Identifying Sustainability Assessment Elements: The Case Study of Campus Sustainability Assessment Elements for Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (Mengenal pasti Unsur Penilaian Kelestarian: Kajian Kes Kampus Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia dalam Menilai Elemen Kelestarian)

ZUHAIR FIKRI FADZIL, HALIMATON SAADIAH HASHIM, ADI IRFAN CHE ANI, SARAH AZIZ

Abstract


ABSTRACT: Sustainability Assessment Frameworks for any area must be unique to its characteristics. This study identifies campus sustainability assessment (CSA) elements for Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) or National University of Malaysia by examining established CSA frameworks, then adopting, and adapting suitable elements, thus avoiding starting from zero. The study explores CSA approaches and frameworks and then narrowed down to two approaches which are most comprehensive, namely the Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework (CSAF) and the Sustainability Tracking and Assessment Rating System (STARS). The study examines key aspects and elements in these frameworks, and then identifies relevant elements for the UKM CSA framework. This study finds that CSAF and STARS are most comprehensive and suitable. Their dimensions and aspects are different from UKM’s but their elements can match the Sustainable UKM Programme, thus suitable to be adopted and adapted by UKM. CSAF and STARS do not focus much on physical development as key aspects and elements. This is different from the UKM programme which gives a stronger focus on physical development. However most of the CSAF’s and STARS’ assessment elements are suitable for UKM. Using CSAF and STARS as a base for developing UKM’s sustainability assessment framework is regarded as appropriate as they are the most comprehensive methods and hence avoid starting from zero.

Keywords: Sustainable campus; sustainability; benchmarking; sustainability assessment; campus sustainability assessment

 

ABSTRAK: Rangka kerja Penilaian Kelestarian untuk mana-mana bidang haruslah bersesuaian dengan ciri-cirinya yang unik. Kajian ini mengenal pasti unsur-unsur Penilaian Kelestarian Kampus (PKK) untuk Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) dengan menyemak rangka kerja PKK, lalu menerima pakai serta menyesuaikan unsur-unsur yang sesuai agar tidak perlu dihasilkan dari mula. Kajian ini meneroka pendekatan rangka kerja PKK dan diperhalusi kepada dua pendekatan yang paling komprehensif iaitu Rangka Kerja Penilaian Kelestarian Kampus (RPKK) dan Sistem Penarafan Pengesanan dan Penilaian Kelestarian (SPPPK). Kajian ini mengkaji aspek dan unsur utama dalam rangka kerja ini dan mengenal pasti unsur yang relevan untuk rangka kerja PKK UKM. Kajian ini mendapati bahawa RPKK dan SPPPK merupakan pendekatan yang paling komprehensif dan sesuai. Dimensi dan aspek kedua-dua pendekatan ini berbeza daripada UKM tetapi unsurunsur yang digunakan boleh menyamai Program UKM Lestari. Oleh itu, program ini sesuai untuk diterima pakai dan disesuaikan oleh pihak UKM. RPKK dan SPPPK kurang tertumpu kepada pembangunan fizikal sebagai aspek dan unsur utama berbanding dengan program UKM. Walau bagaimanapun, kebanyakan unsur penilaian RPKK dan SPPPK adalah sesuai untuk UKM. Pelaksanaan RPKK dan SPPPK sebagai asas untuk membangunkan rangka kerja penilaian kelestarian UKM dianggap sesuai kerana menggunakan kaedah yang paling komprehensif dan tidak perlu dihasilkan dari mula.

Kata Kunci: Kampus lestari; kelestarian; penanda aras; penilaian kelestarian; penilaian kelestarian kampus


Full Text:

PDF

References


AASHE (Auditing instrument for sustainability in higher education). 2011. STARS Technical Framework version 1.1. Administrative Update One. Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education AASHE X1.

Cole, L. 2003a. Assessing Sustainability on Canadian University Campuses: Development of a Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework. MA Thesis, Environment and Management. Canada: Royal Roads University.

Cole, L. 2003b. Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework (CSAF) appendix v. Royal Roads University Canada.

IISD. 1992. Business Strategy for Sustainable Development: Leadership and Accountability for the 90’s. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.

Pope, J., Anadale, D. and Morrison-Saunders, A. 2004. Conceptualizing sustainability assessment, Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24: 595–616.

Pring, G.W. 2000. International Law and Mineral Resources. A series papers prepared for the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Geneva: UNCTAD.

Saadatian, O., Kamariah, D., Elias, S. and Osman, M.T. 2011. Identifying strength and weakness of sustainable higher educational assessment approaches, International Journalof Business and Social Science 2(3): 137-146.

Shriberg, M. 2002. Institutional assessment tools for sustainability in higher education: strengths, weaknesses, and implications for practice and theory, Journal of Higher Education Policy 15: 153-167.

ULSF (University Leaders for a Sustainable Future). 2012. The Talloires Declaration: 10 point action plan. Retrieved July 20, 2012, from http://www.ulsf.org/pdf/TD.pdf

UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development). 1993. Agenda 21: The United Nations Program of Action from Rio, New York: United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

UNESCO (United Nations Educational Scientific and Culture Organization). 2007. The UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD 2005-2014): The First Two Years. Retrieved July 20, 2012, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001540/154093e.pdf

WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). 1987. Brundtland Report. Retrieved August 14, 2010, from http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/ares42-187.htm


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


 


ISSN 2289-1706 | e-ISSN : 2289-4268 

Institut Alam dan Tamadun Melayu (ATMA)
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor Darul Ehsan
MALAYSIA

© Copyright UKM Press, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia