au/about/, accessed 05/09/2011 ECO-Buy, http://www.ecobuy.org.au/director/suppliers/What%20are%20green%20products.cfm, accessed 01/09/2011

22

Appendix 1 - Data Completeness

Table A 1.1 Ranked data completeness for selected sections of the workbook
Total number of institutions who provided data for 2010 (of 16) 16 16 16 16 16 9 16 16 16 16 4 1 5 3 0 0 15 15 16 13 6 Total number of institutions who provided data for 2009 (of 16) 14 14 14 14 14 8 14 14 14 14 3 0 2 1 0 0 14 14 14 14 6

Module Campus Statistics Campus Statistics Campus Statistics Energy use & GHG emissions Energy use & GHG emissions Energy use & GHG emissions Energy use & GHG emissions Waste & Recycling Waste & Recycling Water Water* Water* Water* Water* Water* Water* Buildings Buildings Buildings Green purchasing Green purchasing

Section Effective Full Time Student Load (EFTSL) Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Academic and Non Academic Staff Gross Floor Area Facilities energy use and GHG emissions Automotive transport energy use and GHG emissions Air travel GHG emissions GreenPower Total waste to landfill Total waste recycled Amount of potable (mains) water used Licensed Ground Water Extraction Licensed Surface Water Collection Rainwater Collected & Used Runoff Collected & Used Water Recycled / Treated Other Recycled Water Total GFA of New & Retrofitted Buildings Total GFA of New & Retrofitted Buildings with Accredited Sustainable Design Integration of Sustainability into new Buildings A4 copy paper purchasing Tea & coffee purchasing

* It was not possible for all Institutions to complete this section as they did not have the relevent facilities

23

Appendix 2 Data by Institution

The following tables include all data reported for 2009 by SCG Members in 2009. SCG Members in 2010 reported 2010 data and many also reported 2009 data, which has been included.

Table A 2.1 Staff, Students and Gross Floor Area by Institution

Page 25

Table A 2.2 Institutional Commitment to Environmental Policies Indicator

Page 26

Table A 2.3 Facilities Energy Consumption

Page 27

Table A 2.4 GHG Emissions by Facilities, Air Travel and Automotive Travel by Institution
Page 28

Table A 2.5 Mains Water Purchased (Per Capita and Gross Floor Area) by Institution
Page 29

Table A 2.6 Waste to Landfill (Per Capita and Gross Floor Area) by Institution
Page 30

24

Table A 2.1: Staff, students and gross floor area by institution.

Academic /Teaching Staff (FTE) 2009 2010 Total Staff (FTE) 2009 2010 1,383 na 1,772 1,099 400 1,072 960 1,637 3,992 735 1,744 1,065 548 1,757 2,261 888 1,075 2,483 577 450 977 2,685 7,552 na 110 na 622 3,996 na 598 na na 29,818 505 14,410 1,237 388 957 na 27,100 na na na 407 na 774 12,444 3,744 222 2,599 1,172 7,371 2,211 953 1,534 na 56,919 953 1,112 2,614 568 462 1,011 na 7,670 na 208 na na na na 1,005 na 1,279 26,853 na 1,801 538 4,564 14,000 19,120 10,949 16,788 21,217 6,434 3,871 8,936 24,559 44,353 56,743 2,698 30,950 16,482 43,372 49,700 13,149 15,182 na 592,457 997 12,123 1,119 6,581 na 18,026 na 5,975 13,081 5,912 14,723 na 10,664 13,999 25,910 11,539 4,240 8,940 na 44,856 na 2,800 na na na na 13,284 na 11,064 3,760 34,188 34,526 na 27,572 na na 28,008 na 188,724 231,679 234,817 151,626 120,300 90,127 29,873 192,813 304,695 82,047 98,820 230,009 48,328 43,358 83,878 286,739 668,521 430,815 24,432 195,507 0 746,809 311,279 103,305 193,599 na 88,152 98,820 265,037 51,202 50,574 83,878 na 668,521 na 24,432 na na na na 103,305 na 119,552 239,026 5,523,086 2,402,244 na 12,228 na 121,822 na 7,773 na 57,352 na 11,890 na 144,676 na 17,657 na 0 na na na na na na 235,082 na 112,040 90,127 33,134 192,813 1,756 na 17,513 na 185,575 na 13,344 na 107,136 na Total Staff + Students Gross Floor Area ( m2) 2009 2010 2009 2010 na 15,757 na na na na na na 30,766 na 4,856 12,084 5,374 12,922 na 9,711 12,887 23,296 10,971 3,778 7,929 na 37,186 na 2,592 na na na na 12,279 na 9,785 212,173 577 565 974 3,375 na 550 na 1,075 na 91 98 131 1,524 1,665 na 2,079 3,766 3,716 3,786 1,434 na 1,251 na 3,954 977 1,011 na na 264 272 186 190 577 335 na 233 1,058 1,093 1,425 1,521 692 673 383 440 442 541 446 412 910 na 1,351 na 736 747 1,021 1,054 293 272 255 266 415 423 650 574 1,099 512 645 607 456 na 279 na 2,723 2,981 1,269 779 877 na 760 na 516 na 444 na 659 na 413 na 193 na 207 na 678 na 421 na 1,447 na 325 na na 633 na 1,123 735 na 648 na General/NonTeaching Staff (FTE) 2009 2010

