Exploring Sustainability in Campus Design and Greenspace: Lessons from Leading Universities ENV421: Mina Chan Whitney Coupland Kristen Gagesch Catherine Mulé Alyse Runyan
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Exploring Sustainability in Campus Design and
Greenspace: Lessons from Leading Universities
ENV421:
Mina Chan Whitney Coupland
Kristen Gagesch Catherine Mulé
Alyse Runyan
1
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the following individuals who shared their
opinions and expertise through personal communication for our research.
Without their contributions, our knowledge of the campus design and greenspace
initiatives and processes at the University of Oregon and Seattle University would
be limited. We extend our thanks and gratitude to Roger Kerrigan, Christine
Thompson and Steve Mital from the University of Oregon and Lee Miley, Ciscoe
Morris, Janice Murphy, Tatiana Nealon, Karen Price and Kateri Schlessman who
gave valuable information on behalf of Seattle University. We would also like to
thank all those at the University of Toronto who have been very supportive in
helping us place our research into the St. George context.
We extend special thanks to our supervisors, Karen Ing and Doug
MacDonald, for their guidance, support and patience throughout the process of
researching and writing this senior research report in the 2008-2009 academic
year.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary…………………………………………………………….....6 1. Introduction…………………………………………………………..………..10
1.1 Rationale………………………………..…………………………....10 1.2 Defining Concepts………………………………………...………....13
1.2.1 Campus Design…………………………………………..13 1.2.2 Greenspace……………………………………………….15
1.3 Purpose……………………………………………………………….16 2. Methodology…………………………………………………………………..17
2.1 Choice of Leading Universities……………………………………...18 2.2 Primary Document Analysis…………………………………………20 2.3 Interviews…………………………………………………………….20
3. The University of Oregon……………………………………………………..22 3.1 Production of the University of Oregon’s Campus Plans……………23
3.2 Campus Design Initiatives…………………………………………...27 3.2.1 Space Conservation………………………………………29
3.2.1.1 Open Space Framework………………………...29 3.2.1.2 Space Use and Organization……………………29 3.2.1.3 Contribution to Sustainability…………….…….31 3.2.1.4 Challenges Space Conservation………………...32
3.2.2 Transportation……………………………………………33 3.2.2.1 Pedestrian Access………………………….……33 3.2.2.2 Bicycle Circulation……………………………..34 3.2.2.3 Parking Spaces……………………………….…39 3.2.2.4 Contribution to Sustainability……………….….40 3.2.2.5 Challenges in Transportation……………….…..40
3.2.3 Sustainable Development………………………………...40 3.3 Greenspace Initiatives………………………………………………..42 3.3.1 Planting Compatible and Adaptive Plants…………….....43
3.3.1.1 Contribution to Sustainability………………….44 3.3.1.2 Challenges and Resolutions……………………44
3.3.2 Integrated Pest Management……………….…………….45 3.3.2.1 Contribution to Sustainability……...…………45 3.3.2.2 Challenges and Resolutions…………………...45
3.3.3 Tree Protection……………………………………….…..46 3.3.3.1 Contribution to Sustainability…………….…..46 3.3.3.2 Challenges and Resolutions……………….….47
3.3.4 Resource Conservation……………………………….….48 3.3.4.1 Contribution to Sustainability…………….….49 3.3.4.2 Challenges and Resolutions……………….…49
3.3.5 Storm Water Management…………………………….....50
3
3.3.6 Conclusions………………………………………….…..51 3.4 Characteristics that Render the University of Oregon a Leader……..51 3.4.1 Holistic Approach/Working Together…………………..52 3.4.2 Preservation Embedded in the University’s Culture……52 3.4.3 Frequent Evaluations……………………………………53 3.4.4 Willingness to Try New Things…………………………55 3.4.5 Conclusion………………………………………………55 3.5 Challenges in Achieving Sustainability……………………………...56 3.5.1 Budget…………………………………………………..57 3.5.2 Decentralized Campus Administration…………………58 3.5.3 Communication, Marketing and Education…………….59 3.5.4 The Comprehensive Nature of Sustainability…………..61 3.5.5 Conclusion……………………………………………...61 4. Seattle University……………………………………………………………...63 4.1. The Facilities Master Plan: History and Process……………………63 4.1.1 The Process……………….…………………………….63
4.2. Campus Design Initiatives……………….………………………….64 4.2.1 Capacity for Growth…….……………………………..66
4.2.1.1 Contribution to Sustainability….…………….67 4.2.2 Building Programs……………………………………..68
4.2.2.1 LEED…………….…………………………..70 4.2.2.2 Contribution to Sustainability………….…….70
4.2.3 Landscape Maintenance on Campus………………..….71 4.2.3.1 Campus Edges….……………………………71 4.2.3.2 Contribution to Sustainability……………….72 4.2.3.3 Campus Open Spaces…………….………….72 4.2.3.4 Contribution to Sustainability……….………74
4.2.4 Access to the Campus………………………………….74 4.2.4.1 Campus Parking…………………………….75 4.2.4.2 Contribution to Sustainability………………76 4.2.4.3 Pedestrian Access to Campus………………77 4.2.4.4 Contribution to Sustainability………………77 4.2.4.5 Bicycling……………………………………77 4.2.4.6 Contribution to Sustainability………………78
4.2.5 Challenges and Resolutions……………………………79 4.3 Greenspace Initiatives………………………………………………..80
4.3.1 Campus Gardens……………………………………….80 4.3.1.1 Process of Implementing Gardens…………84 4.3.1.2 Challenges for Gardens…………………….86
4.3.2 Integrated Pest Management…………………………..86 4.3.2.1 IPM: The Impetus at Seattle University…...88 4.3.2.2 Challenges Encountered in Implementing
IPM….…………………………………….90 4.3.3 Water Conservation Strategies………………………...92
4.3.3.1 Water Conservation: The Impetus……......94
4
4.3.3.2 Challenges in Implementing Water Conservation……………………………...96
4.4 Characteristics that Render Seattle University a Leader……….….…97 4.5 Challenges to Achieving Sustainability..…………………………….99 5. The Current Situation at the University of Toronto………………………….101 5.1 Campus Design……………………………………………………..101 5.1.1 Past Approaches…………………………………………..101 5.1.2 Buildings………………………………………………….102 5.1.3 Present Outlook……………………….…………………..103 5.2 Greenspace………………………………………………………….105 5.2.1 Past Approaches…………………………………………..105
5.2.2 Open Spaces Master Plan…………………………………106 5.2.3 Present Outlook…………………………………………...109
5.3 Conclusion………………………………………………………….110 6. Lessons Learned……………………………………………………………...111 6.1 Existence of Planning Documents………………………………….112 6.2 An Active Campus Planning Office………………………………..114 6.3 Integrating Academics and Greenspace…….………………………115 6.4 Public Access to University Documents……………………………116 7. Conclusions…………………………………………………………………..117 8. Recommendations……………………………………………………………123 8.1 University of Toronto’s Sustainable Future in Campus Design……123
8.1.1 Analyze Current Campus Components………………124 8.1.2 Create a Campus Master Plan………………………..124 8.1.3 Incorporate the Needs of Campus Interest Groups…..125 8.1.4 Incorporate Sustainable Initiatives…………………...127 8.1.5 Create Regular Assessment Reports…………………128
8.2 University of Toronto’s Sustainable Future in Greenspace………...129 8.2.1 Implement New Ideas/Practices from the Bottom-
Up…………………………………………….………129 8.2.2 Empower Existing Actors……………………………129
9. References……………………………………………………………………132
5
List of Tables
Table 1: Profile of the University of Oregon Table 2: Campus Plan Development Timeline at the University of Oregon Table 3: Policies in the 1991 Bicycle Plan at the University of Oregon Table 4: Major gardens on Seattle University’s campus Table 5: Water conservation strategies used at Seattle University Table 6: Leading Processes that render an Academic Institution Sustainable in Campus Design and Greenspace
List of Figures
Figure 1: Designated open spaces at the University of Oregon Figure 2: Walking circles at the University of Oregon Figure 3: Bicycle routes in the University of Oregon and the City of Eugene Figure 4: Wave and hanging bicycling parking at the University of Oregon Figure 5: Aerial view of Seattle University Figure 6: Existing open space at Seattle University Figure 7: Open space capacity for growth at Seattle University Figure 8: A map of Seattle University’s current greenspaces Figure 9: Seattle University’s analysis of campus components
6
Executive Summary
Purpose:
The purpose of this research is to identify leading universities in campus
design and greenspace initiatives. We will analyze these initiatives, as well as the
associated challenges in order to bring recommendations to the University of
Toronto to render the St. George campus more sustainable
Defining Campus Design and Greenspace:
Campus design is the process of careful site planning. It involves the
strategic placement of buildings, streets, walkways, gathering social areas, and
greenspaces. Campus design is composed of both natural and artificial landscapes.
A successful campus design is a functional and efficient environment that meets
the diverse needs of an academic institution.
Greenspace is a significant component of campus design. It includes
landscaped natural areas composed of trees and vegetation. Greenspaces
contribute to ecological diversity and environmental integrity. This includes the
effective management of these spaces, in order to maintain biodiversity and visual
appeal.
7
Selection of Leading Universities:
Methodology:
This research was collected through using a qualitative approach. Primary
documents including Campus Plans and Assessments were analyzed extensively.
These documents were found on university websites. Semi-structured interviews
were conducted with relevant individuals at the University of Oregon, Seattle
University and the University of Toronto. These included Sustainability Director,
Campus Planning Office Associate, and Grounds Maintenance Employee to name
a few.
University of Oregon Seattle University
• Committed to sustainability for over 30 years
• Strives to achieve the triple bottom line— balancing economic success with environmental conservation, and social equity.
• Received a B on the College Sustainability Report Card 2008, with A’s in administration, student involvement, and investment priorities, among others.
• The National Wildlife Federation's 2008 National Report Card on Campus Sustainability recognized this school as a leader in green landscaping and grounds
• Sustainability assessment report (2007) in order to identify progress, change in the environmental impacts by the U of O over time (last 5 to 10 years), and benchmarks for internal and external comparison.
• Has a number of Campus Plans and a Campus Assessment
• Committed to sustainable campus design and greenspace since the late 1970’s.
• Strives to incorporate sustainable design approaches and harmonize the human built environment with natural systems.
• Received a B+ on the College Sustainability Report Card in 2008 and has a promising future in campus design and greenspace
• In 1989 the university was described as a ‘Backyard Wildlife Sanctuary” by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
• All projects will strive to meet LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)
• Located in the middle of a large urban centre, comparable to the University of Toronto’s St. George Campus
• Has a comprehensive Facilities Master Plan which outlines the university’s plans for the next 20 years.
8
Campus Design Initiatives:
Greenspace Initiatives:
Conclusions:
The main challenges experienced by our leading universities were:
• decentralized administration
• constrained borders in which to expand
• creating open communication and collaboration between different departments
• funding and budgetary restraints
The University of Oregon Seattle University
• Campus Plan
– Open spaces – Pedestrian-friendly – Bicycle-friendly – Parking – Space use and
organization
• Facilities Master Plan
– Open spaces – Pedestrian-friendly – Bicycle-friendly – Parking – Campus edges – Capacity for growth
The University of Oregon Seattle University
• Water conservation • Storm water management • Integrated pest management • Composting • Tree protection • Native/compatible plants
• Water conservation • Storm water management • Integrated pest management • Composting • Gardens • Commitment to developing
more greenspaces
9
Recommendations: 1. Analysis of current campus design 2. Create all-encompassing Campus Master Plan 3. Incorporation of all campus interest groups in the Campus Master Plan 4. Incorporate sustainable initiatives in the Campus Master Plan
5. Create regular assessment reports 6. Implement new ideas/practices from the bottom-up
7. Empower existing actors to implement new sustainable practices
10
1. Introduction
According to the Brundtland commission (1987), sustainable development
“meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs.” Sustainable development as defined by the
Brundtland commission is very vague, but it is this quality that is able to bring
many parties together in dialogue (Adams, 2006). This dialogue will lead to the
slow restructuring of human organizations in order to create worldwide
environmental and social change.
Universities are large economic engines that have huge impacts on the
regions they inhabit. As universities are areas of innovation and learning, the
campus is the ideal location to test out concepts of sustainable development on a
small scale. This report will focus its attention on how the university can move
towards sustainability by adopting practices within their campus design and
greenspace planning.
1.1 Rationale
This study is important because it seeks to demonstrate a realistic picture
of how universities can achieve effective campus design and greenspace
management. There are many reasons a university should consider implementing
these programs outside of the environmental benefits. While sustainability is
certainly a topic of interest in the environmental sector, it is equally important to
consider economic, psychological and social perspectives. Currently, more than
half of the world’s population lives in cities (United Nations, 2004), which are
11
characterized by high population densities and a multitude of amenities. The
development of these urban areas has altered and disturbed species and their
habitats, and contributed to a reduction in air and water quality (Tratalos, 2007).
Moreover, a deficiency in urban green space has further isolated human beings
from nature. This issue can be assessed on a smaller scale in studying the campus
design of post-secondary institutions. Well thought out campus design and
landscaping has the potential to incorporate greenspace which provides essential
ecosystem services as well as social, psychological and economic benefits.
Natural or manmade greenspace offers ecosystem services—air and water
purification, storm water interception, climate regulation, and biodiversity. Such
services are enhanced with increased availability and diversity of vegetated land
cover (Tratalos, 2007). Areas with smaller proportions of greenspace are
associated with higher rates of run-off and reduced carbon sequestration.
Furthermore, higher urban density is negatively correlated with biodiversity
potential, and positively associated with poor environmental performance in
regards to the ecosystem services that area is able to provide.
In his book “Ecodemia: Campus Environmental Stewardship’ Julian
Keniry (1995) discusses the response of American post-secondary institutions to a
growing environmental awareness. Chapter 2 ‘Landscaping and Grounds’
demonstrates how eco-friendly landscape initiatives can protect biodiversity.
Various practices have included “going native” and “integrated pest
management.” Going native refers to incorporating plants that are part of the
natural ecosystem. Native flora has a noticeable effect in increasing fauna.
12
Native animal species are attracted to food and cover provided by the native
vegetation to which they are accustomed (Keniry, 1995).
A primary environmental concern surrounding campus landscaping is the
use of fertilizers and pesticides. Although these substances have helped to
produce attractive gardens by getting rid of unwanted insects and weeds, they
have also reduced biodiversity. Grounds keepers at leading universities have
replaced such products with more natural methods of pest control (Keniry, 1995).
The psychological benefits of greenspace have been well documented
over the past quarter century. Fuller (2007) cites Ulrich’s (1984) study, which
concluded that patients whose hospital rooms overlooked trees recovered more
quickly and required less pain medication than those overlooking a brick wall.
Since this study, greenspace has been positively correlated with general health
and the degree of social interaction (Fuller, 2007). Meier (2007) takes a
sociological approach to examining the role of greenspace in developing a sense
of community. Urban greenspace promotes a sense of community that is rooted
in the place itself. It also provides a place for recreation and relaxation.
A campus design should provide a sense of place, purpose, order and
quality. Pleasing visual perceptions play a significant function in attracting
prestigious students and faculty. Individuals are more willing to invest in a post-
secondary institution with an aesthetically pleasing environment, providing
evidence of the institution’s longevity. Campuses may also act as tourist
attractions, and a means of profit to the institution (Griffith, 1994).
13
Each of the four perspectives: environmental, psychological, social, and
economic are in agreement with the fact that campus design and greenspace have
positive outcomes for the environment, individuals and society.
1.2 Defining Concepts
This research examines a complex and interrelated process. Campus
design is a broad concept that includes the built sphere, and greenspace.
However, greenspace will be dealt with as a separate issue because of the many
challenges that arise in the sustainable management of these areas.
1.2.1 Campus Design
Campus design as its own subject has not been well defined or explored
in-depth. It will be beneficial to discuss city design in a broader context and then
bring these concepts back to inform specifically on campus design. City planning
after World War II has focused primarily on the car and suburbanization.
Planners have let the market demand for different structures and zoning decide the
type of growth that was appropriate for their area. However, governmental
regulations have now brought issues such as environmental protection, social
welfare and economic development to the forefront (Barnett, 1996). This
involves an interest in how people actually use and experience public buildings
and communities. Jane Jacobs (1961) was an early advocate for people-centered
city planning. She believed a city street could not be successful without the
incorporation of mixed uses. When studying the urban environment it is
14
important to take a holistic perspective of the city and to embrace ways in which
land uses may complement each other (Colding, 2007). This can be directly
related to a university campus, which by necessity possesses residential,
institutional, health care and recreational spaces. Mixing land uses provides a
flow of people through these areas at different times and for different reasons.
These mixed uses provide vibrancy and positive economic effects for any vendors
in the area (Jacobs, 1961).
City design necessarily encompasses aspects of the public and the private
realm. The public realm is characterized by the streets and features of the city,
and the private realm by the buildings that edge and encompass these public
features. Both are equally important in creating an integrated whole. The
necessity for guidelines in shaping the district’s physical form and spatial
structure is necessary (Frey, 1999). This can be accomplished through increased
pedestrian maneuverability. Jacobs (1961) has outlined one way in which this can
be accomplished. Most cities today have very long blocks to accommodate
undisrupted car traffic. However, Jacobs advocated for the creation of many short
blocks so pedestrians have multiple options of movement and flow through areas.
This idea discourages the formation of isolated areas that do not benefit from a
diversity of public life.
A university campus is like a microcosm of a city. Therefore, its design
benefits from a review of how an effective city functions and the multiple spheres
of use. In this study, a broad view will be taken of campus design in order to
maintain the holistic viewpoint necessary to create vibrant communities.
15
Therefore, for the purposes of this study, campus design is the overall plan to
incorporate natural and artificial landscapes to achieve an environment that suits
the needs of an academic institution. This includes the careful site planning and
placement of new buildings, streets, walkways, social gathering areas, and green
spaces.
1.2.2 Greenspace
A city (or campus) that is able to incorporate high quality and generous
greenspace is an excellent indicator of good planning and management practices
(Jim, 2004). For this reason, it will be dealt with as a separate topic from campus
design. Greenspace can be broadly defined as any wild or landscaped green
areas, such as: small forests or wetlands, parks, playing fields, gardens,
landscaping surrounding buildings or lining streets, ponds or rivers, and even
hydro fields (Greenspace Scotland, 2008). However, as the focus of this study is
primarily situated in an urban context, areas such as forests, wetlands and other
large natural areas will not be discussed.
