The Sustainable Campus as a Living Lab

The Sustainable Campus as a Living Lab: a mul&-‐criteria assessment

of value-‐based metrics using images

Sustainable Campus Interna1onal Symposium October 2012

João Romão – Karima Kour1t – Eveline van Leeuwen – Peter Nijkamp

The concept of sustainability is applied to community daily life and a University Campus can be faced as a living laboratory

for the development of sustainable prac1ces.

We developed a mul1-‐criteria assessment for the Campus at Hokkaido University, focused on the contribu1ons of the landscape and physical condi1ons

for its performance and sustainable development, analyzing how the goals and principles defined in the Campus Plans

fit the needs and concerns of its users.

This boOom-‐up approach aims to contribute to mobilize the community of users of the Campus

for a sustainable daily life with a high academic quality.



Two focus group mee1ngs have been organized in two different areas of the Campus, using a SWOT analysis methodology followed by a strategic assessment and supported by visual assessment.

The individual results obtained in the mee1ngs

have been evaluated by the par1cipants, crea1ng a collec1ve assessment on the performance of the Campus,

focused on its physical characteris1cs and landscape.

This process leads to a Strategic Choice Analysis and a

Decision Making Analysis (Mul1 Criteria Assessment based on the Regime Method),

which can be applied in other planning processes in the future.



Methodology Results Conclusions



University Campuses are spaces where thousand of persons interact everyday, performing different tasks with diverse purposes and mo1va1ons:

students, researchers, teachers, managers, other professional staff and visitors use a common space for their daily ac1vi1es,

requiring a wide range of products and services, consuming energy, circula1ng in public spaces and using common facili1es.

The importance recently given in many Universi1es to sustainability issues in the planning processes, strategic assessment and academic programs,

makes these communi1es specially appropriate to be analyzed as a “living lab” for the evalua1on of ac1ons and policies regarding sustainable behavior,

at individual and collec1ve levels.



BoOom-‐up approaches are today commonly assumed as a necessary condi1on for the successful implementa1on of sustainable ac1on plans at community level.

Advantages of a boOom-‐up approach: -‐ mobilize the different users for the objec1ves and strategies to be implemented;

-‐ improve the collabora1on between users and managers; -‐ ensure that development plans consider the needs and problems of different users;

-‐ increase the chances of conflict resolu1on among diverse mo1va1ons of different groups.



In this case, we assume that a Living Lab as a boOom-‐up approach implying a process of evalua1on and co-‐crea1on of strategies and scenarios

for the development of the Campus of Hokkaido University by its community of users, combining research and informa1on about the exis1ng condi1ons of the Campus with the development of innova1ve ideas and strategic op1ons for its future.

This assessment of the sustainability of the University Campus aOempts to achieve a comprehensive approach

to the different func1ons daily performed by the University, systema1zing different domains of analysis

and considering the users of the Campus as a community of different persons with different purposes sharing the same territory.



For this purpose, a conceptual framework is defined, in order to envision future perspec1ves for the Campus.

These “Future Images” represent 4 “extreme perspec1ves”

(or 4 ideal representa1ons) of the Campus: Crea1ve, Scien1fic, Sustainable and Social Campus.

Assessment Factors for the Campus:

Crea.ve Campus

Scien.fic Campus

Social Campus

Sustainable Campus



These Assessment Factors include different aspects (indicators) to be quan1fied according to a hierarchical decomposi1on

in the Mul1-‐Criteria Analysis to be developed:

Crea1ve Campus is focused on the rela.on with the regional society, including academic spin-‐offs (incubators), Private R&D, Collabora.ve R&D, Connec.vity (ICT networks),

Ar.s.c and Crea.ve professions and linkage to the local community;

Sustainable Campus is focused on environmental problems and in the use of resources, including ques.ons related to Accessibility, Mobility, Energy consump.on and produc.on,

Water and Waste management, CO2 Emissions or Biodiversity and public spaces;

Scien1fic Campus is focused on the “tradi.onal” domains of ac.vity of the University, including Teaching and learning condi.ons, Research condi.ons, Libraries, Conference facili.es,

Special educa.on facili.es or Experimental farms and produc.ons;

Social Campus includes the complementary services provided to the users of the Campus, like the Financial support for students, Student housing, Bookstores, Other services,

Leisure, recrea.onal, cultural and spor.ve ac.vi.es or projects involving the local community.



Hokkaido University has 65,000 hectares of campus resources, which include experimental forests and a variety of other facili1es.