State

Institution

Students (EFTSL) 2009 2010 na

Nat.

Aust. Catholic Uni

11,961

NSW

Charles Sturt University

Hunter Inst

15,885

Illawarra Inst

10,791

New England Inst

7,373

North Coast Inst

11,156

Northern Sydney Inst

27,048

South West. Sydney Inst

25,935

Sydney Inst

30,196

Western Sydney Inst

17,291

NT

Charles Darwin Uni

4,837

QLD

Brisbane North Inst

11,058

Sunshine Coast Inst

4,016

SA

Flinders University

12,243

Uni of Adelaide

16,859

VIC

Box Hill Institute of TAFE

10,061

Chisholm Institute of TAFE

15,713

Deakin Uni

18,734

Gordon Inst

5,857

Goulburn Ovens Inst

3,421

Kangan Inst

7,959

La Trobe Uni

21,874

Monash Uni

36,801

RMIT Uni

52,999

Sunraysia Inst

2,476

Swinburne Uni of Technology

28,351

Uni of Ballarat

15,310

Uni of Melbourne

36,001

Victoria Uni

47,489

WA na

Central Institute of Technology

12,196

Edith Cowan Uni

13,648

Murdoch University

TOTAL TOTAL

535,538

25

Table A2.2 Institutional Commitment to Environmental Policies Indicator

State Staff (FTE) 2009 2010 0.5 na 2 1.2 1 1 na 0 1.2 1 0 na 1 na 1.8 na 0.5 2.5 2.5 0.3 1 3 15 3 0 18 2.3 2.1 3 0 2 na 4.2 0.8 2.4 0 na 1 5.4 0.9 2.1 na na na na 1 0 17 1 0 1 na 3.1 1.6 2.5 0 na na 1 na 0 na na na na 0 na 3 5.8 1.6 3.0 Pro Vice-Chancellor na Vice-Chancellor Director na na 14.4 1 11 na 11 1 0 0.3 1 1 1 0.5 3.5 6 6 1 0 0 0 na 2 na na Chief Operating Officer Chief Operating Officer Senior Manager General Manager: Finance & Infrastructure na Vice-Chancellor Vice-Chancellor na na na na Deputy Vice-Chancellor na Senior Deputy na na na na na na na na na 4 1 na 0 1 0 0.8 na 1 na 2 na Manager Strategy & Governance Deputy Vice-Chancellor na CIO responsible for the ResourceSMART working group na 3 0 6 na na 2 na Director 2 7 5 Associate Director na 2 na College Manager na 8 na Associate Director na na Associate Director/College Director na na na na 1 na na na na 0 na na na na 1 na na na na 1 na na na 3 na 6 na na na 0 na na na Highest Institutional Position on Environmental Committee 2009 2010

Institute

Number of Environmental Committees 2009 2010

Nat.