Urban areas are characterized by the close proximity of buildings and
roads, with little space to insert greenery (Jim, 2004). This is also true of urban
campuses, where many suffer from lack of space for classrooms and facilities,
which end up necessarily encroaching on greenspaces. Similar to other aspects of
urban design, large areas of greenspace, such as parks, playing fields and sizable
gardens, must serve the community it is attached to. It is necessary for
16
greenspace to be usable by a wide range of people throughout the day to maintain
the safety and desirability of the space (Jacobs, 1961).
From an earth science perspective, the basic philosophy of good land use
planning is to generally protect the environment through the use of sound
ecological principles (Keller, 2000). The nature of urban open spaces offers the
potential for less intensive management if created properly, which is important for
the continuation of biodiversity in urban areas (Gill et al., 2008). This involves
eliminating practices that disrupt the natural biodiversity of an area, such as
foreign ornamental planting and the use of pesticides. In addition, some areas
would benefit greatly from ecological land-use complementation. This refers to
the idea that land uses such as parks and residential areas are clustered together so
that they can act as an urban corridor within which biodiversity can find what it
needs to thrive (Colding, 2007).
In this study, sustainable greenspace will be defined as landscaped natural
areas which contribute to the ecological diversity and well being of the local
habitat on campus. This will include the effective management of these spaces, in
order to maintain a high level of biodiversity and visual appeal.
1.3 Purpose
This research is designed to bring back lessons and best practices in campus
design and greenspace to the University of Toronto from two leading universities.
The two leading universities that were chosen are the University of Oregon and
Seattle University. The aim of this report will be to inform those involved with
17
campus planning and green space design of future possible directions. These
directions if undertaken would transform the University of Toronto into a leader
in green space and campus sustainability. While our targeted audience will be the
University of Toronto, the lessons described and outlined in this report will be
accessible to other universities interested in creating a sustainable campus. We
will be exploring the University of Oregon and Seattle University in order to
answer the following research questions:
• What aspects of green space and campus design need to be undertaken by
an institution of higher education to render it a leader in sustainability
• What are the processes in which a leading institution achieves
sustainability in green space and campus design
• What are the barriers preventing these achievements
2. Methodology
This research employed a qualitative approach to data. This was
necessary as qualitative data is most suitable to answering the research questions
that have been posed. This includes the University of Oregon’s and Seattle
University’s process of becoming a leader in greenspace and campus design, its
obstacles while doing so, and its opportunities for improvement. The University
of Toronto was also examined to allow us to make accurate and relevant
18
recommendations. A mixture of primary document analysis and semi-structured
interviews were conducted for all three universities.
2.1 Choice of Leading Universities
In order to inform the University of Toronto on sustainable campus design
and greenspace practices, we chose to examine two universities that are leaders in
these fields to lead by example. We initially found these leaders by browsing
college sustainability report cards online. As campus design is a relatively
unexplored area of campus management, college report cards do not have a
category for it. In order to locate leading schools, we focused on greenspace. The
National Wildlife Federation’s National Report Card on sustainability in higher
education showcased both the University of Oregon and Seattle University in
their section on ‘green landscaping and grounds’ (National Wildlife Federation,
2008). In order to verify the environmental outlook of these schools, we
compared their grades on the College Sustainability Report Card of 2008. Seattle
University scored a B+ and the University of Oregon a B and both have been
designated a ‘campus sustainability leader’ by the report card (Sustainable
Endowments Institute, 2008).
The University of Oregon has been committed to sustainability for over
thirty years, and strives to achieve “the triple bottom line”— balancing economic
success with environmental conservation, and social equity. The university has a
multitude of comprehensive websites where primary and secondary documents
can be found. This allowed us the means to easily find documents regarding its
19
sustainability initiatives to identify the university as a leading competitor in both
campus design and greenspace (sustainability.uoregon.edu, 2008).
In 2007, the University of Oregon put forth its own sustainability
assessment report. With respect to landscape, the university has incorporated
native plants, adopted an Integrated Pest Management System in 1994, and
increased the area of permeable surfaces, including green roofs. Furthermore,
Policy 2 of the 2005 Campus Plan lays out the Open Space Framework, which
includes the preservation and design of paths, quads, promenades, and greens. It
was the Campus Plan that led us to include the University of Oregon in our study.
As even though the university is situated in a smaller city, the ideas present in the
plan are innovative and can be extrapolated to any area.
A brief look at Seattle University’s website revealed the ease with which
information can be accessed. The commitment this university has to both
greenspace and campus design issues also became apparent. The university has
demonstrated efforts with regards to sustainable campus design and greenspace
since the late 1970s. In 1979, Seattle University implemented a comprehensive
Integrated Pest Management Program (IPM). By 1989, the university was
described as a ‘Backyard Wildlife Sanctuary” by the Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife. Since then, Seattle University has received a
number of awards acknowledging their environmental excellence (Seattle
University Sustainability Office, 2008). Their 2006-2026 Facilities Master Plan
also intends to incorporate sustainable design approaches to harmonize the human
20
built environment with natural systems (Seattle University Sustainability Office,
2008).
2.2 Primary Document Analysis
Primary documents were obtained through university websites and
interview respondents from all three universities: the University of Oregon,
Seattle University, and the University of Toronto. We requested access to
documents in the initial e-mail sent out to contacts, as well as during the
interviews. The documents found online were discovered using basic searches for
campus design and greenspace. The research group analyzed these documents
through careful reading, while picking out their major themes and initiatives.
These documents were helpful in structuring our interviews with respondents, as
they allowed us to outline the key initiatives or unique approaches that each
university possessed in campus design and greenspace. These approaches were
then explored in greater depth to ascertain the challenges and perspectives of the
people implementing these initiatives.
2.3 Interviews
Semi-structured interviews were an important research instrument used to
determine the views and experiences of key actors within the three universities
that were examined. Semi-structured interviews were employed to allow for
flexibility within the interview. The flexibility of following up unanticipated
responses allowed researchers to further their study and understanding of the
21
subject. Additionally, the interviews allowed for issues addressed in the primary
documents to be explored in more detail.
Initial contact lists were made from key names that appeared on the
universities’ websites in relation to campus design and greenspace. Respondents
were contacted via a standardized e-mail. This was followed by an approximately
30 minute telephone interview, and further e-mails if necessary. Additional
contacts were established through recommendations from respondents. Six
respondents from Seattle University, three from the University of Oregon and two
from the University of Toronto were interviewed. The majority of respondents
are currently working in their respective universities; some contacts were made
with former employees of the university. This allowed us to gain a historical
perspective of an initiative’s inception, and to obtain the experiences and opinions
of key people that were working at the university during that time.
22
3. The University of Oregon
Table 1: Profile of the University of Oregon
Description
Location
• The University of Oregon is located in Eugene, a city of 140,000
Climate
• Location: Within the Marine west coast climate zone
• Temperatures: Mild year round, with warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters. The average annual temperature is 11.2°C
• Seasonal Characteristics: Spring and fall are also moist seasons, with light rain falling for long periods of time
• Precipitation: The annual rainfall is 43 inches. There is some snow in the winter months but it rarely accumulates
Land Size
• The University of Oregon is 295 acres, with a total of 118 buildings.
• -Total maintenance area: 230 acres -Building footprint: 36.5 acres -Permanent water bodies: 2.5 acres -Parking lots and driveways: 23 acres -Sidewalks, paths, plazas: 12 acres -Total of all turf, flower beds, moderate and low
development areas: 156 acres
• Each groundskeeper is responsible for an average of 16.4 acres, but this varies greatly
Number of
Students
• Total = 20,376
• Undergraduates = 16,681 -Full-time = 16,870
-Part-time = 3,506
• Graduates = 3,695
Awards Received
• The National Wildlife Federation (2008) has recognized the University of Oregon as a leader in green landscaping
• They received a case study award for excellence in campus design from the Association of University Architects (1999)
Sustainability
Report Card
• A leader in green landscaping and grounds with plans for further improvements
23
Source: uoregon.edu/about (2009), Sustainability Report Card (2008), The Weather Network (2009).
3.1 Production of the University of Oregon’s Campus Plans
The University of Oregon has a long history in sustainable campus
planning. The related initiatives are presented chronologically to reflect the
historical progression up to the most recent Campus Plan, which was written in
the year 2005 (Table 2). Ellis Lawrence Dean, the founder of the School of
Architecture and Fine Arts, developed the University of Oregon’s first campus
plan, the “Block Plan”, in 1914. In 1962, urban designer Lawrence Lackey
updated the plan to a fixed-image. This plan mapped out the location of future
buildings. However, it was later viewed as inadequate, as the university
considered a static plan could not anticipate the nature and magnitude of future
changes. This realization in 1973 prompted the University of Oregon to hire
Christopher Alexander, architect and head of the Center for Environmental
Structures at the University of California, Berkeley (Campus Plan, 2005; Bryant,
1991). Alexander and his colleagues experimented with a new approach to
campus planning, which they documented in “The Oregon Experiment” (Campus
Plan, 2005; Bryant, 1991). The six principles of this experiment have guided
subsequent plans at the University of Oregon. The principles are:
1. Organic Order: Campus design emerges through a process, not from a
map
2. Incremental Growth: Development occurs in large and small pieces
24
3. Patterns: Shared design statements guide the planning process
4. Diagnosis: Assessing existing conditions inform ongoing improvements
5. Participation: User involvement must prevail throughout the planning
process
6. Coordination: Working together benefits the campus as a whole
(Campus Plan, 2005)
These principles enabled the university to incorporate more sustainability
measures into its campus design. Campus development was treated as a slow
organic process that adhered to guiding policies and patterns. Eventual users of
the completed projects play an integral role in the design process. A central role
in this process is played by the Campus Planning Committee (CPC), which was
established in 1969 (CPC website). The CPC is composed of elected members of
the faculty, staff, and student body, as well as ex officio members of the staff and
faculty (CPC website). From 1969 onwards, all campus planning documents and
development projects involved the CPC and the guidance of their selected
architect (CPC website). Additionally, members of the university community are
consulted throughout the design of building or landscaping projects, as well as the
creation of campus planning policies. This high level of coordination among
users helps foster open dialogue and innovation, which is a prerequisite to the
adoption of novel sustainable practices.
The principles of “The Oregon Experiment” and the traditions of
Lawrence’s “Block Plan” were systematically unified in the 1991 Long Range
Campus Development Plan (LRCDP) (Campus Plan website). The first plan to
develop from this was the Bicycle Plan in 1991. The 1991 LRCDP contained
25
policies addressing sustainable development and campus trees. These two aspects
were later developed into more specific and comprehensive plans (Table 2).
The 2005 Campus Plan is the most recent and was developed because the
University of Oregon believed that the 1991 LRCDP was due for an update
(Campus Plan website). The process involved in updating the campus plan is as
follows:
1. In the summer of 2004, key campus and community members defined the
scope of the update and the participatory process.
2. The first draft was developed and reviewed by an Advisory group of
faculty, staff, and students, the CPC, Facilities & Services, and others.
3. Over 20 events and meetings were held, including a public hearing.
4. Following the public hearing, the CPC completed its review of the updated
Plan, taking into consideration all input provided by interested parties.
5. The university president approved the plan on May 31, 2005.
6. The City of Eugene affirmed it was consistent with the Metropolitan Area
General Plan on July 12, 2005.
(Campus Plan website)
To determine the University of Oregon’s development capacity and to
examine the ongoing effectiveness of the Campus Plan, the 2005 document
mandated that a Biennial Capacity Plan (BCP) be completed every two years.
The CPC reviews the findings of the BCP to ensure there are enough sites for
26
building projects proposed for the next biennium, and subsequent biennia. The
CPC must examine the BCP while also making certain that all the policies and
patterns of the Campus Plan are met (BCP website). If there is not enough
capacity or appropriately located sites for proposed projects, the CPC would
consider amending the Campus Plan (Campus Plan, 2005).
Table 2: Campus Plan Development Timeline and Key Actors Involved
Date
Document developed Key actor(s)
1914, (revised in 1923, 1932)
Block Plan
Ellis Lawrence
1962
New campus plan, which was a fixed-image map
Lawrence Lackey
1973-1975
Writing of the book "The
Oregon Experiment"
Christopher Alexander (head of Centre for Environmental Structure)
1974
New campus plan adopted the Oregon Experiment as its underlying principles
Campus Planning Committee
1981
Bicycle Plan, which encourages bike-use on campus. However, the plan was not fully implemented
Campus Planning Committee
1991
Long Range Campus
Development Plan (LRCDP)
Campus Planning Committee
1991
Bicycle Plan, an update of the 1981 plan
Campus Planning Committee
27
1998-2000
Sustainable Development
Plan, which guides the implementation of sustainable practices on campus
Campus Planning Committee
2001
Campus Tree Plan, which guides the future care of trees on campus
Campus Planning Committee
2004-2005
2005 Campus Plan, an update of the LRCDP to guide the next 10 years of campus development
Campus Planning Committee
2008
Proposed amendments to the 2005 Campus Plan
Campus Planning Committee
Sources: Campus Plan website, Campus Plan (2005), LRCDP (1991), DPIT subcommittee (2005).
3.2 Campus Design Initiatives
The University of Oregon strives towards achieving a unified and
successful campus design. As such, the landscape and open spaces are viewed as
an integral part of the campus. The University of Oregon is aware of the need to
expand and improve its facilities, but underscores long-rage planning and the
significance of sustainability and continuity in development decisions over time
(Campus Plan, 2005).
The University of Oregon’s 2005 Campus Plan is “a framework of
patterns and policies defining the qualities inherent to a functional, beautiful
campus and setting forth how those qualities will be preserved and expanded with
new construction” (Campus Plan website). A pattern is defined as: “any general
28
planning principle, which states a clear problem that may occur repeatedly in the
environment, states the range of contexts in which this problem will occur, and
gives the general features required by all buildings or plans which will solve this
problem" (FAQ about Pattern Language website). These patterns function
together to create a cohesive whole that is built on a pattern language. The pattern
language provides a non-technical vocabulary of design principles to allow the
buildings’ users to communicate effectively with the planners and designers of
those buildings (FAQ about Pattern Language website). A policy is defined as an
expression of the university’s requirements for its physical development (Campus
Plan, 2005). Within the 2005 Campus Plan, the following three themes are
relevant to sustainable campus design:
• Space Conservation
o Policy 2: Open Space Framework o Policy 4: Space Use and Organization
• Transportation
o Policy 9: Transportation
• Sustainability
o Policy 10: Sustainable Development
29
3.2.1 Space Conservation
The University of Oregon has expressed the importance of conserving
both land and resources through a number of policies and initiatives. The “Open
Space” and “Space Use and Organization” policies in the Campus Plan (2005)
have been developed to promote conservation of land that has not yet been built
upon.
3.2.1.1 Open Space Framework
The Campus Plan’s “Open Space Framework” expresses the need to
identify, preserve, and expand open spaces. Open spaces include paths,
quadrangles, greens, and promenades. All construction projects must follow this
policy (Campus Plan, 2005). Furthermore, no development is allowed to take
place in designated greenspace areas (refer to Figure 1).
3.2.1.2 Space Use and Organization
The “Space Use Framework” strives for flexible and compatible use of
space, such as outdoor classrooms and social gathering spaces. Walking circles
(Figure 2) are a large component of this policy. Walking circles represent the
distance that a student can travel within a 10-minute class break. It assumes 7 ½
minutes of walking at a speed of 3 miles per hour (Campus Plan, 2005). The
walking circles allow the campus’ instructional core to be traveled within the 10
minutes allowed between class changes.
30
Figure 1: Designated Open Spaces at the University of Oregon, given letters from a to ii. Source: Campus Plan, 2005.
The walking circles aim for flexible and compatible use by evaluating
various spaces and facilitates on campus, to determine which should be located
within close proximity. This is based on the ability of any area to share its
facilities and resources. It should also encourage the opportunity for establishing
or enhancing interactions among related disciplines and activities. Outdoor
classrooms are integrated into spaces to provide meeting space, band or sport
practice areas, and an outdoor learning experience (Campus Plan, 2005).
31
Figure 2: Walking circles representing the areas accessible from each classroom building within a 7 1/2 minute walk.
Source: Campus Plan, 2005
3.2.1.3 Contribution to sustainability
The Open Space Framework’s purpose is to conserve “Designated
Open Spaces” (DOS), which are defined as significant open spaces on campus
viewed as fundamental and historic spaces. No development shall occur in these
Designated Open Spaces as they serve several purposes. This includes offering
public spaces for recreational activities and meetings, which provide a sense of
community. DOS are also important in achieving visually pleasing and useful
design (walkways lined with gardens, benches, and other seating areas). This
plan also recognizes the safety concerns of faculty, staff, and students, as
demonstrated by the importance of proper lighting of pathways at night (Campus
Plan, 2005).
32
3.2.1.4 Challenges in Space Conservation
According to Christine Thompson from the Campus Planning and Real
Estate office, the role of open space is to say “here is where you can’t build.”
These spaces are integrated and connected to one another and serve important
purposes. These include building a sense of community, and contributing to
environmental integrity. These campus plan initiatives help to produce a
functional, efficient, and aesthetically pleasing campus.
Christine Thompson asserts that the University of Oregon will always feel
pressure to expand because every department feels that they are important and
have a need to grow. In order to acquire new space, proposals are written from
academic departments explaining their needs, which are then prioritized by the
administration. The Biennial Capacity Plan (BCP), as mandated in the 2005
Campus Plan, is used to determine campus development capacity and
effectiveness of the current plan. The BCP serves the following purposes:
• identification of a program-specific site or alternative sites for each
building project proposed for the first-biennium funding
• identification of sufficient siting opportunities to accommodate proposed
developments for building projects or identified as needed by a sponsoring
unit
• a calculation of the speculative maximum build-out of the campus
including all identified projects and buildings representing the maximum
density (Biennial Capacity Plan, 2006-2007)
33
To date, the BCP has proven to be successful as the policy has not been violated.
This demonstrates that campus open spaces are effectively protected by the BCP.
