Citation
Student perspectives of sustainability at the Auraria Campus

Material Information

Title:
Student perspectives of sustainability at the Auraria Campus
Creator:
Dériaz, Lauren A.
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( Master of public administration)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
School of Public Affairs, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Public administration
Committee Chair:
Boylard, Wendy
Committee Members:
Scheberle, Denise

Notes

General Note:
Spring 2018

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
Copyright Lauren A. Dériaz. Permission granted to University of Colorado Denver to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
Running head: STUDENT PERSPECTIVE OF SUSTAINABILITY
Student Perspectives of Sustainability at the Auraria Campus Lauren A. Deriaz
University of Colorado Denver School of Public Affairs
This client-based project is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Public Administration in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver Denver, Colorado
Fall
2018


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
2
Capstone Project Disclosures
This client-based project was completed on behalf of the Auraria Sustainable Campus Program and supervised by PUAD 5361 Capstone course instructor Wendy L. Bolyard, PhD, and second faculty reader Denise Scheberle, PhD. This project does not necessarily reflect the views of the School of Public Affairs or the faculty readers. Raw data were not included in this document, rather relevant materials were provided directly to the client. Permissions to include this project in the Auraria Library Digital Repository are found in the final Appendix. Questions about this capstone project should be directed to the student author.


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
3
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 6
Introduction 7
Organization Background 9
Literature Revi e w 10
Understanding Campus Sustainability 11
Defining sustainability 12
The three pillars of sustainability 13
Changing Student Sustainability Behaviors 13
Motivation 14
Knowledge 15
Values 16
Evaluating the Effect of Sustainability Programs 16
Trends in Sustainability Baselines 17
Methodology 17
Previous Findings 17
Research Questions and Hypotheses 18
Awareness of ASCP and its Programs 18
Sustainability Importance 18
Defining Sustainability 19
Performing Sustainable Behaviors 19
Differences between Demographic Groups 20
Data Collection
20


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
4
Reliability and Validity 21
Data Analysis 22
Results 22
Awareness of ASCP and its Programs 23
Sustainability Importance 24
Defining Sustainability 24
Performing Sustainable Behaviors 25
Differences between Demographic Groups 26
School 26
Level of education 27
Years on campus 27
Full-time status 27
Field of study 28
Discussion and Recommendations 29
Limitations 31
Considerations for Future Studies 32
Conclusion 33
References 34
Appendix A: Auraria Campus Sustainability Survey 37
Appendix B: Measurement Table 40
Appendix C 42
Table 1: Respondent Frequency by Institution and Education Level 42
Figure 1: Total number of ASCP programs of which students are aware 42


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 5
Table 2: Frequency and Percent of Student Awareness of ASCP Programs 43
Figure 2: Frequency of Respondents’ Fields of Study 43
Table 3: Frequency and Percent of a Program being included in Students’ Top 44
Three Most Important Programs
Table 4: Frequency and Percent of Themes Presented in Students’ Definitions of 44
“Sustainability”
Table 5: Frequency and Percent of Students Performing Sustainable Behaviors 45
Appendix D 46
Codebook 46
School 48
Level of Education 55
Years on Campus 61
Fulltime Status 67
Field of Study
73


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
6
Executive Summary
The purpose of this capstone project was to work with the Auraria Sustainable Campus Program (ASCP) to expand on its 2017/2018 student survey and create a baseline of student knowledge and perspectives on sustainability that can be used to inform future programs. Students were asked about their awareness of several sustainability programs, the importance of sustainability, the definition of sustainability, and the sustainable behaviors they perform.
Although many students were not aware of ASCP, most were aware that recycling and water bottle filling stations were available on campus which are both related to ASCP’s environmental sustainability efforts. Overall, students were concerned about environmental issues, reported that sustainability on campus was important, and chose recycling as being the most important sustainability effort. Most students understood the term “sustainability” and its three pillars even though the themes of their definitions varied considerably. More than 80% of students frequently recycle, turn off lights when not in use, use reusable water bottles, and are willing to adopt additional sustainable behaviors. Students are primarily motivated to act sustainably due to the negative environmental impacts of not doing so.
In many ways, ASCP’s upcoming projects match the results of the survey. ASCP already has a marketing campaign that will help students associate ASCP to sustainability programs on campus. ASCP is also pursuing waste diversion and renewable energy projects which match with students’ most important sustainability efforts. In addition to continuing these projects, ASCP could continue to increase its support by focusing on engaging students based on their academic programs and working with students to perform more difficult sustainability behaviors including composting and choosing lower emissions transportation.