Aust. Catholic Uni

NSW

Charles Sturt University

Hunter Inst

Illawara Inst

New England Inst

North Coast Inst

Northern Sydney Inst

South West. Sydney Inst

Sydney Inst

Western Sydney Inst

NT

Charles Darwin Uni

Qld

Brisbane North Inst

Sunshine Coast Inst

SA

Flinders University

Uni of Adelaide

na Deputy Vice-Chancellor & Vice-President na

Vic

Box Hill Institute of TAFE

Chisholm Inst

Deakin Uni

Gordon Inst

Goulburn Ovens Inst

Kangan Inst

na General Manager, 5 Finance & Infrastructure na 0

La Trobe Uni Monash Uni

RMIT

Sunraysia Inst

Swinburne Uni of Technology

Uni of Ballarat

Uni of Melbourne

Victoria Uni

WA

Central Institute of Technology

Edith Cowan Uni

Murdoch University

Avg.

University

TAFE

All

26

Table A 2.3: Facilities energy consumption (includes all electricity, gas and diesel oil consumed for facilities and excludes transport-related energy use)
Energy State Nat. NSW Institution Aust. Catholic Uni Charles Sturt University Hunter Inst Illawarra Inst New England Inst North Coast Inst Northern Sydney Inst South West. Sydney Inst Sydney Inst Western Sydney Inst NT QLD SA VIC Charles Darwin Uni Brisbane North Inst Sunshine Coast Inst Flinders University of SA Uni of Adelaide Box Hill Institute of TAFE Chisholm Institute of TAFE Deakin Uni Gordon Inst Goulburn Ovens Inst Kangan Inst La Trobe Uni Monash Uni RMIT Uni Sunraysia Inst Swinburne Uni of Technology Uni of Ballarat Uni of Melbourne Victoria Uni WA Central Institute of Technology Edith Cowan Uni Murdoch University Average Universities TAFEs All
Notes : (a ) Per head i ncl udes both s ta ff and s tudents . (b) Ins ti tutions that did not provide a fi gure for GFA ha ve been excluded from a vera ge ca l cul ati ons . (c) Where no figures were gi ven by i ns tituti ons for green energy i t i s a s s umed tha t no green energy wa s purcha s ed. However, thes e i ns ti tutions ha ve been excl uded from the a vera ge ca lcul ations . (d) Cal cula ti on combines kWh purchas ed from the gri d, green power a nd genera ted through ons ite renewa bl es .

GJ/head(a) 2009 2010 4.53 na 2.61 3.57 1.79 2.43 2.57 3.51 3.14 2.78 12.61 2.41 3.64 5.70 11.46 4.22 3.84 10.07 4.04 6.89 4.72 19.09 14.85 6.54 4.20 4.63 5.35 12.14 4.15 2.77 6.53 na 9.05 3.20 6.71 na 11.94 na na na na na na 2.94 na 12.65 2.06 2.61 5.75 na 4.94 4.81 9.47 2.12 5.92 4.97 na 14.51 na 4.39 na na na na 2.81 na 9.11 12.02 3.58 7.21

GJ/m2 (b) 2009 2010 0.56 na na 0.29 0.24 0.24 0.38 0.42 0.46 0.33 0.69 0.32 0.56 0.41 0.72 0.56 0.65 0.93 0.54 0.62 0.50 1.64 0.99 0.86 0.46 0.73 na 0.70 0.66 0.35 0.51 na 0.85 0.44 0.72 na 1.13 na na na na na na 0.43 na 0.67 0.30 0.46 0.44 na 0.60 0.68 0.93 0.48 0.50 0.53 na 0.97 na 0.50 na na na na 0.36 na 0.84 0.85 0.47 0.74

Green energy(c) Electricity(d) % of total energy use kWh/head(a) kWh/m2 (b) 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 3.2% na 0.0% 4.4% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 6.2% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7% 0.0% 15.4% 7.7% 0.0% 11.7% 5.2% 5.1% 0.0% 4.6% 10.9% 7.4% 3.4% 11.4% 10.1% 3.1% 0.0% 4.2% na 6.8% 6.0% 6.9% na 0.0% na na na na na na 6.2% na 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.6% na 13.7% 7.7% 0.7% 10.2% 12.0% 5.1% na 4.7% na 11.3% na na na na 0.0% na 13.6% 3.8% 6.9% 4.5% 890 na 724 746 441 262 569 783 671 716 3029 644 949 1349 2713 732 556 1523 830 1063 730 1500 1917 1198 872 836 551 2026 655 563 1506 na 1414 662 1114 na 1439 na na na na na na 632 na 3414 549 680 1331 na 758 702 1445 404 926 782 na 2069 na 943 na na na na 575 na 2036 1,816 645 1,233 111 na na 61 60 26 84 93 98 85 166 87 145 98 170 98 95 140 111 95 78 129 127 158 96 132 na 118 105 72 118 na 133 90 119 92 99 141 91 78 83 na 139 na 108 na na na na 74 na 188 141 89 123 na 136 na na na na na na 93 na 182 80 121 102