3.2.2 Transportation
Three aspects of transportation are relevant to campus design:
• Pedestrian access
• Bicycle circulation
• Parking spaces
3.2.2.1 Pedestrian Access
The University of Oregon strives to make its campus pedestrian and
bicycle-friendly (Campus Plan, 2005). The central part of campus is mainly a
pedestrian and bicycle zone, where automobiles are strongly discouraged
(Campus Plan, 2005). In the late 1970s, student protestors barricaded 13th
Avenue demanding the street be made an auto-free zone (U of O Sustainability
Initiatives Tour). Shortly afterwards, most of the central campus and a part of
13th Avenue were designated as auto-free, with exceptions made for emergency
and service vehicles (U of O Sustainability Initiatives Tour). In 2004, students in
the Landscape Architecture design-build classes started several sustainability
projects on campus, including the Heart of Campus project (U of O Sustainability
Initiatives Tour). Its purpose was the complete redesign of the 13th Avenue and
University Street intersection to commemorate the University of Oregon’s 125th
34
Anniversary (UO Libraries website). This initiative resulted in a pedestrian
friendly plaza in the centre of the campus (U of O Sustainability Initiatives Tour).
3.2.2.2 Bicycle Circulation
In addition to supporting pedestrians, the University of Oregon’s campus
is designed to support bicyclists, while discouraging drivers. The university
established the Long Range Transportation Plan for 1973-1976, which established
institutional transportation policies and goals (BIUC, 1991). This plan ascertains
that bicycles are an important element of campus transportation, and that they
take precedence over motor vehicles for movement priority, yet yield precedence
to pedestrians (BIUC, 1991). The plan also encourages the use of bicycles as an
alternative to automobiles to reduce traffic on arterial and residential streets.
Furthermore, Policy 4 of the 2005 Campus Plan specifically states the need to
"provide an expanded bicycle path network through the local transport area to aid
access from peripheral areas to campus."
The Bicycle Plan of 1981 was developed by the Campus Planning
Committee and approved by the President, but was never fully implemented due
to a lack of funding (BIUC, 1991). This plan laid the foundation for the 1991
Bicycle Plan, which is still being implemented to this day (BIUC, 1991). The
1991 Bicycle Plan is an elaboration on the Transportation policy found in the
Campus Plan. The Bicycle Plan established a framework of policies to encourage
bicycle use and to make the campus as safe as possible for pedestrians, cyclists,
and motorists (BIUC, 1991).
35
The University of Oregon campus is located in the city of Eugene, which
has one of the best bicycle route systems in the United States (BIUC, 1991).
However, in 1991, some of the core routes of Eugene’s system end at the campus
boundaries, which left significant gaps for cyclists traveling through the campus
to other destinations (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Bicycle routes in the University of Oregon and the City of Eugene in August 1991 and proposed for the future. Source: BIUC, 1991
36
The Bicycle Improvements User Committee (BIUC) was established to identify
existing and potential problems regarding bicycling on campus and to devise
policies to address these problems. Its problems and policies related to campus
design are outlined in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Policies in the 1991 Bicycle Plan that address problems related to bicycling and campus design.
Problems Policies
Many of the city’s core bicycle routes end at campus boundaries, leaving significant gaps for cyclists traveling through campus to other destinations
• University bicycle circulation network should connect to city-wide bicycle system
Frequent occurrence of collisions and near-misses between pedestrians and bicycles
• Cyclists must dismount in the main part of campus
• Provide adequate signage for enforcing dismount zones
Poorly designed or constructed bikeways are dangerous and inconvenient, and discourage use of bicycles
• Certain heavily traveled bicycle routes should be separated from vehicular traffic
• Routes shared with vehicles are appropriate in less traveled areas
• Certain other routes are shared with pedestrians
• Provide clear signage directing the cyclists to yield to pedestrians
• Design the intersections of bicycle and pedestrian paths to maximize safety
If not properly located, bicycle parking may go unused or may encourage people to ride in hazardous places and ways
• Bicycle parking should be located beside or near a bike route
• Bicycle parking not accessible by bike route should be relocated, although users of nearby buildings should be consulted before removal
37
Many people find parked bicycles esthetically objectionable
• Concentrate bicycle parking in acceptable areas rather than dispersing it to every building entrance
• Group racks of similar type and place to reinforce university’s site planning policies
• Include site improvements such as planting and trash receptacles wherever bicycle parking is built
Building projects increase bicycle parking demand, yet often eliminate covered and open bicycle parking
• New building projects should include a suitable amount of covered and open bicycle parking
• Generally, 1% of construction budgets should be devoted to bicycle parking
• About 1/3 of parking should be protected from rain
• Integrate design of covered parking into building’s design, where appropriate
Winter weather is hard for bicycles
• Provide enough covered bicycle parking to discourage use of offices and labs as bicycle parking lots
• Install bicycle lockers to meet demand, where appropriate
Source: BIUC, 1991
Although the 1991 Bicycle Plan has not been updated, the University of
Oregon continues to successfully implement its policies (BRW Inc., 1996). The
university complemented this plan with the Bike Management Program, created
in 2002 (U of O BMP, 2002). This program consists of an annual monitoring of
bicycle parking, which will identify any required changes in the type and location
of new bike parking. Additional parking may be required if there is an increase in
38
enrolment or a new/expanded building project. The University of Oregon has a
variety of bicycle parking designs, including wave and hanging bicycle parking
(Figure 4). The wave design allows for easy parking and retrieval, while the
hanging design conserves more space. Both types of bicycle parking designs can
be covered, which protects the bicycles from precipitation.
(a)
Figure 4: (a) Wave and (b) hanging bicycling parking at the University of Oregon Source: U of O BMP, 2002
(b)
39
3.2.2.3 Parking Spaces
In addition to bicycle parking spaces, automobile parking spaces are a
necessary part of a sustainable campus design. Although most students, staff and
faculty at the University of Oregon do not drive to school, the administration
received complaints from the university community about the lack of parking
spaces in the 1990s (BRW Inc., 1996). In 1995, a consultant's survey confirmed
that there was a shortage of parking spaces on campus (BRW Inc., 1996).
Although the university has done very well in promoting the use of automobile
alternatives, the transportation system still required additional improvements
(BRW Inc, 1996). Thus in 1995, the University of Oregon hired a consultant to
analyze the campus transportation system and present leading transportation
practices from other universities (BRW Inc., 1996). A Transportation Review
Working Group, comprised of representatives from the university community,
drafted recommendations based on the consultant’s report (TRWG, 1996).
Comments to the draft were sought and were posted publicly on the
Transportation Systems Review’s website (TSR website, 1996). However, this
website has not been updated since 1996.
In the 2005 Campus Plan’s Transportation policy, the University of
Oregon has promised to continue to meet the need for affordable automobile
parking. They will also continue to encourage alternative forms of transportation,
which will decrease parking demand (Campus Plan, 2005).
40
3.2.2.4 Contribution to Sustainability
The University of Oregon is very committed to designing a pedestrian and
bicycle-friendly campus and discouraging automobile use. This restricts noise,
and minimizes congestion, and pollution (BIUC, 1991). The decrease in noise
and air pollution, as well as greenhouse gas emissions, makes the University of
Oregon a healthier and more sustainable environment.
3.2.2.5 Challenges in Transportation
In campus design, the main challenges with transportation are concerned
with bicycling and parking. Although approved in 1981, the Bicycle Plan was not
implemented until ten years later due to a lack of funding (BIUC, 1991). There
was a shortage of automobile parking on the University of Oregon campus in the
1990s, and it remains a struggle to balance meeting the demand for parking and
decreasing the demand by promoting alternative modes of transportation (TRWG,
1996). It is unclear whether this problem has been resolved because no further
documentation has been found relating to this issue. However, the 2005 Campus
Plan does acknowledge the importance of both parking spaces and car alternatives
(Campus Plan, 2005).
3.2.3 Sustainable Development
The “Sustainable Development” policy in the Campus Plan is further
refined in a separate document, the Sustainable Development Plan (SDP). The
purpose of the SDP is to ensure that the university will “develop, redevelop, and
41
remodel in ways that incorporate sustainable design principles” (DPIT
subcommittee, 2005). All new construction projects over 10,000 square feet at
the University of Oregon are required to comply with the State Energy Efficiency
Design (SEED) program, and shall be rated according to the current LEED Green
Building Rating System (DPIT subcommittee, 2005).
The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green
Building Rating System promotes the use of sustainable green building and
development practices (U.S. Green Building Control). It is a third-party
certification program and is the accepted benchmark in the blueprint, creation and
function of green buildings. Buildings can qualify for four levels of LEED
certification: Certified, Silver, Gold and Platinum. The University of Oregon
states that all construction projects shall achieve the equivalence of a minimum
level of LEED certification, and strive for a higher level, unless there is a
convincing reason why this is not possible (DPIT subcommittee, 2005). The
LEED Rating System covers many, but not all, of the concepts addressed in the
SDP (DPIT subcommittee, 2005).
All construction projects must also meet the State of Oregon’s Sustainable
Facilities Standards and Guidelines, which state:
• new construction must meet a LEED Silver rating
• alterations and renovations must meet a LEED Certified rating
• a Sustainability Plan must be developed at the start of each project
(DPIT subcommittee, 2005).
42
The University of Oregon’s commitment to LEED demonstrates its belief that
effective sustainable development in the campus planning and design process
must begin when the project is initially envisioned.
3.3 Greenspace Initiatives
The University of Oregon has been selected as a leader in greenspace due
to its extensive sustainability initiatives. The National Wildlife Federation's
2008 National Report Card on Campus Sustainability recognized this school as a
leader in green landscaping and grounds with plans for further improvements
(Sustainability Report Card, 2008). Furthermore, landscape coordinator Roger
Kerrigan has stated that campus planning takes greenspace very seriously—they
preserve greenspaces by not building on green areas. The greenspace initiatives
that will be explored in this section are:
• Planting compatible and adaptive plants
• Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
• Tree Protection
• Resource Conservation
• Storm Water Management
Each interviewee at the University of Oregon made mention of these four
initiatives, which further highlights the importance of these initiatives to the
university’s sustainability goals.
43
3.3.1 Planting Compatible and Adaptive Plants
The sustainable landscape at the University of Oregon is composed of
flora that is native to the region. These plants are well adapted to the natural state
of the ecosystem, are resistant to pests and invasive species, and require less
maintenance than foreign plants. Integrating native plants and vegetation has
meant using less water, fertilizer, and pesticides in maintenance practices on
campus.
Exterior team supervisor and landscape coordinator, Roger Kerrigan,
affirms that the University of Oregon has had a number of native species on
campus from the time of its establishment (pers. comm., 2009). In terms of trees,
the oldest species include Oregon White Oaks, Western White Cedars, and
Douglas Firs. These are represented on the older parts of the campus grounds.
Within the last decade, the University of Oregon has demonstrated an increased
effort towards incorporating native and adaptive flora that have the ability to
tolerate the natural conditions of the surroundings, and show resistance to pests
and disease.
Ten years ago, the landscape at the university was composed of mud
puddles and scraggily grass. The site today demonstrates the benefits of
incorporating well-adapted and compatible plants to create a more sustainable and
attractive campus (Kerrigan, pers. comm., 2009). The current goal is to use as
many native plants as possible, and to replace the flora that requires a great deal
of maintenance. A notable example of native plants on campus is located at the
Glen Starlin Courtyard of the Museum of Natural and Cultural History (U of O
Sustainability Initiatives Tour, 2008). Native undergrowth that is inhabited by
44
birds and other small animals has been planted deliberately to create a bird
corridor that extends from the Millrace to the Pioneer Cemetery.
3.3.1.1 Contribution to Sustainability
The University of Oregon strives to grow native plants, which require less
water, maintenance, and resources, and work within the natural balance of the
ecosystem. Native plantings also contribute valuable ecosystem services, such as
decreasing soil erosion and providing food and shelter for the numerous birds and
other animals on campus (U of O Exterior Team, 2002). In addition, native plants
provide an aesthetically pleasing landscape to be enjoyed by faculty, staff, and
students. These plantings demonstrate how native plants can be valuable
additions to the outdoor learning experience and enhance the sense of community
at the university.
3.3.1.2 Challenges and Resolutions
The types of flowers and vegetation that were planted several years ago
were not chosen with careful thought regarding its impact on the campus
ecosystem. Some of the existing plant materials require substantial pesticides to
remain healthy, and visually pleasing. Trying to reduce the number of these
plants can be challenging. Currently, they are being eliminated and replaced with
plants that are advantageous to the area. Roses are an example of a flower that
requires a number of chemical treatments, but cannot be eliminated for political
reasons. This issue will be further explained within the discussion of Integrated
Pest Management.
45
3.3.2 Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
Not unlike planting native and compatible species, Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) is used to limit the use of chemicals in maintaining
greenspace. IPM is a form of pest-control that uses non-chemical pesticides to
control insect infestation. This initiative was authorized by the Oregon State
Legislature in 1991. Nevertheless, according to Kerrigan, the university
implemented IPM prior to the state’s mandate and has gone beyond the standard
requirements. The University of Oregon was in favour of this program
approximately 15 to 20 years ago when the concept itself was quite new.
Although, it was not officially adopted until February 1994.
3.3.2.1 Contribution to Sustainability
IPM is an important sustainability initiative as pesticides are harmful to
humans, animals, and the environment. The University of Oregon is also
incorporating weed-eaters and hoes, which are used for the mechanical removal of
unwanted or harmful plants.
3.3.2.2 Challenges and Resolutions
As mentioned previously, roses are the only plants on campus that require
insecticide. It is a struggle to eliminate the use of pesticides, while at the same
time maintaining healthy and visually appealing roses. Consequently, these
flowers are sprayed three times yearly with a regular chemical fertilizer.
Recently, this has been replaced with an organic-based product. Kerrigan states
46
that removing roses from the campus in order to minimize the application of such
chemicals is not possible, as the removal of the flower would become a political
issue. Nevertheless, the goal at the University of Oregon is to reduce the number
of plants that require chemicals and strive to replace the ones that do. This is an
essential step in maintaining a healthy ecosystem.
3.3.3 Tree Protection
The physical landscape at the University of Oregon represents a central
component of the school’s mission, which is to provide a sense of place, purpose,
order and quality. The tree canopy is viewed as a defining feature of the campus
and an integral part of the ecosystem. Therefore, to ensure that trees are protected
in construction or expansion projects, the Campus Tree Plan (October 2001) was
developed.
3.3.3.1 Contribution to Sustainability
The goals stated in the plan are as follows:
• Ensure the protection and management of a healthy canopy of trees
• Maintain a balance of sunny and shady outdoor spaces
• Enhance the relationship of the tree canopy to the built environment
• Use the canopy of trees to help unify the campus and give a sense of
cohesiveness
• Acknowledge the important environmental role of trees
47
• Connect the campus trees to the university’s educational mission
• Develop a plan that is adaptable and responsive to change but also
preserves the campus’s historic character
• Maintain a consistent approach
(Campus Tree Plan, 2001)
At the University of Oregon, trees have aesthetic, environmental, educational,
historic, and psychological importance. Trees make up a significant portion of
greenspace and contribute to the overall “arboretum” campus design. Currently,
14% of trees on campus are native to the region (Campus Tree Plan, 2001).
3.3.3.2 Challenges and Resolutions
At the University of Oregon, the increasing need for development has
begun to jeopardize the desired campus density. Although saving campus trees is
a major priority, it is not always possible. Consequently, it is necessary to have a
policy in place not only to preserve trees, but to define how they will be replaced
if removal cannot be prevented. Moreover, as the tree canopy continues to
mature, proactive measures are needed to ensure the canopy remains healthy and
diverse. Therefore, the Campus Tree Plan has been designed to ensure
preservation, and proper tree siting, selection, and maintenance.
48
3.3.4 Resource Conservation
Roger Kerrigan discussed a number of initiatives that are being undertaken
by the university to conserve resources and minimize atmospheric pollutants.
These include:
• Composting
• Water conservation
• Decrease in fuel use
The University of Oregon currently composts 100% of their yard waste.
Organic materials such as leaves, grass clipping, and dead plants are used to
create soil. This is stored on site until it is ready for use in gardening. This
recycling process provides soil to be put back out on the plant beds, thereby
saving money and resources. The University of Oregon recently increased its
composting efforts by installing an industrial composting “earth tub” in 2005 (U
of O Sustainability Initiatives Tour, 2008). The earth tub converts pre-consumer
food wastes from on campus dining services into rich compost for the Urban
Farm, a teaching and research facility.
In terms of water conservation, the university is striving to use plants that
tolerate dry conditions. They have also installed Maxicom—a sprinkler system
that regulates the amount of water that is put out in the area based on
evapotranspiration. This system checks weather data prior to turning on. If it has
previously rained or is about to rain, the system registers this information and
does not turn on, thereby saving an extremely large amount of water. Currently,
49
30-40% of the campus irrigation system is controlled by Maxicom. Studies have
demonstrated that this system decreases water use by 30-70%. Another water-
saving system is the rainwater catchment system from the University of Oregon’s
Outdoor Program (Outdoor Program, 2006). This system collects rainwater from
the roof for storage in large cisterns. Currently, the staff uses the water for
cleaning vans and outdoor equipment but they hope to expand the system to be
used in bathrooms (Office of Sustainability website).
The university strives to maintain its grounds through sustainable
manners. With regards to fuel use, the campus maintenance trucks are being
replaced with electric vehicles, and 2-cycle leaf blowers— which use an oil and
gas mix— are being replaced with 4 stroke engines. These are associated with
lower noise and pollutant outputs.
3.3.4.1 Contribution to Sustainability
The above initiatives have allowed the University of Oregon to minimize
their water and fuel use, thereby saving money and resources.
3.3.4.2 Challenges and Resolutions
The initial push toward purchasing new vehicles or sprinkler systems is
often difficult. Many of the new technologies that are designed for efficiency in
fuel use, or sustainability are quite costly. However, after analyzing the costs and
benefits of investing in such technologies, it is apparent that the benefits are
greater, as time, money and resources are saved.
50
3.3.5 Storm Water Management
Proper management of storm water involves treating runoff appropriately
to prevent the movement of pollutants into waterways. Storm water runoff from
the University of Oregon flows into the Millrace and the Willamette Rivers.
Untreated or poorly managed runoff, which comes chiefly from impermeable
surfaces, collect pollutants which are washed into waterways. This contributes to
a decrease in water quality, and negative environmental health impacts.
The university has integrated 7 bioswales—landscape elements designed
to remove silt and pollution from surface runoff water on campus (U of O
Sustainability Initiatives Tour, 2008). For example, the Millrace Bioswale filters
storm water flowing from Franklin Boulevard and nearby parking lots before it
enters the Millrace River. Permeable surfaces also prevent storm water runoff. In
addition to bioswales and greenspaces, a parking lot with permeable paving at the
Jordon Schnitzer Museum of Art was built in 2005. By 2006, 49% of the
University of Oregon campus was composed of permeable surfaces. Green roofs
have also been put in place on several buildings to combat the storm water issue.