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
7
Student Perspectives of Sustainability at the Auraria Campus
Sustainability is a complex concept and has hundreds of published definitions (Alshuwaikhat & Abubakar, 2008; Owens & Legere, 2015). At its most basic, sustainability implies the continuity of a resource or action (Ben-Eli, 2018). In a development context, it is often described as “[meeting] the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (“Sustainable Development,” 2018). Sustainability is also thought of in a framework coined the “triple bottom line” by Elkington (Wilson, 2015). In this framework, a successful organization must consider dimensions of economic, environmental, and social equity to be sustainable (Wilson, 2015).
Sustainability is becoming increasingly important to U.S. institutions of higher education. Higher education campuses have been compared to small cities in terms of their facilities, services, and populations (Alshuwaikhat & Abubakar, 2008). They also face similar environmental sustainability concerns as they produce significant emissions and waste (Lambert & Cushing, 2017). Higher education campuses are important actors in creating a sustainable future not only in becoming sustainable themselves, but also because they shape the way that students view the world and set an example for other institutions (Dagiliute et al., 2018). Many institutions of higher education have taken on the responsibility of campus environmental sustainability through various programs and commitments including the American College and University President’s Climate Commitment that now represents more than one third of college students in the United States including the institutions at Denver’s Auraria Campus (Herr, 2018; Horhota et al., 2014).
Institutional support is one of many factors needed to achieve environmental sustainability. The behaviors of individuals, especially students, are critical to successful


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
8
programs (Horhota et al., 2014). However, there is no “one size fits all” method to increasing campus sustainability, likely due to the many differences between campuses (Whitley et al., 2018). Past studies encourage institutions of higher education to establish a baseline of student perspectives on environmental sustainability as it informs decisions that will efficiently expand campus sustainability programs (Campbell-Arvai, 2015; Emanuel & Adams, 2011; Olson et al., 2011; Whitley etal., 2018).
The Auraria Campus located in downtown Denver, Colorado is looking to efficiently expand its environmental sustainability programs (C. Herr, personal communication, May 22, 2018). The Auraria Campus context is different from most campuses in that it hosts three separate institutions of higher education, the Community College of Denver (CCD), the Metropolitan State University of Denver (MSU), and the University of Colorado Denver (UCD), further emphasizing the need of establishing its own baseline (“Auraria Higher Education Center,” 2018). The services and facilities of the Auraria Campus are managed by a separate entity called the Auraria Higher Education Center (AHEC) which also leads the Auraria Campus efforts to reduce its ecological footprint with the Auraria Sustainable Campus Program (ASCP) (“Auraria Higher Education Center,” 2018). During the 2017/2018 academic year, the Auraria Campus Sustainability Officer began the process of gathering data on student perspectives on environmental sustainability to create a baseline of their sustainability knowledge (C. Herr, personal communication, May 22, 2018). The initial survey received over 200 responses, but it also indicated some limitations in collecting the desired data (C. Herr, personal communication, May 22, 2018).
The purpose of this capstone project is to expand on the 2017/2018 survey and address its limitations. This provides the client with additional understanding of student perspectives on


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
9
sustainability that can provide a baseline for future sustainability efforts on the Auraria Campus. This paper opens with a brief overview of the ASCP followed by a review of the literature. Then, it provides a discussion of the research questions this project answers as well as the sampling plan, plan of analysis, and limitations of the proposed methodology. Findings and recommendations are then presented.
Organization Background
The Auraria Campus hosts three unique institutions of higher education. CCD offers courses exclusively at the undergraduate level, primarily Associate Degrees, and several of their programs are taught in other locations (Community College of Denver, 2018). UCD is part of the larger University of Colorado system and has a variety of degree levels, including a graduate school that hosts 28% of its students (“Fact Sheet,” 2017). More than half of Auraria Campus students attend MSU, which is comprised of 96% undergraduate students and 4% graduate students (Metropolitan State University of Denver, 2018).
AHEC manages and provides services, facilities, and property for the Auraria Campus in downtown Denver, Colorado (“Auraria Higher Education Center,” 2018). The three institutions of higher education bring 42,000 students and 5,000 faculty and staff to the Auraria Campus every year (“Auraria Higher Education Center,” 2018). This substantial number of people creates the challenge of managing the environmental footprint of the campus including energy use, water consumption, and waste production (“Campus Sustainability,” 2018). To address these challenges, students voted to start the ASCP in 2004 (“Campus Sustainability,” 2018). This program relies on the student “green fee” to fund projects including renewable energy, recycling, and energy efficiency to reduce the ecological impact of the Auraria Campus (“Campus Sustainability,” 2018). This fee was set at $5 per semester per student in 2016 and adjusts with