27

Table A 2.4: GHG emissions from facilities, air travel and automotive travel by institution
Auto Air Travel (Net of Transport(b) (Net offsets) of offsets) t CO2-e/staff 2009 2010 1.93 na na 0.05 na na 0.26 0.09 0.02 na na 0.21 0.33 na 6.79 na 0.52 3.79 na 0.16 na 2.25 3.55 2.34 0.41 3.12 1.62 na 1.91 na 4.25 na 2.33 0.08 1.60 na 4.01 na na na na na na 0.02 na na 0.13 na na na na 0.55 3.68 na 0.17 na na 3.99 na 0.31 na na na na na na 1.46 3.69 0.14 2.88 t CO2-e/staff 2009 2010 0.26 na 0.00 0.30 0.54 0.37 0.15 0.11 0.04 0.40 0.15 0.13 0.26 0.18 0.19 -0.07 0.41 0.00 0.65 1.74 0.08 0.58 -0.02 0.13 1.07 0.14 0.52 0.11 0.24 0.18 0.12 na 0.24 0.25 0.24 na 0.83 na na na na na na 0.04 na 0.76 0.13 0.21 0.20 na -0.06 0.41 -0.01 0.70 1.47 0.00 na -0.02 na 0.96 na na na na 0.15 na 0.23 0.17 0.21 0.19

Facilities (Net of offsets) State Nat. NSW Institution Aust. Catholic Uni Charles Sturt University Hunter Inst Illawarra Inst New England Inst North Coast Inst Northern Sydney Inst South West. Sydney Inst Sydney Inst Western Sydney Inst NT QLD SA VIC Charles Darwin Uni Brisbane North Inst Sunshine Coast Inst Flinders University of SA Uni of Adelaide Box Hill Institute of TAFE Chisholm Institute of TAFE Deakin Uni Gordon Inst Goulburn Ovens Inst Kangan Inst La Trobe Uni Monash Uni RMIT Uni Sunraysia Inst Swinburne Uni of Technology Uni of Ballarat Uni of Melbourne Victoria Uni WA Central Institute of Technology Edith Cowan Uni Murdoch University Average Universities TAFEs All
Notes :

t CO2-e/(staff + students) 2009 2010 1.06 na 0.77 0.81 0.46 0.66 0.64 0.83 0.71 0.65 2.51 0.66 0.97 1.10 2.58 0.83 0.74 2.30 0.99 1.46 1.00 2.77 2.77 1.46 1.11 1.15 0.70 2.53 0.93 0.57 1.41 na 1.81 0.75 1.38 na 1.99 na na na na na na 0.66 na 2.65 0.57 -0.25 1.09 na 0.90 0.95 2.16 0.49 1.14 1.09 na 2.98 na 1.16 na

t CO2-e/m2 GFA(a) 2009 2010 0.13 na na 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.14 0.09 0.15 0.08 0.16 0.11 0.13 0.21 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.24 0.18 0.19 0.12 0.18 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.11 0.17 0.10 0.15 na 0.19 na na na na na na 0.10 na 0.14 0.08 -0.05 0.08 na 0.11 0.13 0.21 0.11 0.10 0.12 na 0.20 na 0.13 na na na na 0.07 na 0.15 0.17 0.11 0.14

na na na na 0.57 na 1.66 na 2.29 0.70 1.50

(a ) Ins ti tuti ons tha t di d not provi de a fi gure for GFA ha ve been excl uded from a vera ge ca l cul a ti ons . (b) Emi s s i ons a re ca l cul a ted from fuel us a ge a nd do not i ncl ude ta xi s or hi re vehi cl es .