In 2005, a green roof comprised of native plants was planted on the Many Nations
Longhouse, which is part of the Museum of Natural and Cultural History (U of O
Sustainability Initiatives Tour, 2008). These storm water management strategies
are imperative in maintaining the region’s healthy ecosystem.
51
3.3.6 Conclusions
The implementation of the university’s greenspace programs increase flora
and fauna, contributing to ecological diversity. Native animal species are
attracted to food and cover provided by the native vegetation to which they are
accustomed (Keniry, 1995). Designing a campus rich in greenspace, and
maintaining the grounds with an environmentally friendly approach, improves the
integrity of the surrounding environment.
3.4 Characteristics that Render the University of Oregon a Leader
Following interviews with Christine Thompson, Campus Planning and
Real Estate, Steve Mital, Sustainability Coordinator, and Roger Kerrigan, Campus
Grounds, it has become evident that the University of Oregon is taking an
effective approach toward campus sustainability. In analyzing the information
provided by the three interviewees four major themes are apparent:
• Holistic Approach/ Working Together
• Preservation Embedded in the University’s Culture
• Frequent Evaluations
• Willingness to try new things
The University of Oregon’s faculty, staff, students, and administration have
demonstrated these characteristics which have rendered them a leading post-
secondary institution in terms of sustainable campus design and greenspace.
52
3.4.1 Holistic Approach/Working Together
The student body at the University of Oregon is passionate about the
environment and has taken actions towards promoting and achieving
sustainability (Campus Sustainability Assessment, 2007). It is the cohesive
student body that sets the University of Oregon apart from other schools, and
contributes to its leadership role in sustainability. There are approximately 16
student groups that plan national conferences, initiate campus-wide campaigns,
support environmental and social justice, and consistently strive toward a
sustainable future.
A collaborative effort among faculty, staff, and students, is one of the
main reasons of success in sustainability initiatives at the university (U of O
sustainability, 2009). As previously mentioned, each plan goes through a review
by the Campus Planning Committee (CPC), which represents a wide range of
faculty, staff and a minimum of 5 students (CPC website). The CPC views the
proposed project from a larger campus planning perspective to ensure it is fair,
worthwhile, and does not jeopardize any existing policies. Furthermore, the
various departments (campus planning, and landscape) work very closely with
one another, and respect the plans and policies enacted within other departments.
3.4.2 Preservation Embedded in the University’s Culture
At the University of Oregon the question is not whether the greenspace
will remain, but what kind of landscapes they will be. Preservation is a number
one priority for the university, and they have managed to protect greenspaces by
53
implementing the policies discussed previously (Campus Plan, 2005). Despite the
pressure to expand, the University of Oregon has not abandoned any of their
policies. Rather, they have sought alternatives, such as building upwards or
acquiring new property. As discussed, this is documented in the Biennial
Capacity Plan, which reviews these needs and determines whether there is room
to build them. Steve Mital has mentioned that recently a building was constructed
underground in order to preserve the greenspace above it. This has allowed the
university to stay at the forefront of environmental issues. They know that there
is always room for improvement and strive to be a leader in sustainability.
3.4.3 Frequent Evaluations
Evaluating campus initiatives is essential in order to recognize successes
and shortcomings, and to identify which areas are in need of improvement. This
can be accomplished through internal or external assessments.
In 2007, the university put forth a sustainability assessment report in order
to identify progress and change within the University of Oregon over time (last 5
to 10 years), and provide benchmarks for internal and external comparison. The
elements considered in this assessment included: governance, endowment
investment, academics and culture, material management, food, greenhouse gas
emissions, energy, transportation, water, and landscape and building. The
university also has minimum standards for all buildings to conform to LEED
standards.
54
For the scope of this particular research we have focused on the
assessment of “Landscape.” Each indicator is assessed to determine the degree to
which the University of Oregon has reduced its ecological footprint and has
encouraged progress toward sustainability. Each indicator is composed of several
elements. Landscape sustainability measures include: plantings, Integrated Pest
Management, and storm water. Policies and practices exist for all three and these
policies have not been violated. However, based on the 2007 evaluation 4
recommendations have been made:
• Update and modify the Tree Atlas Database so that information is
available pertaining to environmental impacts of planting native and
adaptive species
• Examine and modify the Action Threshold for IPM to reduce chemical
pesticide use
• Examine and utilize more non-chemical means of controlling pests
• Stronger effort to improve water quality in Millrace and Wilmette River;
this can be done by increasing the number of bioswales, green roofs and
overall permeable surfaces
(Campus Sustainability Assessment, 2007).
Although the university has been striving to implement these initiatives,
there is always room for improvement. This assessment has successfully served
the purpose of analyzing what has been done and what can be improved. The
55
assessment has allowed the university to track long-term projects and document
changes. Moreover, it helps to ensure the recognition of achievements and
opportunities for improvement. Assessments like these are important as it is vital
to be familiar with existing efforts, in order to change policies and practices as
needed towards a sustainable campus.
3.4.4 Willingness to Try New Things
The University of Oregon has demonstrated the courage to implement new
policies and practices. They understand that in order to move forward and
achieve the best sustainable practices, they must not hesitate to be at the forefront
of the environmental protection issue. This may involve adopting the newest
mentalities and technologies. Their willingness to do so is exemplified by their
implementation of IPM prior to the time that it became popular or state-mandated.
They also installed the Maxicom sprinkler system, despite being initially skeptical
about the installation. Perhaps most important was the university’s willingness to
experiment with a new approach to campus planning, as envisioned by
Christopher Alexander (Campus Plan, 2005). In fact, the organic and
participatory approach of “The Oregon Experment” is still considered an
innovative process of design (Bell et al, 2001).
3.4.5 Conclusion
In short, the University of Oregon has been rendered a leader in campus
design and greenspace as several initiatives have led them to exhibit a functional,
56
efficient, and sustainable campus composed of a significant amount of
greenspace. These spaces are maintained with the most environmental friendly
methods, and provide visual appeal. They also give faculty, staff, and students
open spaces in which they can to study, socialize, and participate in
extracurricular activities. Furthermore, beyond implementing a variety of
initiatives, this institution has maintained a holistic approach through
collaborative efforts, which strive for a positive and productive outlook towards
plan development. Staff at the University of Oregon has adopted a mentality
where preservation of greenspace is key, and all aspects of campus design strive
to meet this requirement. The university’s Campus Plans have allowed this
school to plan and assess the successes and shortcoming of their campus over
time. This has allowed them to consistently make improvements, which has
helped them become a true leader in campus design and greenspace.
3.5 Challenges in Achieving Sustainability
We have examined the case study of the University of Oregon as a
positive example to follow and a leader in sustainability. However, institutions
frequently encounter difficulty when attempting to implement new policies and
initiatives. The purpose of this section is to discuss the difficulties pertaining to
sustainability initiatives at the University of Oregon. These include:
57
• Budget
• A decentralized campus administration
• Communication, marketing, and education
• The comprehensive nature of sustainability
3.5.1 Budget
Each of our three interviewees admitted that there would always be issues
surrounding budget. They also expressed moderate concern regarding the
difficult economic times. The main issue that arises under these conditions is the
ability to continue to emphasize the importance of sustainability initiatives to
faculty, staff, and students. Awareness is important if sufficient funding to
sustainable initiatives will continue to be met.
In the College Sustainability Report Card, the University of Oregon
received an A in investment priorities. As stated on the report card: “the
University of Oregon Foundation aims to optimize investment return and is
currently invested in renewable energy funds and community development loan
funds. Investment managers understand the need for, and desirability of,
considering environmental factors in investment priorities” (greenreportcard.org).
Having adequate funds and prioritizing the allocation of available resources has
played an essential role in the success of campus design and greenspace initiatives
at the University of Oregon. Nevertheless, information provided in the 2007
Campus Assessment demonstrates that the university’s endowment investment
policy does not include a formal criteria for environmental sustainability.
58
Furthermore, the proportion of the university’s endowment invested in
environmental sustainability is unknown, as this document is not publicly
available. Likewise, little information is available regarding past financial
reports, and interviewees did not provide a great deal of information on the
subject of budget in general. This is an area in need of more research, and one
that needs to be a focus of the University of Oregon in the years to come. The
Expenditure Report from 2005- 2008 does not indicate any funding specifically
allocated to the environment or sustainability. However, Campus Planning and
Real Estate received $790,214 in funding in 2008 (University of Oregon
Expenditure Report, 2008).
3.5.2 Decentralized Campus Administration
Sustainability Coordinator Steve Mital mentioned the decentralized
campus environment as a main difficulty. Many sustainability efforts are put
forth by middle managers, who are largely responsible for the University of
Oregon’s successes. Mital claims it is difficult to get things done (policies
approved, etc.) when you need approval from a number of different people in
different departments. According to Mital: “decentralization simply makes data
collection, decision making, and coordination of efforts a much more time
consuming challenge” (Steve Mital, pers. comm., 2009). The university has dealt
with this challenge by creating an Environmental Issues Committee and
Sustainability Council whose main priorities are to share and disburse
information.
59
Christine Thompson has suggested that this situation can be used to
energize staff, encourage involvement, and lead to more initiatives. This is the
result of a variety of diverse perspectives and issues being shared. Nevertheless,
decentralization can cause departments to go off on their own tangents, fail to use
the most effective approach, and overlap efforts. This can result in a waste of
time and money.
3.5.3 Communication, Marketing, and Education
The sustainability department, Environmental Issues Committee, and
campus planners work rigorously to create, refine, and implement sustainability
initiatives throughout the year. However, their accomplishments and the new
ideas they develop are not always communicated effectively to the community.
Therefore, they often do not receive well-deserved attention or praise. This is a
result of focusing efforts on current issues and failing to devote time to promote
them. Effective acknowledgement of upcoming initiatives and recent successes
would not only assist in creating awareness of campus issues, but would also
allow environmental issues to be viewed in a more positive light. This would
encourage increased effort and funding to be put toward campus sustainability.
Policies are only effective if people know about them and embrace them.
For this reason, the Environmental Issues Committee members have been given
the responsibility to manage funds, to inspire and support new initiatives, to
manage the sustainability website, and coordinate special initiatives. How much
money the committee handles and where these funds come from is unknown.
60
This is a result of the lack of access to the university’s endowment policy as
previously discussed.
The issues are laid out in a cohesive manner in the Campus Sustainability
Assessment (2007), a project by the Environmental Leadership Program. The
Environmental Leadership Program analyses current initiatives, discusses the
issues associated with them, and suggests ways to overcome them. Suggestions
from the 2007 report include:
• The university should increase its information gathering capabilities to
allow a more thorough evaluation of sustainability efforts and their
successes or failures
• The university should continue to invest in reasonable and prudent capital
projects that have significant sustainability payoffs
• The university should establish new policies related to sustainability and
modify existing policies
• The university should repeat this assessment every five years.
Information needs to be accessible not only to faculty, staff and students at the
University of Oregon, but to the larger Oregon community and the general public.
As previously stated, this would allow sustainability issues to been seen in a
significant and positive light, which would encourage more investment of time
and money dedicated to this area.
61
3.5.4 The Comprehensive Nature of Sustainability
Christine Thompson expressed concern regarding the comprehensive
nature of sustainability. The projects under the domain of sustainability are wide
ranging and affect everyone on campus. For example, the open-space framework
reserves various sections of the campus for outdoor classrooms and meeting areas.
This means that the space is not available for any department to build or expand
upon. Consequently, alternative solutions to the expansion dilemma have to be
considered.
Sustainability initiatives range from recycling, to transportation, to campus
design and greenspace. Each of these examples is unique and requires diverse
policies and resources. A number of different departments often overlap in their
responsibility for them. For this reason, it is difficult to keep track of the
synergistic efforts across campus and to work collaboratively. Similar to the
benefits of a decentralized administration, Christine Thompson suggests that this
comprehensive nature is one of their biggest strengths. This challenge can work
to energize faculty, staff and students and leads to the development of new
initiatives.
3.5.5 Conclusion
The University of Oregon has experienced 4 major difficulties in its quest
to become an environmentally sustainable institution. In an unstable economic
climate, budget concerns are inevitable, as described by Roger Kerrigan.
Furthermore, having a decentralized administration does not make the allocation
62
of resources or the decision making process simple or straightforward. Although
the university has made significant efforts in implementing numerous
sustainability policies and practices, there is room for improvement in terms of
marketing, and educating faculty, staff, students, and the general public. Finally,
because achieving sustainability is such a large goal involving many individuals
and initiatives it becomes difficult to keep a specific focus and cohesive effort.
Nevertheless, the characteristics that have been described that render this
university a leader in campus design and greenspace have allowed them to deal
with these barriers, overcome pressing issues, and set the University of Oregon
apart from other post-secondary institutions in North America as a leader.
63
4. Seattle University
4.1 The Facilities Master Plan: History and Process
The Facilities Master Plan (FMP) was created during a change in
administration at Seattle University in 2004. The previous administration did not
conduct campus design under the guidance of a master plan. Projects completed
were only finished because of the administration’s ability to “manoeuvre
politically.” This created a loss of control and direction within the Facilities
Department.
After the previous administration stepped down, it became apparent that
not only was there no campus plan in existence, but also no documentation
indicating where Seattle University was at present. The new administration made
a clear point to create a campus master plan that (1) explored the current situation
at the university, and (2) devised a plan for future building/renovation projects.
Facilities Services appointed itself to initiate the FMP and selected a third party
(the Oregon-based SRG Partnership Inc. architectural firm) to create the planning
document.
4.1.1 The Process
1. Obtain approval from executive administration at Seattle University,
and from the Board of Regents and Board of Trustees (approval in 2005).
2. Process initiated to hire the architects. 6-8 architects applied, and
entered an interview process. SRG Partnership is ultimately chosen. An
64
outside third party architect is used to take a more neutral position in the
process.
3. Background data gathered by the Facilities Office and given to
architects.
4. Facilities met with interest groups impacted by the Master Plan
(administration, student and academic groups) on multiple occasions and
consulted their thoughts on the proposed direction. Although not
everything was/could be included, the FMP tried to find a consensus
among these stakeholders. The process was made transparent to all interest
groups so that it was easily understood how the architects arrived at their
decisions.
5. Interest groups were given opportunities on multiple occasions and in
many different ways on how to voice concerns: contact Facilities
administrative assistant through email/phone, a website was created for the
purpose of responding to the FMP, forums, open town halls, and walk up
information desks. The Process took one full year to complete.
4.2 Campus Design Initiatives
Seattle University offers impressive initiatives that allow the university to
be at the forefront of innovation in campus design. The primary sustainability
principles stated in the Facilities Master Plan (FMP) are to:
65
• Comprehensively incorporate sustainable design approaches into the
design of all physical campus elements and systems including campus site
layout, circulation plans and systems, landscape and built systems,
building design and campus infrastructure
• Harmonize the human built environment with natural systems and
processes in such a way that non-renewable natural resources are
conserved and that the natural environment maintains its capacity for
healthy growth and regeneration
• Employ the campus landscape to bring a unified character to the
University
• Minimize the main street divide to connect the campus and reduce safety
hazards by expanding the campus landscape
Within these principles, the master plan identifies four key design issues that
the university must improve by its target date of 2026. These include:
1. Capacity for growth
2. Building programs
3. Landscape maintenance on campus
4. Access to the campus
66
4.2.1. Capacity for Growth
Seattle University is deeply committed to preserving the greenspaces in
and around its campus. One area of concern when drafting the Master Plan was
that the existing campus did not appear to have the capacity to support an increase
of enrolment to 7,500 students. The only option seemed to be the purchase of
additional property to accomodate new facilities (Facilities Master Plan 2006-
2026). However, upon further analysis of the current situation at Seattle
University, it was found that the existing campus did indeed have the ability to
acquire new buildings and preserve and create new open space. This could be
accomplished without forfeiting the integrity of the campus.
Figure 5 shows an aerial view of the campus’s existing green space.
Future development on campus is designed to minimize the impact on the existing
greenspaces at Seattle University. One way the Facilities Master Plan aims to
achieve this is by building new “multi-use” buildings on the campus. As
explained by Karen Price, the university’s campus Sustainability Director, in
order to meet the demands of overall growth, buildings are purchased within the
perimeter of the university and then given to a developer. The developer then
renovates the buildings to assume multiple functions. For example, designating
the main floor for academic purposes (class rooms, lecture halls) and higher floors
for student residential purposes (Price, pers. comm., 2009).
67
4.2.1.1 Contribution to Sustainability
The purchase of existing buildings allows Seattle University to maintain
their existing greenspace while ensuring that their student enrolment meets their
target of 7,500 students. The FMP indicates that the existing campus has the
capacity to grow beyond the projected number of 7,500 students and could
support up to 10,000-12,000 students with careful planning (Facilities Master Plan
2006-2026).
The university is dedicated to preserving their existing open space, and is
thus finding alternative methods in acquiring new buildings for increased student
enrolment. Seattle University is confined in an urban environment, yet this is not
hindering the expansion of the university, but encouraging the school to see
beyond its campus perimeter. The Master Plan addresses that a strategy to fund
these projects must be developed. However, it makes no mention of how it
specifically intends to do so.
68
Figure 5: Aerial view of current layout of Seattle University’s campus. Greenspaces are clearly visible. Source: Seattle University Facilities Master Plan 2006-2026
4.3.2. Building Programs
The buildings that Seattle University are most interested in purchasing are
those that utilize:
A. Solar power for lighting
B. Cooling breezes for natural ventilation
69
The FMP states that solar light into the interior of buildings should be
optimized to reduce the use of electric lights. The use of solar power reduces
emissions and can also reduce operating costs (Whole Building Design Guide
2009). Electric lighting accounts for 35-50% of the total electrical energy
consumption in commercial buildings (Whole Building Design Guide 2009). As
heat is a bi-product of lighting, this also puts pressure on a building's mechanical
cooling equipment. Reducing electric lighting through the use of sunlight reduces
the energy needed to cool a building by 10-20% (Whole Building Design Guide
2009).
Building depths in the range of 60 feet are planned for buildings in order
to provide natural light and ventilation. Natural ventilation has been increasingly
used due to the reduction in energy use and cost that results from its
implementation (Whole Building Design Guide 2009). Natural ventilation
systems rely on pressure differences to move fresh air through buildings, and
utilize wind and buoyancy to transport the air into buildings. Therefore, naturally
ventilated buildings should be narrow as it is difficult to distribute fresh air to all
portions of a very wide building using natural ventilation (Whole Building Design
Guide 2009). The maximum width that one could expect to ventilate naturally is
estimated at 45 feet (Whole Building Design Guide 2009). Furthermore, systems
that monitor and adjust lighting levels will be integrated into the design,
construction and operation phases of new building construction and renovation at
Seattle University.