More than 22,000 students and staff members use the 1,776,248m2 of the Sapporo Campus, which is open to the residents of the city and tourists.



Two “focus-‐group” mee1ngs were organized for these different territories of the Campus

North Campus R&D ac.vi.es, collabora.on with private and public en..es;

To be expanded with new buildings, infra-‐structures and public areas.

6 par.cipants 1 manager in a private ins.tu.on, 1 manager in an academic ins.tu.on,

2 researchers and 2 PhD students (3 par.cipants were women; 1 person was coming from abroad)

South Campus

Tradi.onal University Campus; To be transformed with very limited physical expansion.

16 par.cipants

10 students from different facul.es, 1 Master student, 3 academic staff and 2 other staff (7 par.cipants were women; 3 persons were coming from abroad).



Mee;ng at North Campus



Mee;ng at South Campus



Each mee1ng started with a presenta1on of the exis1ng plans for the development of Hokkaido University, using visual elements:

Master Plan (2006)

Ac1on Plan for Sustainability

(2012)



Aher this general presenta1on, informa1on related to the issues to be discussed (Assessment Factors) was provided and a set of pictures with posi1ve and nega1ve aspects of the Campus was distributed.

An open discussion among the par1cipants (during one hour) took place, addressing the main aspects of the Assessment Factors of the Campus

and oriented towards a SWOT analysis structure. SWOT analysis is a tool to be used as a precursor to strategic management planning,

aiming to obtain support informa1on for strategic choices, taking into considera1on posi1ve and nega1ve factors

or internal and external aspects that might have an impact on the proposed development.



The outputs of this discussion were organized in order to generate a Strategic Choice Analysis

and a Decision Making Analysis (Mul1-‐Criteria Assessment) based on the following elements:

SWOT Analysis (supported by Visual Assessment)

Par1cipants were asked to write their sugges1ons for the SWOT analysis, iden1fying what they considered to be the most relevant

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportuni1es and Threatens for the development of the Campus. Strategic Assessment (supported by Visual Assessment)

Par1cipants were asked to propose generic strategic ideas for the future of the Campus, considering the possibility to be implemented in the short run

and the consequences in the long run.

Visual Assessment Each par1cipant has chosen 3 pictures represen1ng posi1ve aspects of the Campus

and 3 pictures represen1ng nega1ve aspects of the Campus. This innova1ve process of assessment complemented the informa1on provided

in the SWOT analysis and the Strategic Assessment, showing objec1ve images for the preferences of the users.



Aher each focus-‐group mee1ng, a document systema1zing all the proposals

(SWOT analysis and strategic assessment supported by visual assessment) has been sent to all the par1cipants.

Each par1cipant evaluated according to a Likert scale (1 to 5)

the importance of each element in order to rank all the sugges1ons.

Only the most important proposals were considered in the final output, represen1ng a collec1ve process evalua1on.

These outputs were confronted with the Campus Foci

projected by the main development plans for the Hokkaido University Campus



Campus Foci

Campus'Foci' Master'Plan'(2006)! Action'Plan''(2012)' Questions'considered'

Experiential' Planning!open!space,!frame,!place!making'

Development!of!!public!space!

Social!interaction!and!non9academic!activities!

Functional' Zoning! Facility!design!!and!setting!

and!management!

Services!and!facilities!for!academic!functions!

Ecological'Structure!of!natural!and!ecological!environment!

Ecosystem!!conservation!

Biodiversity,!energy!production!and!consumption!or!waste!and!water!

management!Energy!consumption!!and!production!Waste!and!water!management!

Accessible' Accessibility,!mobility,!circulation!!

Transport,!parking,!pedestrianism!

Accessibility!!and!mobility!

Collaborative''

Collaboration!!campus!9!city!

Connection!with!regional!community!

Relations!with!!the!community!

!



As the Assessment Factors, these Campus Foci are not “closed” concepts and they are inter-‐related with each other.

A Mul1 Criteria Analysis was developed,

based on the mul1-‐aOribute representa1on of the mul1faceted aspects of choice alterna1ves.

The Regime Method was applied, combining

a matrix of Campus Foci and evalua1on criteria (Assessment Factors) with a vector defining its priority,

in order to es1mate the rela1ve dominance of each Factor.

Following the hierarchical decomposi1on of the Assessment Factors, the impact of each indicator on the Campus Foci was quan1fied.,

in order to obtain a Regime Matrix.

The importance of each indicator included in the Campus Archetypes defines a vector for preference intensity.