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
10
inflation over time; at the time of this project the fee was $5.15 per semester (“Campus Sustainability,” 2018).
The ASCP breaks its programs into seven categories: alternative transportation, education and outreach, energy efficiency, food and gardens, renewable energy, water conservation, and waste diversion (Herr, 2018). Improvements have already been made, but the ASCP plans to meet additional ambitious goals such as reducing energy consumption 80% by 2050 as outlined in the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment that was signed in 2008 by the presidents of all three institutions (Herr, 2018). In its most recent five-year plan, the ASCP highlights focusing on executing its mission, efficient use of funds, increasing productivity, expanding student outreach, and encouraging student proposals (Herr, 2018).
Literature Review
Higher education campuses are seen as an ideal environment in which to explore ways of reaching sustainability because of their mission of education (Horhota et al., 2014). They shape students’ worldviews that they ultimately bring to countless other institutions, and they have been found to be effective sustainability communication channels (Dagiliute et al., 2018; Lertpratchya et al., 2017). As a result, there has been increasing pressure on U.S. institutions of higher education to improve their sustainability and provide students with knowledge on sustainability (Alshuwaikhat & Abubakar, 2008; Lambert & Cushing, 2017). This pressure has come from various sources including students, the majority of which express concern over environmental problems (Emanuel & Adams, 2011). The Environmental Protection Agency, a nation-wide sustainability grading system, annual conferences, and the perspective that higher education should be responsible for educating students about their impacts on the environment


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
11
and society also have played a role in pressuring institutions of higher education to become more sustainable (Alshuwaikhat & Abubakar, 2008; Emanuel & Adams, 2011; Horhota et al., 2014).
As a result of the growing importance and pressure, an increasing number of institutions of higher education have started to manage their environmental performance and strive for improvement (Alshuwaikhat & Abubakar, 2008; Campbell-Arvai, 2015). Thirteen percent of all projects certified in Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) are higher education buildings (Driza & Park, 2014). Campuses are having an increasing amount of student organizations and events that are related to sustainability (Emanuel & Adams, 2011). Institutions of higher education are also stating their commitment to sustainability through various agreements and environmental charters (Driza & Park, 2014; Horhota et al., 2014).
As more institutions of higher education strive to improve their sustainability, there is a growing need to understand how they can make the most gains in sustainability with the resources that they have. Urban campuses, like the Auraria Campus, face the additional challenge of connecting students to a campus that they may only visit for class (Hopkins, 2016). Since the field is still young, student perceptions of campus sustainability are “underresearched”, and campuses generally still lack a systematic approach that they can use to become more sustainable (Emanuel & Adams, 2011, p. 82; Lambert & Cushing, 2017). However, past research does show what information has been useful to other institutions, including understanding of how students view campus sustainability.
Understanding Campus Sustainability
Many institutions of higher education have committed to their responsibility in sustainability and understand that improving sustainability requires an integrated approach because it affects several aspects of a campus including buildings, services, and transportation