70
4.2.2.1 LEED
Seattle University is dedicated to developing a campus that: “incorporates
the principles of sustainable design in all aspects of site and building design,
construction, maintenance and operation” (Facilities Master Plan 2006-2026). To
date, the university’s student centre has received a LEED Certified rating.
According to Karen Price, the campus sustainability manager, all new buildings
scheduled for construction must meet LEED Gold standards, which has been
articulated in the Master Plan (Karen Price, pers. comm. 2009).
The commission and attainment of LEED certified buildings are integral
in the overall sustainable design of a campus. It not only provides the campus
with more efficient and productive buildings, but the campus’s greenspaces can
also be accredited with LEED (Karen Price, pers. comm. 2009). The LEED
program is the backbone for all greenspace initiatives at Seattle University. For
example, the Integrated Pest Management program is accredited with LEED due
to the local native vegetation used on the campus (Karen Price, pers. Comm..
2009). As native vegetation does not require a lot of water, it thus sustains the
environment and is given a credit rating with the LEED program.
4.2.2.2 Contribution to Sustainability
The Facilities Master Plan affirms that alternative means can and will be
used to save the university money, and increase its commitment to sustainability
on campus. The document is transparent in nature as it clearly states its intentions
71
and includes a proposed time line in which it means to complete its vision. Other
additions to buildings as stated in the plan include:
• planting new trees on campus where shade can help cool buildings
or built surfaces
• utilize building materials that have been recycled, are made of
renewable natural resources, minimize the use of non-renewable
natural resources, are manufactured locally and/or that minimize
negative impacts upon the natural environment
4.2.3 Landscape Maintenance on Campus
Seattle University possesses landscape and grounds staff that are
committed to continuing the campus’s legacy of innovation in landscape design
and maintenance. In addition to the university’s greenspaces, the campus plan
asserts that other general landscape improvements must be made. These include:
• Campus edges
• Campus open spaces
4.2.3.1 Campus Edges
Seattle University is located in the urban centre of a city. The Facilities
Master Plan affirms that the university is lacking in cohesiveness with the rest of
the city, and that amendments are being made to address this problem. This can
be dealt with by reducing the thick shrubbery on the campus edges in order to
72
improve visual access into the campus. As an alternative to broad formal quads
crisscrossed with paths, Seattle University has planted edge gardens that serve to
soften the campus’s perimeter.
4.2.3.2 Contributions to Sustainability
The Master Plan allows the campus to connect with its surrounding streets
both physically and visually (Facilities Master Plan 2006-2026). The edges will
be added with the intention of eliminating the lack of flow between the campus
and its adjacent streets. The university is ensuring that the edges are not so dense
as to make it an unsafe place for faculty, staff and students, with areas that are cut
off from the surrounding city. This showcases the insight and depth that went
into the planning process.
4.2.3.3 Campus Open Spaces
Seattle University’s campus is an attractive gathering of gardens and
native landscapes that harmonize greenspaces with existing buildings.
Development of the campus has resulted in the placement of more formal lawns
and gathering spaces into the street grid to increase the campus’s greenspace and
add to the visual appeal of the university. Figure 6 shows the existing conditions
of open spaces at Seattle University. To improve the campus’s open space, the
master plan asserts that the construction of a new green area over a new parking
structure to the east of the university’s chapel will provide a respectful barrier
around the heart of campus (Figure 7).
73
The Master Plan identifies policies to both increase open space and
improve the quality of the open space network while also enhancing the density of
buildings and program space (Facilities Master Plan 2006-2026). The plan asserts
that the street paving on the campus will be narrowed to create a more pedestrian-
friendly environment and the surface parking lot next to the chapel will be built
underground to create more open spaces. Other projects that are in development
are the removal of the campus’s Lynn Building to produce a wider greenspace
and to allow views into the campus from its main street.
Figure 6: Seattle University: Open Space Existing Conditions. Source: Seattle University Facilities Master Plan 2006-2026
74
Figure 7: Seattle University: Open Space Capacity for Growth. Source: Seattle University Facilities Master Plan 2006-2026
4.2.3.4 Contribution to Sustainability
The campus plan is innovative in the way it addresses both the need for
parking and the preservation of its open spaces. It places the need for open space
ahead of the need for parking by maintaining the current amount of green space
and removing surface parking where it can. The plan describes ways in which the
concern of parking on campus can be tackled, without jeopardizing the campus’s
integrity.
4.2.4 Access to the Campus
It is important that the University of Toronto consider transportation as it
makes an effort toward sustainability. Toor and Havlick (2004) report that people
driving to and from campus is one of the largest impacts an educational institution
75
has on the ecosystem it surrounds. Transportation also negatively impacts other
areas of the campus including non-point source pollutions such as runoff from
roads and parking lots (Toor and Havlick 2004). Throughout North America
there has been a general increase in the number of faculty, staff, and students. As
a result, the campus will have to contend with very serious impacts from car
traffic and parking shortages. This can cause serious negative biological impacts
on the global community, and decrease the quality of life of campus communities.
By calling attention to this issue, the University of Toronto benefits in two ways:
they are helping the environment as well as improving the liveability of the
campus.
Seattle University’s Facilities Master Plan identifies 3 matters that concern
public access to the campus. These areas are:
• Campus parking
• Pedestrian access to the campus
• Bicycling
4.2.4.1 Campus Parking
Increased enrolment at any university causes strain on the institution to
accommodate the increased population. This in turn causes pressure on the
university to increase the amount of parking. Therefore, the university must find
ways to create a sustainable campus environment while also expanding its
parking. For many universities, the problem is the amount of land needed to
76
devote to parking. Acquiring new land is very expensive in urban campuses and
often impossible (Toor and Havlick 2004). The cost of construction is also high –
approximately $15,000 to $30,000 per new parking space (Toor and Havlick
2004).
Visitors, faculty, staff, and students enter Seattle University through 4
major parking lots on its campus, in addition to several minor parking lots that are
on or near the campus (Facilities Master Plan 2006-2026). The number of
parking spaces in the campus totals 1,569 spaces, whose dispersion causes
confusion to the public and adds to the lack of cohesion that Seattle University is
striving to maintain (Facilities Master Plan 2006-2026). Surface lots such as the
one bordering the university’s chapel have been identified by the Master Plan as
representative of inefficient land use and will be replaced with a well-designed
underground parking with open space and buildings above (Facilities Master Plan
2006-2026).
4.2.4.2 Contribution to Sustainability
Seattle University has created creative ways to provide parking with a
limited land base. The Master Plan states that current parking will be re-
distributed to increase the convenience to its users, and parking will be put
underground so that more open spaces will be used on campus. This feature adds
to the unique-ness of the campus landscape.
77
4.2.4.3 Pedestrian Access to Campus
The main campus areas of Seattle University are closed to private
vehicles. However, its layout follows the public street grid design of the
surrounding city (Facilities Master Plan 2006-2026). The Master Plan addresses
the need for these streets to be improved upon to minimize service vehicle access
and to create pedestrian-oriented corridors connecting buildings on campus. Most
of the facilities on campus are within a 5-minute walk, but the plan emphasizes
that the surrounding built areas can be improved for pedestrian comfort and to
better link facilities with the main campus (Facilities Master Plan 2006-2026).
4.2.4.4 Contribution to Sustainability
The Master Plan affirms the need for a pedestrian-friendly access to the
campus. This allows for a more unified campus setting within the university, and
encourages active transportation such as walking and cycling. The University of
Toronto is situated in the heart of downtown Toronto. Access to the school via
the automobile must be significantly reduced, and more pedestrian corridors built.
This would allow the University of Toronto to create a more unified campus, but
also support and promote active transportation as Seattle University has done.
4.2.4.5 Bicycling
Bicycling is the most efficient form of transportation, with the lowest
energy input and the lowest output of pollutants and greenhouse gases (Toor and
Havlick 2004). It also contributes to the health of the campus population. Toor
78
and Havlick (2004) report that a study done in 23 universities found that 64% of
students live within one mile of the campus and 84% live within five miles. If
bicycle infrastructure is considered for a university’s campus, bikes can be used
as an alternative to vehicles for these short distances.
The design of Seattle University’s campus encourages the university’s
faculty, staff, and students to utilize bicycling whenever possible. The Master
Plan has taken into consideration the rainy weather and mountainous topography
of the region and has improved the campus’s infrastructure of bike rails and lanes
(Facilities Master Plan 2006-2026). There are several bike racks near the major
buildings in campus, and most buildings have at least one bike rack in front of the
main entrance.
4.2.4.6 Contribution to Sustainability
By eliminating surface parking and encouraging the use of bike racks,
Seattle University is achieving the sustainability goals laid out in their plan.
Indeed, the cost of one bicycle space is approximately $100, which is less than
1% of the cost of one new automobile parking space (Toor and Havlick 2004).
Furthermore, providing pleasant routes for cyclists through the campus interior,
and bicycle parking is relatively inexpensive. There is enough space at the
University of Toronto for a considerable increase in bicycling that is both
inexpensive and beneficial to campus sustainability.
79
4.2.5 Challenges and Resolutions
One of the key sustainability initiatives addressed in the Facilities Master
plan is the need to employ the campus landscape to bring a unified character to
the university. The Master Plan has acknowledged that the campus is
inconsistently developed and lacks the cohesiveness of a university with
integrated buildings and open spaces (Facilities Master plan 2006-2026). The
university has made changes to their campus by creating an extensive master plan,
and implementing strategies in two phases, which accomplish the target goals.
The most important step towards unifying the campus, according to the Master
Plan, will be to create a set of pathways and safe crosswalks to replace the former
grid of city streets. This will encourage pedestrian access to Seattle University’s
campus (Facilities Master Plan 2006-2026).
The lack of a benchmarking system to monitor the success of the Facilities
Master Plan has made it difficult to ascertain if the plan is being adhered to. The
FMP was initially made to be as flexible as possible to allow for the inevitable
change in priorities. However, this flexibility has enabled projects to be delayed
or put off. The economic downturn has also allowed many projects to come to a
standstill in 2008-2009. How Seattle University will continue to deal with this
reality, remains to be seen.
80
4.3 Green space at Seattle University
Seattle University has been selected as a leader in greenspace due to its
progressive and outstanding efforts in integrating a healthy natural landscape
within an urban campus. The efforts that the university has taken to create and
maintain its greenspaces have earned Seattle University high accreditation and
honours among both regional and national awards and report cards. Research
undergone into Seattle University’s campus landscape and landscape practices has
uncovered that their efforts in greenspace can be summarized in four categories.
The following categories will be explored in this section:
• Campus Gardens
• Integrated Pest Management
• Water Conservation Strategies
4.3.1 Campus Gardens
One of the main reasons Seattle University is recognized as a leader in
campus greenspace is the sheer amount of space devoted to gardens on campus.
The incorporation of landscaping on campus has been an important characteristic
of Seattle University since the mid-1960s (Seattle University Sustainability
website). The gardens render Seattle University a leader in greenspace because of
the unique role they take on campus:
• Providing large areas of greenspace on campus
• Having varied educational themes
81
• Producing direct services to the campus and natural communities
• Engaging the public in sustainability through garden tours
The Seattle University campus occupies an area of 48 hectares in the
centre of Seattle. On the campus grounds, gardens are interspersed between
academic, administrative and residential buildings. The deliberate blending of a
green landscape within the urban context of the university has created the sense
that the campus is composed of “buildings sitting within a park” as expressed by
Gardener Janice Murphy (Murphy, pers. comm., 2009). Figure 8 offers a
depiction of how the greenspace is currently arranged around campus buildings at
Seattle University.
82
Figure 8: A map of Seattle University’s current greenspaces. Source: Seattle University Facilities Master Plan (2006).
Of the extensive greenspace at Seattle University, there are seven major
gardens that are recognized because of their significant size and selection of
plants they foster. Each of the seven major gardens (listed in Table 4) has a
specific theme, most of which educate the viewers on sustainable practices.
83
Table 4: List and description of major gardens on campus Source: SU Sustainability page
Major Garden
Description
Chardin Garden
Student-run garden with a focus on growing food to teach students first-hand about food production.
Ciscoe Morris Biodiversity Garden (in progress)
Demonstrates proper design and maintenance practices to promote diversity of plants and their interaction with beneficial insects and the soil ecosystem. Also used to highlight the importance of using diverse plant material to maintain a healthy ecosystem and how ornamental/ invasive species impact natural ecosystems.
Ethnobotanical Garden
Showcases the plants that are used by local Aboriginals for food, medicine and other cultural uses.
Healing Garden
Showcases plants that are used for their medicinal properties in various cultures.
Kitchen Garden
Raises plants to be used by the campus food provider, Bon Apetit for campus meals (including herbs, fruits, vegetables).
Shakespeare Garden
Showcases plants mentioned in Shakespeare’s plays.
Rain Garden
Used to divert water underground from buildings situated in a flood-prone area on campus.
The nature of the gardens described in Table 4 suggests that the
significance of these gardens is much deeper than that of mere ornamentation.
The gardins reflect a commitment to sustainability with respect to both ecology
and food production. The Chardin and Kitchen Gardens have a utility and
educational function: they provide food that is used on campus and demonstrate
the reality of how food is produced (Murphy pers. comm., 2009; Price pers.
comm., 2009). These gardens, along with the Ethnobotanical Garden, provide
84
innovative and thought-provoking reminders of the causal effect between food
and sustainability. Similarly, the Ciscoe Morris Biodiversity Garden illustrates
the ecological roles that plants play in the environment. These include the
importance of species interaction in healthy ecosystems and the threat of exotic
species on the natural balance of the ecosystem. In this way, the Biodiversity
Garden emphasises the need to maintain the balance needed to ensure the
sustainability of the world’s ecosystems.
A testament to the great pride Seattle University takes in their campus
landscape, are the garden tours the university offers to the public. Seattle
University’s lead gardeners Janice Price and David Clausen are contacted by
interested groups directly and they personally conduct the campus tours (SU
Sustainability page). During the garden tours, the public is educated on the
functional role of the gardens regarding their contribution to ecosystem services
and regional biodiversity (Morris pers. comm., 2009; Murphy pers. comm., 2009).
4.3.1.1 Process of Implementing Gardens
As mentioned above, gardens have played a large role on Seattle
University’s campus since the mid-1960s. Two key individuals in the university’s
history are responsible for initiating extensive areas of campus devoted to gardens
and greenspace: Gardener Fujitaro Kubota and Father Nichol, nicknamed “Father
Greenthumb” (SU Sustainability page). The green campus ideology these two
individuals created over 40 years ago has remained with the institution over time.
This green ideology has influenced Seattle University to place a sense of
85
importance and pride in its gardens on campus that continues to this day. By the
end of the 1970s, a new gardener, Ciscoe Morris, was able to transform the
existing landscapes on the university’s campus into more sustainable greenspaces.
He accomplished this by changing the gardens on campus so they were able to
perform ecological services and benefit the regional biodiversity (Morris pers.
comm., 2009; SU Sustainability Page). The history of grounds and landscaping at
Seattle University has created an environment that fosters ideologies based on the
necessity of sustainable landscaping across campus. The gardens on campus
presently (see Table 4) developed gradually over time in adherence to the
ideologies bestowed by the three influential individuals mentioned above.
Perhaps due to Seattle University’s history, a lot of authority is given to
the gardeners from the Grounds Department in their maintenance practices and
decision-making (Miley pers. comm., 2009; Murphy pers. comm., 2009). The
gardeners have full licence over changes made to gardens, and even the addition
of new gardens. Only building renovation or construction require approval from
administration regarding landscaping, due to the fact that such big projects
involve landscape architects contracted from outside the university (Murphy pers.
comm., 2009). Therefore, with the exception of big-budget construction projects,
the Grounds Department is independently responsible for landscaping on campus.
This self-sufficiency enables the gardeners to make decisions that are beneficial to
the grounds without the need to proceed through a labyrinth of bureaucratic
avenues. Thus, the empowerment of the Grounds Department to operate virtually
86
independently, coupled with the longstanding history of green campus
appreciation has allowed Seattle University to produce outstanding gardens.
4.3.1.2 Challenges for Gardens
Although the Grounds Department has authority over garden maintenance
and development, there are still challenges they face. According to Janice
Murphy, Lead Gardner and Integrated Pest Management Specialist at Seattle
University, the university is focused on growth. This creates a push for more
buildings on campus (Murphy pers. comm., 2009). The need for building space
to facilitate this growth puts the buildings dedicated to storing gardening supplies
and the gardens themselves at risk of being demolished or relocated. While the
administration is supportive of the land dedicated to gardens on campus, the
dedication to university growth trumps their desire to conserve greenspaces on
campus (Murphy pers. comm., 2009). This challenge does not have an easy
solution. However, if new buildings are projected to be placed on existing
greenspaces, there is an opportunity for new greenspaces to be developed around
the newly constructed or renovated buildings to meet LEED standards.
4.3.2 Integrated Pest Management
The Integrated Pest Management (IPM) system was incorporated in the
landscaping practices at Seattle University in 1973 (SU Sustainability Page).
Pesticides are extensively used in conventional landscaping practices and a shift
from this practice requires innovative thinking regarding the biology of the
87
landscape. This is necessary in order to eradicate pests without exposing harsh
chemicals to the environment. At Seattle University, pests are eradicated from the
gardens and landscaping through IPM by four main practices:
• Selection of naturally pest-free flora
• Mechanical removal
• Use of biological agents to remove pests
• Removal by natural, harm-free chemicals
Seattle University has successfully created a pest-free environment by
culturing an environment that is not conducive to pests. By using knowledge of
the Seattle region’s ecology, the natural and invasive pests prominent in the
region can be discovered. Native plants that have natural defences and/or
resistance to the identified pests are chosen by the university’s gardeners to be
incorporated in the landscaping on campus. This limits the attraction of pests to
the campus grounds. However, pests will continue to occur despite efforts in
developing local environments on campus.
When pests are detected, they are removed via mechanical, biological or
harm-free chemical means. Mechanical removal employs traps and tools with
which to physically trap or disturb the pests. Biological removal of pests involves
the use of biological agents to eliminate the targeted pests. An example of this is
the release of naturally occurring insect predators, which eliminate the pests
through natural processes. Finally, when all other methods of pest removal are
88
unsuccessful, a chemical removal method is employed. Rather than using harsh
chemicals such as pesticides, Seattle University employs the use of natural
chemical compounds. These natural chemical compounds include soaps, compost
tea, vinegar and acetic acid. They are effective against the target pest species, yet
are not harmful to other species or to the campus community (SU Sustainability
Page).
The IPM system at Seattle University adopts an integrated approach to
treating pests that does not compromise the health and beauty of the campus
grounds. IPM is a sustainable practice that requires insightful planning,
ecological knowledge of the surrounding region and careful consideration of the
impacts to both the environmental and urban communities. Through the use of
IPM, Seattle University’s campus has been officially pesticide-free since 1986.
4.3.2.1 Integrated Pest Management: The Impetus at Seattle University
Seattle University owes recognition for the success of IPM to former
gardener Ciscoe Morris. When Morris arrived at Seattle University in 1978, pests
were managed using a “spray program” in which a painter was charged with
spraying the grounds with pesticides. According to Morris, there was little
concern for horticulture or entomology involved in the spray program (Morris
pers. comm., 2009). While this management technique may have been effective
at eliminating pests, it created an imbalanced ecology on campus. Morris
recounted finding dead birds on campus during the pesticide program and the
resultant concern regarding the health risks to human subjects. The imbalanced
89
ecology became apparent when an infestation of aphids and ants erupted
following Morris’ decision to cease the pesticide spraying program for the
aforementioned safety reasons (Morris pers. comm., 2009).
The IPM system began when Morris released beneficial insects on the
Seattle University campus in 1979. The biological agent that was chosen to
manage the aphid and ant infestation was the lacewing, which was placed in
strategic areas on campus by Morris and his team of gardeners. Within a month,
the lacewings had effectively controlled the aphid and ant populations and
resulted in the normalisation of the campus ecology (Morris pers. comm., 2009).
However, the lacewing used by Morris was a species native to California and
could not survive Seattle winters. As such, the lacewing was a biological control,
but not a permanent solution for pest management at Seattle. The lacewing had
proved that pests could be controlled by similar beneficial biological agents.
Morris then proceeded to collect beneficial insects native to Seattle from
neighbouring gardens, including lady beetles, and released them onto the campus
grounds. Four years after Morris stopped the pesticide spraying program, the
campus ecology had been restored to a natural and balanced system, and pests
were being effectively controlled through IPM (Morris pers. comm., 2009).
The implementation of IPM at Seattle University has been entirely due to
the dedication of Ciscoe Morris (Murphy pers. comm., 2009; Price pers. comm.
2009). Morris had applied his ecological training as a Master Gardener from
Washington State University to produce an innovative alternative to the
conventional landscaping practice of spraying pesticides.
90
The IPM policies initialized by Morris on the Seattle University campus
have been adhered to by the Grounds Department since his departure in the mid
1990s. In 2008 Seattle University created a position in the Grounds Department
solely dedicated to IPM on campus, the IPM Coordinator (Murphy pers. comm.,
2009). The official involvement of one person to lead IPM initiatives on campus
creates a centralized hub of decision-making in regards to pest control at Seattle
University. The creation of this position also creates transparency in the
operation and decision-making involved in pest management. Murphy, the IPM
coordinator, is made accessible to the public for inquiries about IPM and its
function at the university.
4.3.2.2 Challenges Encountered in Implementing IPM
Morris’ work in developing an integrated pest management system at
Seattle University was not without difficulties (Morris pers. comm., 2009). His
efforts were initially met with challenges that would have prevented the
accomplishment of his goal. These challenges can be summarized in three major
categories:
• Result-oriented administration
• Research and available data
• Public perceptions
91
At the time Morris was making changes to Seattle University’s
landscaping practices, the approval of the university’s administration was
required. As Morris was developing the IPM program, he needed to appeal to the
Vice President of Seattle University to make the necessary change from pesticide-
intensive practices to environmentally friendly practices (Morris pers. comm.,
2009). During the four years that had been necessary for this major transition in
landscaping practices, the positive results of IPM were not entirely apparent. The
administration wanted to achieve fast results identical to those achieved by the
pesticide spraying program. When the alternative biocontrols did not meet these
standards rapidly, Morris was urged to resume the adoption of the spray program
(Morris pers. comm., 2009).
One of Morris’ key challenges was finding an effective approach to
implement IPM on the campus grounds. At the time of its emergence at Seattle
University, very little was known about IPM (Morris pers. comm., 2009). Morris
was forced to pursue various avenues to gather the ecological information
necessary for its implementation. Despite the information he received from other
gardeners interested in this new method, his approach was largely trial-and-error.
While trial-and-error is not the most efficient approach to problem-solving,
finding the ideal parameters for IPM at Seattle University was groundbreaking
research, and the resources that would have allowed Morris to avoid this approach
were not yet in existence.
A final challenge that Morris faced in his work with IPM was having to
break free from the conventional appearance of public landscaping and gardens.
92
Before 1979, the gardens at Seattle University were well manicured and required
extensive maintenance and pest removal to retain their aesthetic appeal (Morris,
pers. comm., 2009). Morris’ work in IPM presented a fresh look on urban
landscaping. Through the ideology of IPM, manicured and ornamental plants had
been discarded in favour of naturally pest-free plants that were native to the
region. IPM was a radical shift in garden design. Morris’ work in IPM
implementation on Seattle University grounds challenged the public’s
conventional perception of garden structure and function, and made initial steps in
fostering an environmentally conscious setting for the academic institution.
4.3.3 Water Conservation Strategies
One of the resources that is heavily relied upon for the upkeep and
maintenance of urban greenspace is the use of water. To sustainably meet the
water demands of its greenspaces, while reducing its usage, Seattle University
employs leading water conservation strategies (SU Sustainability Page). The
water that is used on the university’s campus to maintain greenspaces has two
sources: natural precipitation and irrigation systems. The goal of Seattle
University’s water conservation strategies is to foster an environment that retains
as much natural precipitation as possible to reduce the dependence on irrigation.
When irrigation is applied to supplement a lack in rainfall, it is done strategically
to ensure that as little of the applied water as possible is wasted as run off (Miley
pers. comm., 2009).
93
Table 5: Water Conservation Strategies used at Seattle University. Source: SU sustainability web-page
Type of strategy Water Conservation Strategies
1. Use of woodchip mulch in garden beds.
2. Grass is maintained at a height of 3 inches.
Strategies for water retention (via rainfall or irrigation)
3. Soil is aerated.
1. Use of a drip irrigation system which targets the placement of water for higher efficiency.
2. The water used for campus irrigation is closely monitored with “deduct meters.
3. Employing an irrigation specialist on the grounds staff.
4. Use of irrigation sensors to detect leaks (wasted water) in system.
5. Central computer-controlled irrigation system used in monitoring amount of water used and to assess the optimal daily conditions to water the grounds.
Strategies for applying the optimum amount of water via irrigation
6. Gardens and irrigation system are planned in hydrozones. Plants with similar watering needs are placed in proximity to one another to ensure water is used efficiently.
As highlighted in Table 5, strategies are implemented at Seattle University
to prevent water waste occurring through evaporation and over watering. Placing
woodchip mulch in the garden beds, and maintaining the lawn height at 3 inches
saves a lot of water from evaporation. In retaining this moisture, the plants on
Seattle University’s campus are less prone to drought and require less water for
their care. Furthermore, by ensuring the soil on campus is properly aerated,
Seattle University is creating an environment that is efficient at water absorption.
The other set of strategies which are incorporated into Seattle University’s
landscaping practices are those targeted to efficient irrigation. As portrayed in
Table 5, a lot of effort is made to streamline the amount of water that is spent on
94
watering the grounds. The resources that Seattle University has put into
maintaining its irrigation system with new technology and careful monitoring
demonstrates their commitment to using water as efficiently as possible on the
grounds.
4.3.3.1 Water Conservation Strategies: The Impetus at Seattle University
Lee Miley, Facilities Supervisor at Seattle University in 1991, initiated the
implementation of water conservation strategies. Miley had begun to make
changes to the water operating system on campus because of his concern for cost.
Before his involvement, the university’s administration had not monitored their
expenditures on water, and the budget for water services was simply raised every
year to what the mark-up was assumed to be (Miley pers. comm., 2009). To
begin making changes to the water system at Seattle University, Miley contacted
Seattle Public Utilities. Like any other institution, Seattle University receives its
water from the local municipality and is subsequently charged by the city for
water provision services and storm water management. Miley was able to
demonstrate to Seattle Public Utilities that over the 10 years prior to 1991, the
Seattle University grounds where highly efficient in absorbing water from
irrigation systems and rainfall and did not burden the city’s storm water system.
This qualified Seattle University for a tax credit from the Seattle Public Utilities.
This money was fed into the implementation of a new irrigation system and
irrigation meters. The improved irrigation system allowed the university to have
more control over the amount of water being applied to the grounds. The
95
efficiency of the new irrigation system was able to provide water where it was
needed on the grounds and save Seattle University money by limiting water
wasted in runoff and/or by evaporation (Miley pers. comm., 2009).
The water conservation strategies that are used today by Seattle University
developed gradually after 1991 by the Facilities Department, Grounds Department
and through the contribution of other staff members. At the time Miley began the
water conservation initiatives he required the approval of both the Facilities
Director and the Vice President of Seattle University. However, his rationale for
implementing strategies to conserve water and reduce the cost associated with it
was well supported by upper administration (Miley pers. comm., 2009).
Between 1992 and the present, Miley has worked very closely with staff
from the Grounds department and Seattle Public Utilities. A collaborative effort
was made on the Seattle University grounds to devise more strategies for water
conservation. Miley has made himself personally accessible by phone, email or
in-person to anyone on campus (students, staff, and administration) regarding
ideas for further campus water conservation. The transparency and open
communication that resulted from this work environment is likely the key to the
success of the water conservation initiative at Seattle University. Miley is
continuously working with the Seattle Public Utilities to obtain a tax credit for
their sustainable practices and reinvests this money towards even more
sustainable water conservation initiatives.
96
4.3.3.2 Challenges in Implementing Water Conservation Strategies
The major challenge in implementing water conservation strategies is
finding new solutions to improving the existing framework. The city of Seattle is
in a region that receives a lot of annual precipitation, and as such there is a high
risk of flooding on the campus grounds (Miley pers. comm., 2009). The
challenge that is encountered is the constant need to find solutions to minimise the
impact of flooding, in order to avoid damage to buildings and greenspaces on
campus. By collaborating together the Grounds and Facilities Departments have
been able to think of innovative ways to treat problem areas on campus. For
example, in 2006 a flood caused $346,900 in damage to a building on campus. In
order to avoid this from happening again, a holding trench was built underground
to keep flood water away from the building in question. A piping system was
then inlayed to divert the stored ground water back up to the surface to sustain a
new garden: the “Rain Garden”. Innovative ideas, such as the Rain garden are
forwarded to Miley, who decides whether or not to implement them after a cost-
benefit analysis has been done.
Areas for improvement concerning water conservation are thus
continuously being examined at Seattle University. The major challenges lie in
finding effective solutions to satisfy them. It can be argued that these challenges
are not in fact challenges, but rather opportunities to implement even more
leading water conservation practices.
97
4.4 Characteristics that Render Seattle University a Leader
The previous elements in this section have been devoted to the
identification of the leading initiatives (gardens, Integrated Pest Management, and
water conservation strategies) of Seattle University with respect to campus
greenspace. The processes and challenges involved in the implementation of each
respective initiative have also been explored to determine the driving factors
present at this university which allowed these achievements to happen. As
explored above, the campus gardens, IPM and the water conservation strategies
resulted from processes with varied approaches. However, it can be concluded
that the successes of these 3 major initiatives owe their success to the following
points:
• Bottom-up ideas
• Interdepartmental collaboration
• Transparency in decision-making process
• Dedication to alternative measures, research and innovative
thinking
Each of the 3 identified greenspace initiatives at Seattle University had
emerged from environmentally conscious ideas at the lower level of university
organization. Two non-administrative individuals, Fujitaro Kubota, a gardener,
and Father Nichol initiated the importance placed upon campus gardens. Ciscoe
Morris, a gardener, championed IPM and Lee Miley began implementing
98
strategies for water conservation when he was a Supervisor in the Facilities
Department. Interdepartmental collaboration was necessary for the realisation of
the ideas proposed by the aforementioned lower-level agents. For example, the
campus food provider collaborated with the Grounds Department to produce a
garden to sustainably grow some of the food consumed by students. Furthermore,
the adherence to water conservation strategies in existence, (Table 5) and the open
nature of Lee Miley to new proposals involves collaboration among the Grounds
and Facilities Departments, as well as with individuals from other sectors at
Seattle University. The unofficial authority over landscape maintenance that the
gardeners of the Grounds Department enjoy has allowed for the successful
implementation of sustainable greenspaces on campus. They have been able to
accomplish these initiatives without the need for approval from the
administration.
The openness of Janice Murphy as IPM coordinator, and Miley as
Assistant Director of Facilities Operations and Energy Manager, attests to the
transparency that exists in the decision-making for greenspaces initiatives at
Seattle University. Parties concerned with either IPM or water conservation
strategies can contact these individuals directly for consultation or to submit
ideas. Finally, the overall dedication to alternative, sustainable measures is
responsible for the initiatives at Seattle University. In accompaniment to this
dedication, research and innovative thinking have been crucial in attaining the
sustained application of newly conceived initiatives. This was true for Morris in
99
his implementation of IPM, and also for Miley in his implementation of strategies
to conserve water use on campus.
4.5 Challenges to Achieving Sustainability
In implementing greenspace initiatives at Seattle University, challenges
had to be overcome before their success. It can be concluded that the major
barriers that have been encountered in the process of implementing the 3
identified greenspace initiatives at Seattle University are:
• Budget
• Shift from conventional practices
Issues surrounding the budget are common, especially considering the
current economic recession. Janice Murphy, the IPM coordinator, states that the
2009 operating budget for the Grounds Department had been cut 10%
retroactively due to the economic downturn (Murphy pers. comm., 2009). This
impacts projected and ongoing plans for garden and landscaping development on
Seattle University’s campus. At the time of the implementation of many of the
greenspace initiatives on campus, budget had not been a restriction (Morris, pers.
comm., 2009; Murphy, pers. comm., 2009; Price, pers. comm. 2009). In fact it
was for budgetary concerns in the 1990s that the water conservation strategies had
been implemented, in order to save the university money (Miley, pers. comm.
2009). Unfortunately, Seattle University’s main concern in the budget is to fulfil
100
the goals of the Facilities Master Plan. Further greenspace initiatives have been
put on hold in favour of the completion of other campus components, such as a
new library and a new Division 1 athletics facility (Nealon, pers. comm. 2009).
In general, there is adequate funding for the campus’ properties, plants and
equipment. The net asset for Seattle University regarding Property, Plant, and
Equipment is $244,427,853. Of this, $38,715,797 is allocated to Land and
Improvements, $243,914,759 is allocated to Buildings and Improvements, and the
rest is allocated to library books, equipment and construction in progress (Seattle
University Financial Statement 2008).
Despite current barriers from budgetary restrictions, the biggest challenge,
which faced those wishing to implement greenspace initiatives at Seattle
University, was an attempt to shift from the university’s conventional practices.
Ciscoe Morris encountered this challenge in his desire to shift the intensive use of
pesticides to a more sustainable practice. More than simply devising a completely
new method of pest control, Morris was under constant pressure from the
university administration to replicate the results obtained from the conventional
method of pesticide spraying. The implementation of any new method of
operation that diverges from convention creates challenges, as it must meet the
expectations one has come accustomed to with the old practice. This challenge,
which can be seen in the implementation of IPM and water conservation strategies
was overcome with the dedication and innovative thinking involved in finding
such alternatives.
101
5. The Current Situation at the University of Toronto
5.1 Campus Design
The University of Toronto has a sizeable footprint geographically, which
encompasses a significantly large area of 65 ha within downtown Toronto. The
growth within the university has mainly been determined on a site-by-site basis,
though there are standards and guidelines that attempt to guide this growth.
5.1.1 Past Approaches
The university’s approach to environmental planning is encompassed in
the Environmental Protection Policy, which was passed by the Governing Council
in 1994. This document focuses on broad goals, such as:
• Minimizing energy use
• Minimizing water use
• Minimizing waste generation
• Minimizing pollution effluent and emissions into air, land and water
• Minimizing noise and odour pollution
• Minimize and where possible eliminate the use of chemicals, including
outdoor salt, pesticides, herbicides and cleaning agents
• Include biodiversity and environmental concerns in planning and
landscape decisions
102
In order to accomplish these goals, an Environmental Protection Advisory
Committee was established that consisted of administration, academic staff and
students. Its objective was to advise the Assistant Vice-President of Operations
and Services on programs, which would meet the Environmental Protection
Policy’s agenda (University of Toronto Facilities and Services, 1994).
5.1.2 Buildings
The University of Toronto has created a framework under which buildings
are the main focus in their approach to campus planning (University of Toronto
Facilities and Services, 1994). This is strongly related to the Environmental
Protection Policy’s objectives, which center on minimization of resource use and
pollution prevention. Buildings and the people that use them consume many
resources and are contributors to pollution. It is a natural progression of the
Environmental Protection Policy’s objectives to focus on the built sphere of
campus.
Facilities and Services, with the Capital Projects Division, has issued a set
of design standards that are intended to facilitate the planning, design and
implementation of any new construction or renovation. Architects are required to
undergo an approval process to consider environmental design principles, which
echo those made in the Environmental Protection Policy (University of Toronto
Facilities and Services, 1999). The wording of the document is not clear on how
stringent these standards are, nor is it clear what the minimum compliance from
the architect is required.
103
Small-scale renovations under $50,000, operate outside the jurisdiction of
the design standards for new construction or large-scale renovation. Facilities and
Services’ Policy on Renovation and Construction allows for mainly autonomous
work to be done outside of the design standards mentioned (University of Toronto
Facilities and Services, 2006). In this case, all decisions on renovation projects
are undertaken by Facilities and Services and the individual departments
involved, without requiring the approval or consent from an outside committee or
adhering to environmental objectives.
It becomes clear that the past approach adopted by the University of
Toronto has focused mainly on buildings, whether new construction or
renovation. This is a result of the broad and less clearly defined goals outlined in
the Environmental Protection Policy. The standards and policies that were
developed in an attempt to reach the Environmental Protection Policy’s goals do
not specify minimum standards of compliance, and their effectiveness is
questionable.