Assessment Factors

Campus Foci

Focus Groups

SWOT Analysis and Strategic Assessment (with visual support)

Strategic Choice

Preference Intensity

Impacts of the Archetypical Campus

on the Alterna.ve Campus

Models

Mul. Criteria Analysis

Regime Method

Master Plan Ac.on Plan

Fieldwork Bibliography

Experts

Fieldwork Experts

Overview of the methodology




North Campus Accessible Campus

Ques1ons related to accessibility (from the city to the North Campus) and to mobility (connec1on between South and North Campus) have been men1oned as weak aspects in the SWOT analysis. Improvements in the bus services were proposed.

Posi.ve image for mobility Nega.ve image for mobility (conges.on)



North Campus Ecological Campus

Energy produc1on, informa1on about the energy consump1on or waste management and reu1liza1on were among the suggested proposals. The responsibility of the University in educa1on for sustainability was emphasized. Lack of forest to protect from wind, was pointed as a nega1ve aspect (with important implica1ons on the “Experien1al” and Collabora1ve” Images).

The need for the development of green areas has been men.oned in the visual assessment (with two pictures of green areas from the South Campus selected as posi.ve aspects)



North Campus Func1onal Campus

Although no weakness has been raised regarding the working condi1ons, the lack of other facili1es considered necessary at the Campus was considered as an important “weakness” (restaurants, convenience store, book store and sports facili1es). The development of new facili1es and public spaces to improve the “Func1onal”, Experien1al” and “Collabora1ve” Images of the Campus are possible through its development and expansion. The huge land s1ll available in this area has been pointed out as a strength, once it enhances the possibility to implement new buildings and infra-‐structures keeping adequate ecological condi1ons.



North Campus Experien1al Campus

The weak points men1oned enhance the lack of spaces and facili1es for leisure and sports or communica1on and non-‐professional mee1ngs. The crea1on of aOrac1ve public spaces to meet is an important demand, with relevant implica1ons on the “Collabora1on” with the local community.

Posi.ve images for historical buildings and public spaces to increase social interac.on. These are also important aspects for the “Collabora.ve” Campus.



North Campus Collabora1ve Campus

University support to big projects developed by private companies as a strength. Five opportuni1es for development related to the collabora1on that can be established among researchers and different ins1tu1ons. Proposals to increment the aOrac1veness of the area for the residents and to reinforce the historical aspects of the University were suggested to increase the interac1on with the local community.

Pictures of historical elements (from South Campus) were selected as relevant posi.ve aspects.



South Campus Accessible Campus Accessibility to the Campus (from city center or public transports) is a strength but several aspects of the mobility inside the Campus (lack of transporta1on services, disconnec1on between North and South Campus or traffic conges1on), and their consequences on the public space were men1oned. Different proposals for the improvement of the transport system were suggested.

All the pictures selected as bad examples of the Campus were related to mobility. These examples suggest the concerns with car traffic and excessive quan.ty of bicycles.



South Campus Ecological Campus Problems with mobility have implica1ons on the ecological structure of the Campus, faced as an extremely important aspect by its users, considering the quan1ty of strong points men1oned in the SWOT analysis (farms and beau1ful landscapes, green areas, large Campus and possibility to implement long-‐term plans). Concerns with excessive energy consump1on and the lack of control of the users regarding high-‐consuming systems (like lights or hea1ng) were also expressed and complemented with relevant proposals.

Pictures of green areas have been selected to show posi.ve aspects of the Campus.

3 -‐ green areas 1 -‐ green areas



South Campus Func1onal Campus

The concerns with the preserva1on of free and green areas have been expressed regarding the “Func1onal Campus” and a proposal to develop new facili1es preserving free spaces being men1oned as an answer to the threaten of decreasing in open space as a result of the implementa1on of new ac1vi1es. The problems detected in this area are mostly related with ICT systems (Wi-‐Fi access to Internet all over the Campus and PC area with café open 24 hours) or to new educa1onal programs (combining disciplines from different courses), not requiring physical expansion of services or facili1es.



South Campus Experien1al Campus The problems regarding the “Experien1al Campus” require a more difficult approach, as many weak points detected relate to the lack of facili1es for social interac1on (cafes, restaurant or sports). The quietness of the Campus and its atmosphere were men1oned as strengths. New facili1es and services should be implemented through the reconversion of exis1ng buildings, ensuring the preserva1on of the public open green spaces.

The history of the University and public spaces for mee.ngs were selected as posi.ve aspects.