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
12
(Alshuwaikhat & Abubakar, 2008). There are certain factors campuses should consider when creating an approach for improving sustainability. Understanding students’ perceptions of sustainability is one of these key factors that allows campuses to design successful programs based on insight into whether or not students need further education on the concept of sustainability and what they expect to see from sustainability programs (Campbell-Arvai, 2015; Emanuel & Adams, 2011; Olson et al., 2011; Whitley et al., 2018). Several studies have evaluated student perceptions of sustainability at U.S. campuses and found benefit in establishing a baseline prior to expanding programs or starting new ones (Campbell-Arvai, 2015; Emanuel & Adams, 2011; Lambert & Cushing, 2017). The baseline also allows the effect of sustainability programs to be monitored over time and inform program modifications (Horhota et al., 2014; Lambert & Cushing, 2017).
Defining sustainability. Measuring whether or not students understand what ‘sustainability’ means is a key component of the baseline of student perceptions on sustainability. Sustainability is a difficult concept to define as there are hundreds of published definitions for the term (Alshuwaikhat & Abubakar, 2008; Owens & Legere, 2015). This may be problematic for a higher education campus when their goal is to educate students about sustainability, as there may be significant variation in how the term is understood (Owens & Legere, 2015). Owens and Legere (2015) studied how students, faculty, and staff define ‘sustainability’ by asking them to state whether or not they felt that they understood the term and then asking them to provide a definition in their own words. More than half of the respondents felt that they understood the meaning of ‘sustainability’, but the definitions varied greatly among students and among students, faculty, and staff (Owens & Legere, 2015). The idea of not depleting a resource was the most common theme even though only 26% of students, staff, and


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
13
faculty expressed it (Owens & Legere, 2015). Owens and Legere (2015) worry that sustainability education may not be successful if students do not first understand the concept of sustainability as there may not be a shared vision for the students to work towards. Therefore, gauging students’ understanding of the term should be a crucial component of establishing a campus’s sustainability baseline.
The three pillars of sustainability. Understanding whether or not students know of the three pillars of sustainability may also be an important component to campus baseline studies. Each pillar focuses on concepts that are needed for an organization, such as an institution of higher education, to achieve overall sustainability. The environmental pillar focuses on maintaining and improving environmental quality; the social pillar focuses on protecting human health and engaging the public; and the economic pillar focuses on promoting jobs, providing incentives for sustainable actions, and reducing costs (“Sustainability Primer,” 2015). It is important to incorporate all three pillars of sustainability into sustainability initiatives (Alshuwaikhat & Abubakar, 2008; Hopkins, 2016). As student definitions of‘sustainability’ vary, students may also not have similar levels of understanding of the three pillars or even know that multiple pillars exist. Students have been shown to associate ‘sustainability’ with the environmental pillar more so than the pillars of economy or society (Owens & Legere, 2015). Understanding these differences, provides additional information on students’ understanding of sustainability, which could be used to build programs around the pillars that students are already aware of, as well as provide education on the pillars with which students are less familiar. Changing Student Sustainability Behaviors
Several studies have also focused on identifying factors that are related to environmentally sustainable behaviors in students so that campuses can most effectively


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
14
motivate students to participate in environmental sustainability programs. Most of these studies start by surveying students on how often they engage in certain behaviors. For example, students tend to recycle most of the time but rarely or never compost (Campbell-Arvai, 2015; Perrault & Clark, 2018). Simple behaviors such as turning off the lights when leaving a room and using a reusable water bottle are also often practiced by students (Perrault & Clark, 2018), while behaviors that might be logistically more complicated, such as choosing low emissions transportation, are not practiced as often (Whitley et al., 2018).
Emanuel and Adams (2011) found that students want to help create a sustainable campus and are willing to participate in initiatives to protect the environment. Willingness, however, does not necessarily mean they will always participate; it merely means that they would if the opportunity presented itself. Programs need to be designed to inspire students to participate.
Three factors seem to play a significant role in changing student behaviors: motivation, knowledge, and values. Researchers found that all three of these factors show correlation with sustainable behaviors in students but that they are not necessarily associated with one another (Perrault & Clark, 2018; Heeren et al., 2016; Whitley et al., 2018). For example, a student may be motivated to act sustainably due to the influence of friends and family even though they do not have biospheric values. Therefore, it is important to look at each of these factors independently.
Motivation. Uncovering why students perform sustainable behaviors could allow campus sustainability programs to promote participation based on these motivations. Perrault and Clark (2018) found that wanting to help the environment is the most common motivator for students. Other motivators included monetary savings, ethics, the influence of family and friends, and not wanting to waste resources (Perrault & Clark, 2018). Students also stated that they could be


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
15
motivated to change their behaviors if they were provided with more information on the impact of their actions and how sustainable behaviors compared in cost to their usual behaviors (Perrault & Clark, 2018).
Knowledge. As the students in Perrault and Clark’s (2018) study indicated, knowledge can be a powerful factor in influencing behavior. The “knowledge deficit model” assumes that if individuals had better information, they would also make better decisions (Heeren et al., 2016). Simply being aware of sustainable options has been found to be an important factor in sustainable actions (Hopkins, 2016). In the context of campus sustainability, however, studies that incorporate the “knowledge deficit model” have found conflicting results. Heeren et al. (2016) found that knowledge of sustainability was negatively correlated with sustainable behavior, explained a small amount of variation in their model, and varied for each behavior that was tested. On the other hand, Lambert and Cushing’s (2017) study educated students on ecological footprints, and students successfully met the goal of reducing their footprint by 10 percent. Education was also found to be a more powerful tool when knowledge gaps were identified before hand and used to create the education program (Olson et al., 2011).
Although the effect of knowledge varies by context, there is still general consensus that education is a first step to introducing sustainability to a campus (Heeren et al., 2016). This is especially important when students tend to demonstrate limited knowledge on certain topics such as water consumption (Vedachalam & Mancl, 2010). Furthermore, the studies that first identified specific knowledge gaps were successful in modifying behavior (Lambert & Cushing, 2017; Olson et al.,2011). Therefore, it is likely that students that study the natural sciences are more likely to incorporate sustainability into their lives as their curriculum may fill in some of these knowledge gaps. Understanding students’ knowledge gaps should inform the creation of


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
16
successful education programs for the specific context of the student body (Emanuel & Adams, 2011; Olson et al., 2011).
Values. While education is still thought to be important in changing behavior, values can sometimes be a better predictor of sustainable behaviors in students (Heeren et al., 2016). Specifically, altruistic and biospheric values are associated with more sustainable behaviors while egoistic values are associated with less sustainable behaviors (Whitley et al., 2018). Values are strong and difficult to change, but higher education campuses can market their sustainability programs by specifically targeting the values, even egoistic ones, that are most common in their students (Whitley et al., 2018).
Evaluating the Effect of Sustainability Programs
While the definitions of ‘sustainability’ and the magnitude of the effects of knowledge, motivations, and values on sustainable behaviors may vary between different campuses, campuses can use a baseline of student perceptions on these factors not only to evaluate students’ current views, but also to evaluate the effect of sustainability programs over time.
Undergraduates specifically can be an indicator of how student perspectives change over time as they tend to spend several years at the same campus, and they are still developing their identities and are more open to new ideas (Lertpratchya et al., 2017). After one year at a university with a significant sustainability program, undergraduate students were found to develop more sustainable behaviors (Lertpratchya et al., 2017). Lertpratchya et al. (2017) found that sophomores, juniors, and seniors had more positive attitudes about sustainability than freshmen. Therefore, if designed carefully, a higher education campus, like the Auraria Campus, can conduct a single study that reveals the current baseline of student perceptions of sustainability and indicates how student perceptions may have changed overtime.


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
17
Trends in Sustainability Baselines
Although each campus and student experience is unique, the literature discussed in this review does help create a hypothetical baseline of student perspectives of sustainability. Emanuel and Adams (2011) found that students tend to express concern over environmental issues. Students also tend to feel that they understand the term “sustainability” even though they may only associate it with the environmental pillar of sustainability (Owens & Legere, 2015). Student definitions of “sustainability” also don’t tend to be very consistent with only 26% of students sharing the most common definition of “not depleting a resource” (Owens & Legere, 2015). Students perform sustainable behaviors more frequently if they are less difficult (turning off lights, recycling, using a reusable water bottle) and less frequently if they are logistically more difficult (composting, using low emissions transportation) (Campbell-Arvai, 2015; Perrault & Clark, 2018; Whitley et al., 2018). Overall, however, students are willing to perform more sustainable behaviors (Emanuel and Adams, 2011), and they are most motivated to act more sustainably by a desire to help the environment (Perrault & Clark, 2018). This capstone project evaluated whether these trends are accurate for the Auraria Campus.
Methodology
This capstone project used a survey to gather the perspectives of Auraria Campus students on sustainability, to build on the 2017/2018 survey, and to create a sustainability knowledge baseline for the Auraria Campus. This section outlines the findings of the 2017/2018 survey as well as the research questions, hypotheses, and methodology of this project.
Previous Findings
ASCP suspects that many students are not fully aware of ASCP and the sustainability programs that it provides to students (C. Herr, personal communication, October 16, 2018). The