28

Table A 2.5: Mains water purchased per capita and per gross floor area by institution
State Nat. NSW Institution Aust. Catholic Uni Charles Sturt University Hunter Inst Illawarra Inst New England Inst North Coast Inst Northern Sydney Inst South West. Sydney Inst Sydney Inst Western Sydney Inst NT QLD SA VIC Charles Darwin Uni Brisbane North Inst Sunshine Coast Inst Flinders University of SA Uni of Adelaide Box Hill Institute of TAFE Chisholm Institute of TAFE Deakin Uni Gordon Inst Goulburn Ovens Inst Kangan Inst La Trobe Uni Monash Uni RMIT Uni Sunraysia Inst Swinburne Uni of Technology Uni of Ballarat Uni of Melbourne Victoria Uni WA Central Institute of Technology Edith Cowan Uni Murdoch University Average Universities TAFEs All Water per head (kL/(staff + students) 2009 2010 2.4 na 4.5 3.3 2.2 0.0 4.1 3.8 3.4 4.6 0.0 1.9 3.1 12.0 17.2 1.9 2.0 4.3 2.1 9.5 2.9 9.3 8.3 3.4 9.3 2.5 3.4 8.8 2.1 5.9 8.9 na 6.1 3.7 5.2 na 22.5 na na na na na na 3.3 na 51.9 1.9 2.7 10.7 na 2.1 2.8 4.0 1.1 6.5 7.0 na 7.2 na 7.1 na na na na 6.0 na 9.8 11.6 3.5 7.6 Water per floor area (kL/m2) 2009 2010 0.30 na na 0.27 0.30 0.00 0.61 0.45 0.49 0.55 0.00 0.26 0.48 0.87 1.08 0.25 0.33 0.39 0.27 0.85 0.31 0.80 0.55 0.45 1.03 0.39 na 0.51 0.34 0.76 0.70 na 0.57 0.51 0.57 na 2.12 na na na na na na 0.48 na 2.77 0.27 0.48 0.81 na 0.26 0.39 0.39 0.25 0.54 0.75 na 0.48 na 0.82 na na na na 0.77 na 0.90 0.91 0.49 0.76

Note: Ins ti tuti ons tha t di d not provi de wa ter da ta or GFA fi gures ha ve been excl uded from the a vera ge ca l cul a ti ons .

29

Table A 2.6: Waste to landfill per capita (staff + students) and per gross floor area by institution
State Nat. NSW Institution Aust. Catholic Uni Charles Sturt University Hunter Inst Illawarra Inst New England Inst North Coast Inst Northern Sydney Inst South West. Sydney Inst Sydney Inst Western Sydney Inst NT QLD SA VIC Charles Darwin Uni Brisbane North Inst Sunshine Coast Inst Flinders University of SA Uni of Adelaide Box Hill Institute of TAFE Chisholm Institute of TAFE Deakin Uni Gordon Inst Goulburn Ovens Inst Kangan Inst La Trobe Uni Monash Uni RMIT Uni Sunraysia Inst Swinburne Uni of Technology Uni of Ballarat Uni of Melbourne Victoria Uni WA Central Institute of Technology Edith Cowan Uni Murdoch University Average Universities TAFEs All Waste per head (kg/head) 2009 2010 41.0 na 29.2 86.0 0.0 132.4 64.8 68.9 112.1 0.0 143.2 0.4 117.7 55.6 32.5 30.4 79.2 40.6 96.3 38.5 59.1 70.3 76.5 64.7 42.2 43.2 20.7 24.2 0.0 12.2 12.6 na 50.5 68.6 57.9 na 234.0 na na na na na na 112.0 na 90.0 0.3 251 54.0 na 23.0 113.0 48.0 51.0 39.0 60.6 na 63.0 na 45.9 na na na na 19.0 na 343.0 110.9 74.4 92.7 Waste per floor area (kg/m2) 2009 2010 5.1 na na 7.1 0.0 13.3 9.6 8.2 16.3 0.0 7.8 0.1 18.0 4.0 2.0 4.1 13.4 3.7 12.8 3.4 6.3 6.0 5.1 8.5 4.7 6.8 na 1.4 0.0 1.6 1.0 na 4.4 9.5 6.0 na 22.0 na na na na na na 16.0 na 5.0 0.0 44.8 4.0 na 3.0 16.0 5.0 11.5 3.3 6.0 na 4.2 na 5.3 na na na na 2.5 na 32.0 8.6 10.3 9.2

Note: Ins ti tuti ons tha t di d not provi de wa s te da ta or GFA fi gures ha ve been excl uded from the a verage cal cul a ti ons .

30