5.1.3 Present Outlook
In recent years the effectiveness of past approaches has been examined,
and changes are underway at the university to reassert an active role within
environmental planning. The Environmental Protection Advisory Committee
(EPAC) launched the Sustainability Office on the St. George campus in 2005
(University of Toronto News @ U of T, 2005). Shortly after this, EPAC was
104
disbanded. EPAC had become a tool for discussion, and less of action. For this
reason, it was deemed to be no longer of use (Taylor, pers. comm., 2009).
Two new groups have replaced EPAC in the hopes of creating action-
oriented committees to guide environmental development and overall campus
sustainability. The first of these is the Tri-Campus Sustainability Board, which
consists of administrative staff and faculty. The board’s aim is to oversee
sustainable campus governance and it reports to the Assistant Vice-President for
Campus and Facilities Planning, and the Assistant Vice-President for Facilities
and Services. It currently has three working groups, which concentrate on the
energy plan, capital projects and buildings, and the sustainability fund (Taylor,
pers. comm., 2009).
The second group, the St. George Campus Advisory Committee, has only
recently been created in the last year. This committee has met twice as of this
date and consists of faculty and staff. These Committee meetings are open to the
public. This committee will report directly to the Sustainability Office. The
terms of its advisory role have not been established, as the committee itself will
decide its role. However, this group will possess some agency to work on its
own, outside of the Sustainability Office (Taylor, pers. comm., 2009). It remains
to be seen what the lasting role of these two new groups on planning initiatives
will be on campus.
105
5.2 Greenspace
The University of Toronto is located in an urban centre and as a result the
application of greenspace initiatives presents more challenges. If the greenspace
potential of the university will be met, creativity will be necessary to combat
issues of urban growth.
5.2.1 Past Approaches
Landscaping seems to be generally regarded as an extension of
construction and less as its own undertaking (University of Toronto Capital
Projects, 2006). Though there are documents that represent the forward-thinking
approach of the university to its greenspace, these principles have not been
applied evenly across all landscaping projects.
Facilities and Services, and Capital Projects’ design standards include
guidelines for landscaping. However, emphasis has been placed on the
landscaping that is part of any new construction plan. Indeed, the money for most
new landscaping at the University of Toronto is considered part of the budget for
the overall new construction or renovation that is taking place (University of
Toronto Capital Projects, 2006). An example of this can be seen outside the
Terrance Donnelly Center combined with the new Pharmacy building on College
Street. This was accomplished through a shared garden area, which pooled the
budgets for both construction projects (University of Toronto Capital Projects,
2006). This garden area encompasses and links these two buildings. However,
similar problems plague the landscaping design standards as they do the
106
environmental design standards for buildings. These include the lack of stringent
minimum incorporation standards and confusing wording that implies many
loopholes.
As mentioned previously, in some cases the university has embraced its
greenspace in an innovative way. The University of Toronto currently has three
naturalization projects that are used for teaching purposes, integrating greenspace
with academic life. These include the Carolinian Forest near the Earth Science
building and Zoowoods, which is on the grounds of the Zoology building
(University of Toronto Facilities and Services, 2008).
Past approaches to landscaping have been overshadowed by the
university’s emphasis on buildings in campus design. Financially, new
landscaping is tied to the building it is close to. However, there are some attempts
in the past to create something more than an attractive border around a building.
This is evident in the use of teaching gardens on campus, as well as the Open
Spaces Master Plan.
5.2.2 Open Spaces Master Plan
The university unanimously approved the Open Spaces Master Plan in
1999 and it remains an innovative document. This plan was created with
extensive participatory consultation, involving the entire university community.
This plan was written for the St. George campus and seeks to: “build upon this
understanding of the relationship between the physical environment of the
campus, its international image, and its quality of life for students, staff and
107
visitors” (University of Toronto, 1999). This integrative approach provides a
long-range vision for the growth of the campus in regards to connecting built and
recreation spaces. There are ten primary objectives that the plan outlines. They
are as follows:
• The considerable energy of the university should be focused toward the
common goal of achieving the highest quality design for campus open
spaces
• The university should require all building projects, including the identified
University Development Sites, to improve public open space
• The university should participate in the planning, design and construction
of capital works that will unify the separate open spaces of the campus and
the City
• The university should establish a Pedestrian Priority Zone, which places a
high priority on the quality of the pedestrian environment on campus
• The university should encourage and support community and cross-
jurisdictional partnerships in open space and streetscape enhancements
• The university should place a high priority on the preservation of existing
mature trees and support all activities that will enhance and increase the
overall tree density on campus open spaces and streetscapes
• On the West Campus, the university should place a priority on developing
a significant open space and on improving the streetscapes
108
• The open spaces on campus should support and promote the activities of
the academic programs and represent the cultural diversity of the
University community
• The university should promote opportunities to increase public art on the
campus
• The university should increase its investment in open space improvements
It is clear that in the ten years since this plan’s inception, some steps have
been made towards fulfilling these objectives. These include but are not limited
to the fact that the university now requires all building projects to incorporate
some form of landscaping within their design and budget (University of Toronto
Facilities and Services, 2006). The academic gardens discussed earlier act in
supporting and promoting the activities of academic programs (University of
Toronto Facilities and Services, 2008). Additionally, the university has created a
Capital Project for landscaping and walkways that attempt to facilitate the
Pedestrian Priority Zone discussed in the objectives. An example of this is the
gateway and tree planting developed on King’s College Road, which also
encompasses the pedestrian walkways between King’s College Circle and the
West Campus (University of Toronto Capital Projects, 2006). The improvement
of King’s College Road is a direct reflection of a project outlined in the Open
Spaces Master Plan (University of Toronto, 1999).
The Open Spaces Master Plan is an innovative document that continues to
provide a framework within which landscaping initiatives can take shape.
109
However, this plan is ten years old and could benefit from updating. Some of the
specific projects outlined in the plan as key areas for improvement have changed
a lot since 1999.
5.2.3 Present Outlook
The University of Toronto still uses the initial 1999 Open Spaces Master
Plan to inform most major landscaping initiatives across campus. Smaller
landscaping projects are most commonly thought of in relation to the buildings
they are attached to and as such are subject to the landscaping design standards.
In 2001, Governing Council passed the Policy on Capital Planning and Capital
Projects, which attempted to build on the Open Spaces Master Plan. This policy
recognized the challenge to effectively integrate new and existing structures to
achieve interconnectivity, with intelligent green landscaping. In order to achieve
this, the policy suggested the development of comprehensive Master Plans for
each campus (University of Toronto Governing Council, 2001).
This is the first time within the University of Toronto’s existence that it
has acknowledged the need for a comprehensive Master Plan for campus
improvement and development. A St. George Campus Master Plan is currently
entering the beginning stages of development and will be available for review
soon. This Master Plan would include and update the Open Spaces Master Plan
to create a campus that effectively integrates the built and natural sphere
(Anonymous, pers. comm., 2009).
110
5.3 Conclusion
Overall, the University of Toronto appears to view campus design and
greenspace development as a short-term goal. This is evident in the
fragmentation of policies across departments, such as those created by Facilities
and Services or Capital Projects. There does not exist currently a unifying St.
George Campus Master Plan, which serves to inform and encourage different
sectors to adopt environmentally sensitive initiatives. This has led to policies
such as the Design Standards for buildings that do not maintain a stringent
measure of success. This results in compliance to these standards varying over
projects.
The necessity of this type of framework can be seen in the leadership role
the Open Spaces Master Plan has taken towards protecting and enhancing
landscaping on campus. However, this plan was never updated and the campus
has changed since the plan was first made. The university shows room for
improvement, but the creation of new advisory boards and the first comprehensive
master plan to guide the university towards sustainability displays a willingness to
change.
111
6. Lessons Learned
Seattle University and the University of Oregon have implemented
strategic planning in their campus design in order to maximize the surrounding
greenspace. Based on the wealth of information presented in this report, 4 key
lessons can be drawn upon and used for the consideration of the University of
Toronto. In regards to the policies found in campus planning documents these
are:
• the existence of planning documents
• an active university campus planning office
Lessons that can be extracted from these policies are:
• integrating academics and green space
• the manner with which the university community and the public
can access such campus documents
These lessons are vital in gaining an understanding of the different processes and
initiatives that allowed these schools to become leaders in campus design and
greenspace.
112
6.1 Existence of Planning Documents
The universities that have been discussed are noted for their approaches to
campus design and green space sustainability. It is important to notice that both
the University of Oregon and Seattle University have one or more comprehensive
plans that are integral to guiding their policies and initiatives. What makes these
universities a leader in sustainable university practices is their commitment to
implementation of these planning documents. Each school employs a very
different approach with the structure of the documents used for putting their
campus plan into practice. Yet both universities have been identified for their
leading sustainability practices.
Seattle University has one document, the Facilities Master Plan, that
sources all of the campus design policies and greenspace initiatives that the
university would like to pursue. This document is quite extensive and thoroughly
examines the analyses, processes and implementations the university needs to
practice to maintain its position as a leader of sustainability. The Facilities Master
Plan is also a set plan – it is designed to have a campus vision implemented in the
proposed policies by 2026. There is thus a set timeline for the university’s
projected goals, which is written in the plan to be fully realized in twenty years.
In contrast, the University of Oregon has 3 smaller documents that address
these issues. The Biennial Capacity Plan, the Campus Plan, and the Campus Tree
Plan are all plans that focus on specific initiatives and campus policies. The
planning decisions that occur here, in contrast to Seattle University, follow a
decision making process rather than an established image of the campus
113
(University of Oregon Campus Plan webpage). This allows for flexibility in the
development of the campus by following a well-articulated set of policies within
which decisions can be made (University of Oregon Campus Plan webpage).
One of the most significant errors in the manner in which the University of
Toronto approaches campus planning is their lack of a comprehensive campus
plan. The university is missing a campus plan that integrates both landscape and
buildings into a cohesive whole that presents a unified picture of the campus now
and in the future. The internal document that comes closest to this was the Open
Space Master Plan (1999). It was designed to focus only on greenspace and
integrating the campus through landscape (University of Toronto, 1999). As this
plan was drafted ten years ago, it is dated in many of its recommendations. For
example: it does not take into consideration new developments, potential barriers
that were experienced at the onset of the project, or new landscaping models.
Alternatively, the City of Toronto has a current plan, from 2006, that both
outlines policies on what the city will allow to happen in the university area and
encourages the university to be innovative within this structure (City of Toronto,
2006). However, this plan was designed to be a framework within which the
university could create its own plan, and not a comprehensive plan itself. The
university should use the city’s Secondary Plan for the University Area to outline
their own campus plan, touching on all the major issues as the city did, such as:
open space, streets, public space networks, parking, pedestrian and cycling
facilities, views and gateways into the university, built form, land use and density,
and landscape planning (City of Toronto, 2006).
114
It is interesting to note that in the City’s Secondary Plan, as well as the
Open Space Master Plan, it is assumed that there is a Campus Master Plan, or
would be one (City of Toronto, 2006; University of Toronto, 1999). Neither of
these plans was designed as a stand-alone document to propel campus design into
the future. Furthermore, the Policy on Capital Planning and Capital Projects,
which was passed by the Governing Council at the University of Toronto in 2001,
stated that “the planning approach is to invest in the development of
comprehensive Master Plans for each campus…” (University of Toronto
Governing Council 2001). While this plan is in development, more needs to be
done to expedite the process. As a Master Plan has not yet been completed, our
report is in a position to impact the final product. In seeing that there are 2 ways
of adhering to a campus plan, following the example of either Seattle University
or the University of Oregon, this presents an opportunity for the University of
Toronto to choose either route in their plan’s successful implementation.
6.2 An Active Campus Planning Office
The University of Oregon and Seattle University are undeniable leaders in
campus design and green space. The most important quality these schools
possess that the University of Toronto does not, are active campus planning
offices oriented around sustainability. The University of Oregon has positions
such as, the head of Campus Planning and Real Estate, and Sustainability
Director. Seattle University positions include a Campus Sustainability Manager,
and IPM Coordinator. These positions serve to showcase the universities’
115
commitment to the maintenance and execution of greenspace and the design of a
sustainable campus. Unlike the University of Toronto, these universities have
sustainability personnel that are actually embedded in relevant departments.
While the University of Toronto does have a Sustainability Office, it does not
have positions embedded within campus planning. These positions are vital in
bringing sustainable issues to the forefront.
6.3 Integrating Academics and Greenspace
The University of Oregon and Seattle University attempt to integrate
greenspace with academics in order to enhance the campus experience. As stated
in previously and described in Table 4, the gardens at Seattle University are used
not only to enhance the aesthetics of the campus, but to reveal the school’s
dedication to sustainability and learning. The Shakespeare Garden, and the
Ethnobotanical Garden connect their theme to academia by showcasing and
planting flora related to student courses. This creates a distinctive space on
campus unique to Seattle University.
At the University of Oregon, Christine Thompson discusses the use of
outdoor classrooms to ensure the interaction of the students with the green areas
around them. Outdoor classrooms are implemented with the intent that these
spaces are as integral to a student’s learning experience as the interior of the
classroom setting. This develops a closer relationship between the student and the
ecological environment.
116
The University of Toronto also has teaching gardens dispersed around the
campus. These include Zoowoods, the Carolinian forest, and the Boreal forest
gardens. These garden initiatives, if given the opportunity, have the potential to
become as integral to campus learning as the courses themselves. Through better
maintenance and growth, these gardens could become a focal feature of the St.
George campus. These gardens can be used as teaching aids that will help foster a
deeper understanding of sustainability within University of Toronto students.
6.4 Public Access to University Documents
As universities chosen for their sustainability, both the University of
Oregon and Seattle University have allowed those outside their respective school
communities access to their internal documents. By posting these important
documents on their campus website, these universities have made themselves
transparent in the manner with which they conduct their internal affairs. Planning
documents, meetings, and minutes can be easily accessed online.
The University of Toronto documents relating to campus design and
greenspace are widely dispersed across different webpages and not easily
accessed. In order for the University of Toronto to properly evaluate itself in its
quest to sustainability, it should maintain an archive of past plans and initiatives.
This would allow documents to be shared and discussed more easily between
departments, and maintain the university’s transparency throughout time.
117
7. Conclusions
The increase in knowledge regarding sustainability and the surrounding built
environment, has placed the focus on institutions of higher education to adopt
sustainable building and landscape design. The purpose of this report was to
provide to the University of Toronto two academic institutions that are breaking
new ground with respect to campus planning and greenspace design. This
document has sought to answer:
• What aspects of campus design and green space need to be undertaken by
an institution of higher education to render it a leader in sustainability
• What are the processes in which a leading institution achieves
sustainability in green space and campus design
• What are the barriers preventing these achievements
Goal #1: What aspects of campus design and green space need to be undertaken
by an institution of higher education to render it a leader in sustainability?
The most significant aspect that the University of Oregon and Seattle
University have towards becoming a leader in sustainable campus design and
greenspace is the existence of one (or more) comprehensive campus planning
documents. Without such a document, many of the policies proposed and realized
at these leading universities would not have occurred. The University of Toronto
118
as it currently stands does not have such a campus plan. This is an excellent
opportunity for the St. George campus to devise a campus plan that best suits its
needs.
This document could be rigid with a set timeline to see goals set forth like
Seattle University. Or follow the example of the University of Oregon and create
a dynamic and incremental growth plan to allow for flexibility within the planning
process. Whichever approach the University of Toronto chooses, a transparent
campus plan is integral to the operation of a sustainable campus. From this
document, policies can be set in motion that will allow the university to change its
St. George campus into one that is sustainable. A campus master plan will allow
for clearer organization of pedestrian and vehicular zonings and can permit the
commission of LEED standard buildings. The creation of the plan also gives the
university the opportunity to devise practices that integrate greenspace into the
design of the campus. This would encompass greenspace initiatives beyond those
solely produced for the purpose of an aesthetically pleasing landscape. These
initiatives could include integrated pest management, planting native vegetation,
water conservation strategies, as well as others that are listed in this report.
Another important aspect that the University of Oregon and Seattle
University possess, which renders them leaders in sustainability, is the existence
of an active campus planning office. These offices have positions that are fully
engaged in the creation of a sustainable planning process. Having sustainable
positions embedded within the campus planning office allows for greater success
in the initiation of sustainable greenspace and campus design practices. This also
119
allows for decisions to be made without having to follow a chain-of-command
route. The respective sustainability representatives in the planning office can
manage any conflicts that may appear in the incorporation of sustainable
greenspace or campus design policies. While the University of Toronto has a
Sustainability Office, there are no specific sustainability positions that are
allocated specifically to campus planning. An office designated to the successful
administration of a campus master plan and actively involved in the
implementation of sustainable practices would be a benefit to the successful
execution of a campus plan at the University of Toronto.
Goal #2: What are the processes in which a leading institution achieves
sustainability in green space and campus design?
The processes in which a leading institution achieves sustainability in
green space and campus design have been summarized in Table 6 below. The
University of Oregon and Seattle University have been rendered leaders in
sustainable campus design and greenspace based on several processes that led
them to induce a functional and efficient campus composed of a significant
amount of greenspace. These processes were critical in the development of a
campus that enhances the learning experience at the university, and also is in
harmony with the surrounding ecosystem. By using the University of Oregon and
Seattle University as effective examples, the University of Toronto can better
develop its own methods to produce a successful sustainable campus.
120
Table 6: Leading Processes that render an Academic Institution Sustainable in Campus Design and Greenspace
School Process Description
University
of Oregon
Holistic Approach/ Working Together
Collaborative effort of faculty, staff and students to allow for success in sustainability initiatives
Preservation Embedded in the University’s Culture
Despite a great deal of pressure to expand, U of O has not abandoned any of their policies but rather have looked for alternatives (building up, acquiring new property)
Frequent Evaluations
Evaluating campus initiatives is essential in order to recognize successes and shortcomings, and to identify which areas are in need of action and improvement
Willingness to try new things
U of O does not hesitate to be at the forefront of environmental protection and has adopted the newest technologies (ex. IPM, Maxicom)
Seattle
University
Bottom-up ideas
Each of the three identified greenspace initiatives at SU have emerged from environmentally conscious ideas at the lower levels of university organization
Interdepartmental collaboration
The unofficial authority given to the gardeners over the operations and maintenance of the gardens has allowed for successful sustainable greenspace actions without appealing to various avenues in administration
Transparent decision-making
Easier access for direct consultation at a facilities level has allowed for greater success in implementation to be achieved
Dedication to alternative measures, research and innovative thinking
Dedication to alternative measures in sustainable practices concerning greenspace is responsible for many of the initiatives at SU
121
Goal #3: What are the barriers preventing these achievements?
Seattle University and the University of Oregon had to overcome several
obstacles in order to become leaders in sustainable campus design and
greenspace. The lack of strong leadership at both universities created an
atmosphere where a decentralized administration forced decisions to be made by
those in middle management. Seattle University’s IPM initiative was met with
pressure to yield landscape results similar to conventional pesticide use from
upper administration. Seattle University has overcome this challenge with the
dramatic reduction of the pest population due to a successful IPM program. The
University of Oregon has acknowledged that decentralization makes decision-
making increasingly difficult. In order to combat this issue, the University of
Oregon has established an Environmental Issues Committee and Sustainability
Council whose main priorities is to share and disburse information.
The campuses are constrained in their need to expand. Space is not
available for departments to build and develop. This restriction forced the
University of Oregon and Seattle University to devise innovative solutions to
expand their campus without harming the integrity of their greenspace. Such
solutions were a result of the careful consideration of these issues within the
context of the campus master plan.
Budget has always been and will continue to be a challenge to the
successful incorporation of sustainable campus initiatives. Both universities have
generally received adequate funding to their facilities and services, but the priority
122
has always been placed on the construction of academic buildings. This is
important to consider when developing a campus design that incorporates the use
of sustainable greenspaces. The leading universities chosen find it a continuing
battle to convince funding sources that greenspaces within a campus play an
important factor in campus operations.
A lack of communication between various departments is a significant
challenge in effectively showcasing implemented sustainability initiatives. The
effective acknowledgement of initiatives and successes would not only create
awareness of campus issues, but would also allow concerns for sustainability to
be viewed in a more positive light. This could encourage an increased effort and
additional funding to be put toward campus sustainability.
The aim of this report was to inform those involved with campus planning
and greenspace design at the University of Toronto of future possible directions.
This could result in a transformation of the University of Toronto into a leader in
greenspace and campus sustainability. The question that is left to answer is: how
can the University of Toronto effectively and efficiently integrate a sustainable
campus design with adequate greenspace? This question will be answered by the
recommendations that the authors propose in the following section.
123
8. Recommendations
In light of the information gathered from the University of Oregon and
Seattle University on the subject of greenspace and campus design, the following
are recommendations, which the University of Toronto should take to ensure its
sustainable future in these fields.
8.1 University of Toronto’s Sustainable Future in Campus Design
As has been demonstrated by the campus design initiatives at the
University of Oregon and Seattle University, achieving a sustainable campus
design cannot occur without extensive and detailed campus planning.
Considering that the University of Toronto is currently only in the initial stages of
creating a campus plan (anonymous, pers. comm., 2009), the following are
recommendations to aid in the process of creating an insightful and functional
campus plan. These recommendations are inspired by the campus design activity
at both the University of Oregon and Seattle University.
1. Analyse current campus components
2. Create a Campus Master Plan (CMP)
3. Incorporate goals of campus interest groups in the CMP
4. Incorporate sustainable initiatives in the CMP
5. Create regular assessment reports
124
8.1.1 Analyse Current Campus Components
Before the University of Toronto can create an effective and all-
encompassing Campus Master Plan (CMP), it must first conduct an extensive
analysis of the campus’ existing components and identify the function they
perform for the institution. This was the first step taken by Seattle University in
their process of creating a Master Plan and has proven to be very successful
(Figure 9). In analysing the existing buildings and open spaces on the St. George
campus, the University of Toronto will have a comprehensive understanding of
where it stands currently. Only with a comprehensive understanding of its current
layout can the University of Toronto create a platform from which it can build
toward its own sustainable campus design. The analysis of all campus
components also allows the university to identify the potential to accommodate
future growth that already exists within the buildings on campus, and which areas
on campus can be further developed. This is especially important for the St.
George campus because of the spatial constraints that accompany its urban
location in downtown Toronto.
8.1.2 Create a Campus Master Plan
Once the analysis of the current constituents of its campus is performed,
the University of Toronto must then use this information to realize a
comprehensive Campus Master Plan (CMP). While we understand that this
process is currently underway at the University of Toronto, this recommendation
is designed as an urging to produce a CMP in the immediate future. Without a set
125
document detailing the direction of the St. George campus, the future of the
University of Toronto’s campus remains ambiguous. Money allocated to
development and renovation projects are at risk of being ill-spent without
following the insightful guidelines of a CMP. In this economic recession, the
university cannot afford to fund projects that do not follow a comprehensive plan
specifically designed to sustain its future.
Figure 9: Seattle University’s analysis of campus constituents with campus map
imbedded. The campus components are colour-coded with respect to campus function in the analysis.
Source: Seattle University Facilities Master Plan 2006-2026 ; Seattle University website.
8.1.3 Incorporate the Needs of Campus Interest Groups in the CMP
A university is composed of many interacting groups, (administration,
students, faculty, and staff) which operate on its campus. The needs of these
126
different groups are as varied as the groups themselves. During the process of
creating a CMP, the University of Toronto must consider input from all campus
interest groups in order to plan for an integrated future, which satisfies the needs
and desires of the university’s future. If the University of Toronto does not take
into consideration this input, the resulting CMP may be rejected by one or more
of the groups. If such a case arises, the adherence of the CMP may be
jeopardised, regardless of how beneficial and sustainable the plan may be.
When creating a CMP, campus planners should hold meetings with each
interest group in order to gain their perspective and understand their present and
future needs. Meetings with all interest groups should be equal in length, to
ensure that the CMP is not biased towards the viewpoint of any particular interest
group. The resulting CMP should reflect this input as much as possible, and be
released to the interest groups for review. It is important that the University of
Toronto make itself receptive to the reaction of interest groups upon release of a
proposed CMP. A position must be created to receive direct calls and emails
from concerned parties. Furthermore, campus planners must organize public
forums, town hall meetings and/or information sessions to allow interested parties
the opportunity to express their concerns. This also allows the university to
justify the proposals made in the CMP, and provide additional information to
interest groups regarding what is possible under current constraints. By including
the participation of campus interest groups, the produced campus plan will reflect
the varied needs of the campus and provide the university with an integrated
future.
127
The organization that is involved in arranging meetings, forums,
information sessions and town halls is extensive. If resources allow, the
University of Toronto should consider enlisting the help of outside consultants to
oversee these proceedings or otherwise place a specific department at the
university responsible. To ease the process of creating an effective and
representative CMP, the processes and decision-making must be transparent.
There is not one correct way of achieving this. However, transparency must be
achieved to ensure confidence and cooperation from the campus interest groups.
8.1.4 Incorporate Sustainable Initiatives in the CMP
The creation of a Campus Master Plan provides an opportunity for the
University of Toronto to make sustainable commitments for the future of its
campus. The CMP is a document, which will dictate all future actions taken in
building development and renovation. Sustainable initiatives that should be
considered for the CMP include:
• Preserving and expanding current campus greenspaces
• Design of more campus greenspaces
• Create auto-free zones
• Design positive gathering spaces
• Commitment to LEED standards on new/renovated buildings
128
In committing to sustainable initiatives in the CMP, the University of
Toronto not only ensures its own future, but will become a leader in campus
design, like the University of Oregon and Seattle University. This will render the
university attractive to prospective students, increase enrolment, (and possibly
endowment) as well as establish it as a progressive campus known not only for its
academic excellence but for its dedication to sustainability.
8.1.5 Create Regular Assessment Reports for the CMP
When a CMP has been designed and put in motion, the University of
Toronto must create regular assessment reports to monitor its success. Depending
on resources and feasibility, it is recommended that the university conduct
assessments every 1-2 years. The assessment report should be made available to
the public so that campus interest groups can educate themselves on the
university’s progress. Assessment reports allow the university to commit to
“staying on track.” This also creates the opportunity to identify challenges in
fulfilling targeted projects on campus. In identifying the encountered barriers, the
University of Toronto enables itself to consult with involved parties and find
solutions and/or alternatives to the planned project. Assessment reports allow the
university to adapt to unforeseen complications and to arrive at the necessary
solutions which allow for the continued adherence to the Campus Master Plan.
129
8.2 University of Toronto’s Sustainable Future in Greenspace
The University of Toronto occupies a very large campus in downtown
Toronto and has the potential to incorporate many green landscaping practices to
create a sustainable environment for the academic setting. Instead of
recommending specific greenspace components or landscaping practices, the
following recommendations to the University of Toronto are tools, which have
allowed the leading universities studied (the University of Oregon and Seattle
University) to achieve their impressive sustainable greenspace initiatives:
1. Implement new ideas/practices from the bottom-up
2. Empower existing actors to implement new sustainable practices
8.2.1 Implement New Ideas/Practices from the Bottom-Up
The University of Toronto should consider rethinking the decision making
process involved in landscape management on campus. The processes in which
greenspace initiatives have originated at the University of Oregon and Seattle
University have involved the realization of new ideas from the bottom up, or
middle management positions. On the St. George campus, the institution is so
immense that the decision making process has become a complicated problem.
Changing landscaping practices or attempting to develop more greenspace on
campus involves pursuing various channels in the administration system. The
University of Toronto must foster a new organizational atmosphere, which is
receptive to new ideas as they arise from staff members. To accomplish this, the
130
university should create opportunities to allow new ideas to be heard. These
opportunities can include holding regular town hall meetings with respect to
current greenspace and their maintenance practices, as well as ensuring open
dialogue with the administration. Holding regular meetings allows those involved
and interested in the landscaping practices on campus to regularly voice concerns
and ideas for change. In this setting, the University of Toronto will foster an
environment that encourages and values creative thinking and the progressive
change it may bring. New ideas can either be discussed or formed at this setting.
In maintaining open dialogue with administration (via attendance at town halls
and direct phone calls/emails), the University of Toronto is ensuring that they
have administrative support to implement new sustainable initiatives that may
have arisen during meetings.
8.2.2 Empower Existing Actors to Implement New Sustainable Practices
In knowing that innovative ideas and creative thinking can arise from the
bottom-up to implement sustainable initiatives, it is recommended that the
University of Toronto empower those working closest with current landscaping
practices. This would include giving landscapers and gardeners decision-making
authority over their operations. The university will enable these staff members to
make the decisions necessary to implement new sustainable initiatives. As stated
previously, the University of Toronto is a large institution with a decentralized
authority over its operations. The shift of power from the administration to the
staff members in charge of the campus greenspaces will allow them to make
131
changes faster and more effectively. New ideas over pest control, water use, plant
types, and garden placement could then be implemented by these staff members.
132
9. References Adams, W. M. The World Conservation Union. 2006. “The Future of
Sustainability: Rethinking Environment and Development in the twenty-first century.” http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_future_of_sustanability.pdf.
Anonymous. Personal communication. Interview: March 13, 2009.
Barnett, J. 1996. “The Fractured Metropolis.” Waterview Press.
Bell, P.A., T.C. Greene, J.D. Fisher, and A. Baum. 2001. Environmental Psychology. Harcourt College Publishers: Orlando, Florida.
Bicycle Improvements User Committee (BIUC). 1991. University of Oregon Bicycle Plan. Last viewed March 20, 2009. http://uplan.uoregon.edu/plandoc/BikePlan2.html
Biennial Capacity Plan (BCP). 2006. Last viewed on March 20, 2009. http://uplan.uoregon.edu/plandoc/BCPsum.html
Brundtland Commission. 1987. “Our Common Future.” Oxford: Oxford
University Press. BRW Inc. 1996. Transporation System Analysis: University of Oregon. Last
viewed April 10, 2009. http://uplan.uoregon.edu/plandoc/BRWreport.html Bryant, G. 1991. The Oregon Experiment After Twenty Years. Rain Magazine,
14(1). Retrieved March 20, 2009. http://web.archive.org/web/20070528030431/http://www.rainmagazine.com/architecture/oregonexperiment.html
Colding, Johan. 2007. “‘Ecological land-use complementation’ for building
resilience in urban ecosystems.” Landscape and Urban Planning 81:46-55.
Development Policy, Implementation and Transportation (DPIT) Subcommittee.
Sustainable Development Plan. 2000, updated 2005. Last viewed March 25, 2009. http://uplan.uoregon.edu/subjects/Sustainability/SDPFull.pdf
Fascinating Facts about our Campus. University of Oregon Exterior Team. Last
viewed January, 2009. http://facilities.uoregon.edu/Grounds/facts.htm Frey and Hildebrand. (1999). “Designing the City: Towards a More Sustainable
Form.” Taylor and Francis Inc.
133
Fuller, Richard A. et al., 2007. “Psychological benefits of greenspace increases with biodiversity.” Biol. Lett 3 pp. 390-394.
Gill, S. E. 2008. “Characterising the urban environment of UK cities and towns:
A template for landscape planning.” Landscape and Urban Planning 87: 210-220.
Greenspace Scotland. 2008. Health Impact Assessment of Greenspace: A Guide. Last viewed April 4, 2009. http://www.greenspacescotland.ork/uk/upload/File/Greenspace%20HIA.pdf.
Griffith, J.C. 1994. Open Space Preservation: An Imperative for Quality Campus Environments. The Journal of Higher Education 65(6) pp.645-669.
Jacobs, Jane. 1961. “The Death and Life of Great American Cities.” New York: Vintage Books.
Jim, C. Y. 2004. “Green space preservation and allocation for sustainable
greening of compact cities.” Cities 21: 311-320. Keniry, J. 1995. Ecodemia: Campus Environmental Stewardship at the Turn of
the 21st Century. Washington, D.C. National Wildlife Federation.
Keller, E. A. 2000. “Environmental Geology.” Eighth edition. NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.
Kerrigan, R. Personal communication. Telephone interview: January 29, 2009. Long Range Campus Development Plan (LRCDP) (1991). Last viewed February
22, 2009. http://uplan.uoregon.edu/plandoc/CampusPlan/CampusPlan1991/1991_LRDPtoc.html
M’Gonigle, M. and J. Starke. 2006. “Planet U: Sustaining the World, Reinventing
the University.” Gabriola, BC: New Society Publishers. Meire, M.A. 2007. A Sense of Community through an Urban Greenspace:
Perspectives on People and Place. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Utah, United States—Utah. Retrieved October 12, 2008, from Dissertations and Theses: Full Text Database (Publication No. AAT 3255561)
Miley, L. Personal communication. Telephone interview: February 27, 2009.
134
Mital, S. Personal communication. Telephone interview: January 23, 2009. Morris, C. Personal communication. Telephone interview: January 23, 2009. Murphy, J. Personal communication. Telephone interview: January 27, 2009. National Wildlife Federation. Campus Ecology Campus Environment (2008). A
National Report Card on sustainability in Higher Education. http://www.nwf.org/campusEcology/campusreportcard.cfm
National Wildlife Federation (NWF). Schools with exemplary programs. Last
viewed March 21, 2009. http://www.nwf.org/campusEcology/docs/ExemplaryProgramsFinal.pdf
Nealon, T. Personal communication. Telephone interview: January 27, 2009. Office of Sustainability (University of Oregon). Rainwater Catchment System at
the Outdoor Program. Last viewed February 22, 2009. http://sustainability.uoregon.edu/content/rainwater-catchment-system-outdoor-program
Price, K. Personal communication. Telephone interview: January 16, 2009. Ramey, C. 2001. “The University of Oregon’s Sustainable Development Plan.”
Association of University Architects 2001 Case Study Awards Program. Last viewed February 11, 2009. from http://uplan.uoregon.edu/recognition/AUA_submittal.pdf
Schlessman, K. Personal communication. Telephone interview: March 2, 2009. Seattle University Facilities Master Plan 2006-2026. Last viewed April 8 2009.
http://www.seattleu.edu/facilities/page.aspx?id=46&x=46 Seattle University, Office of Sustainability. Last viewed April 12, 2009.
http://www2.seattleu.edu/sustainability/ Seattle University, Department of Facilities Services. Last viewed April 12, 2009.
http://www.seattleu.edu/facilities/default.aspx
Sustainable Endowments Institute. 2008. “The College Sustainability Report Card.” Last viewed March 12, 2009. http://www.greenreportcard.org/
Taylor, A. Personal communication. Interview: February 10, 2009.
Thompson, C. Personal communication. Telephone interview: January 20, 2009.
135
Transportation Review Working Group (TRWG). 1996. University of Oregon.
Working Draft: Transportation Review Working Group Report. Last viewed April 10, 2009. http://uplan.uoregon.edu/plandoc/TranspoWkgGpRecs.html
Transportation Systems Review (TSR). 1996. University of Oregon. Last viewed
April 10, 2009. http://uplan.uoregon.edu/plandoc/TranspoRev.html)
Tratalos, J., Fuller, R., Warrne, A., Davies, P.H., Gaston, R. G. and J. Kevin. 2007. Urban form, Biodiversity otential and ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning 83, 308-317.
United Nations (2007) Population Statistics. Last viewed February 28, 2009.
http://esa.un.org/unpp/
University of Oregon Bike Management Program. 2002. Revised 2003. Last viewed March 10, 2009. http://uplan.uoregon.edu/plandoc/BikeManagementProgram.pdf
University of Oregon Campus Plan (2005). Last viewed January 17, 2009.
http://uplan.uoregon.edu/plandoc/CampusPlan/CampusPlan2005Aug01/CampusPlan8.1.05.pdf
University of Oregon Campus Plan website. Last viewed January 17, 2009.
http://uplan.uoregon.edu/plandoc/CampusPlan/CampusPlan.html University of Oregon Campus Planning Committee website: Last viewed January
17, 2009. http://uplan.uoregon.edu/CPC/CPC.htm University of Oregon Expenditure Report, 2008. Last viewed April 10, 2009.
http://brp.uoregon.edu/brp_files/3_VP_Exp_By_RU_FundGroup_5.pdf University of Oregon Libraries website. Heart of Campus. Last viewed April 1,
2009. http://libweb.uoregon.edu/guides/architecture/oregon/heart.html University of Oregon Planning Office. FAQ about the University’s use of the
Pattern Language. 2005. Last viewed March 20, 2009. http://uplan.uoregon.edu/faq/FAQPatternLanquage.html
University of Oregon Sustainable Initiatives Tour (2008). Last viewed April 1,
2009. http://uplan.uoregon.edu/subjects/Sustainability/SustTour11x17_5_13_08.pdf
136
University of Oregon Sustainable Development Plan. Updated September 2005.
Last viewed April 10, 2009. http://www.uoregon.edu/~uplan/subjects/Sustainability/SDPFull.pdf
U.S. Green Building Council LEED Ratings System. Last viewed April 09, 2009. http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=220
Walker, A. Whole Building Design Guide: Natural Ventilation. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. Last reviewed on March 30, 2009. http://www.wbdg.org/resources/naturalventilation.php
Related Documents