7 -‐ public spaces for mee1ngs

10 -‐ historical buildings 10 -‐ historical buildings 10 -‐ historical buildings 10 -‐ historical buildings

10 – historical buildings



South Campus Collabora1ve Campus

The openness of the Campus to everyone is a strength but the lack of informa1on about cultural heritage is a weakness. The opportunity created by the proximity between business and academy in Sapporo can be difficult to explore considering the weak economic condi1ons in Hokkaido. Other proposals and opportuni1es suggested are related to social interac1on among Japanese students, interna1onal students and local residents.

Historical buildings and public spaces are also relevant for the rela.on with the local community. 7 -‐ public spaces for mee1ngs

12 -‐ historical buildings

12 – historical buildings



Mul1-‐Criteria Assessment Regime Analysis

! Creat.! Sust.! Sci.! Soc.!

Experiential! 2,3$ 2,3$ 2,7$ 3,5$

Functional! 3,2$ 3,8$ 4,7$ 3,5$

Ecological! 1,5$ 4,2$ 2,0$ 1,2$

Accessible! 3,0$ 3,2$ 3,5$ 3,3$

Collaborative! 5,0$ 1,5$ 2,2$ 3,5$

Preference!Intensity! 3,0! 3,7! 2,0! 3,2!

$



The “Preference Intensity” was quan1fied based on the Strategic Choice Analysis,

according to number of items men1oned in the SWOT analysis and the Strategic assessment

for each indicator considered in the Campus Archetypes:

1 point for 0 men.ons; 2 points for 1 or 2 men.ons; 3 points for 3 or 4 men.ons; 4 points for 5 or 6 men.ons;

5 points for 7 or more men.ons.

The impact of the “Campus Archetypes” on each “Alterna1ve Campus Model” was quan1fied based on field work, exis1ng literature and expert assessment.

Mul1-‐Criteria Assessment Regime Analysis



The Alterna1ve Campus Models according to the impact of the Campus Archetypes.

00

01

02

03

04

05

Crea1ve Campus

Sustainable Campus

Scien1fic Campus

Social Campus

Experien.al Func.onal Ecological Collabora.ve Accessible




Regarding the ques1ons related to accessibility and mobility inside the Campus, the disconnec1on between North and South

and the mobility problems in winter have been men1oned in both mee1ngs.

Conges1on is a major concern in South Campus

and Isola1on (difficult access from inside and outside) in North Campus.

A renova1on of the circula1on infra structure is already defined in the Plans but new regula1ons for mobility,

an improvement in the transport services, beOer infra-‐structures for mobility in winter

and beOer accessibility from outside to the North Campus are required.



Facili1es for “tradi1onal” academic services (related to educa1on and research) or to basic services (like food or convenience stores)

seem adequate in the South Campus but should be improved in the North Campus.

The provision of Wi-‐Fi access to Internet all over the Campus

is a major demand of the users of South Campus and it is not included in the Plans for the development of the Campus.



The development of the “Experien1al” Campus appears like an important priority for the users of the Campus, both at North and South areas.

Social interac1on in public spaces,

like cafes, dining rooms, entertainment areas, leisure areas or sports facili1es are not enough in the South Campus and almost inexistent in the North Campus.

Although the Plans for the Development of the Campus

clearly express these concerns, concrete solu1ons are not implemented.



The dynamic collabora1on between academy and industry or the openness of the University to the local community and tourists

are very posi1ve aspects men1oned by the users in both sides of the Campus, although some improvements can be made

in the informa1on and services provided to visitors.



This process of assessment has been extremely mo1va1ng for the par1cipants, providing interes1ng results concerning the evalua1on of the Campus by its users,

at very low cost.

This can be extremely useful for the “C” (Check) stage of the process of Planning for Sustainability

(PDCA: Plan – Do – Check – Ac1on)

Similar ini1a1ves can be applying this methodology.

The range of users contribu1ng for the assessment should be enlarged, including other kind of “regular” (like other workers in the Campus)

and “occasional” users (local residents or tourists).

Considering the importance of the Campus in the context of the city and the necessary interconnec1on between them,

other agents (like urban or transport planners) should also be involved.



This study has been developed at the Sapporo Campus of Hokkaido University with a very important support from

Takao Ozasa, Takashi Yokoyama, Maki Komatsu, Tomohiro Morimoto and Yuki Matsubara (Office for a Sustainable Campus -‐ Hokkaido University)

between July and October / 2012.

This work would not have been possible without the ac1ve par1cipa1on of 22 users of the Campus

who contributed with their opinions and sugges1ons in the focus group mee1ngs.



Education

The Sustainable Campus as a Living Lab