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
18
2017/2018 survey revealed that students were most aware of alternative transportation options with waste diversion as a close second (“2017/2018 Survey Results,” 2018). Students also expressed that “Food & Gardens”, referring to the Auraria Campus’s community garden, was most important to them and renewable energy was second (“2017/2018 Survey Results,” 2018). The client suspects that “Food & Gardens” as the top choice is not reflective of the whole student population (C. Herr, personal communication, May 22, 2018). The survey also showed that 88% of respondents believed that sustainability at the Auraria Campus was very important (“2017/2018 Survey Results,” 2018). These findings were considered in the research questions and hypotheses of this capstone project to allow for a comparison of the results between the two studies in addition to evaluating the baseline suggested by the literature.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
This capstone project answers the following research questions and hypotheses that were informed by the literature and the past findings of ASCP. The research questions and hypotheses are in the order of highest to lowest priority to the client.
Awareness of ASCP and its Programs.
1. How aware are students of the Auraria Sustainable Campus Program (ASCP)?
Hypothesis 1: Student awareness of ASCP is low.
2. Of which Auraria Campus sustainability efforts are students most aware?
Hypothesis 2: Students are most aware of alternative transportation efforts (secure bike parking, B-cycle and dockless bike share, and electric vehicle charging stations).
Sustainability Importance.
3. How concerned are students about environmental issues?


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
19
Hypothesis 3: Students have a high level of concern for environmental issues.
4. How important is increasing the sustainability of the Auraria Campus to students?
Hypothesis 4: Students think it is important that the Auraria Campus become more sustainable.
5. Which sustainability efforts are most important to students?
Hypothesis 5: Renewable energy is most important to students.
Defining Sustainability.
6. Do students feel that they understand the meaning of “sustainability?
Hypothesis 6: Students do feel that they understand the meaning of “sustainability.”
7. Do students feel that sustainability should focus on all pillars of sustainability?
Hypothesis 7: Students believe sustainability should mostly focus on environmental stewardship and conservation.
8. How do students currently define sustainability?
Hypothesis 8: Students will mostly use the theme of “not depleting a resource” to explain what sustainability means to them.
Performing Sustainable Behaviors.
9. How often do students engage in sustainable behaviors (reusing water bottles, low emissions transportation, turning off lights, recycling, and composting)?


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
20
Hypothesis 9: Students often recycle, turn off the lights while not in use, and use a reusable water bottle, but students do not often compost or choose low emissions transportation.
10. Are students willing to perform more sustainable behaviors?
Hypothesis 10: Students are willing to perform more sustainable behaviors.
11. What motivates students to perform sustainable behaviors?
Hypothesis 11: Students are mostly motivated to act sustainably by a desire to help the environment and planet.
Differences between Demographic Groups.
12. Do the answers to Questions 1-11 differ between (a) school, (b) level of education, (c) number of years spent on campus, (d) full-time or part-time status, and (e) field of study?
Hypothesis 12: Students’ responses to Questions 1-11 will differ based on (a) school, (b) level of education, (c) number of years spent on campus, (d) full-time or part-time status, and (e) field of study.
Data Collection
This capstone project used an online survey created in Qualtrics (Appendix A). The survey questions included six closed-ended questions (multiple choice and Likert scale) and three open-ended questions followed by six closed-ended and open-ended demographic questions. The questions and variables associated with each research question can be found in Appendix B.


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
21
The unit of analysis for this capstone project is an individual student. The target population and intended sample consists of the approximately 42,000 students of CCD, MSU, and UCD that spend time on the Auraria Campus as well as any alumni that attend one these three institutions at the Auraria Campus since the ASCP was created in 2004 (“Auraria Higher Education Center,” 2018). The response rates in similar studies range from 0.3% (Emanuel & Adams, 2011) to 8% (Vedachalam & Mancl, 2010). For current students, this leads to an expected sample size of 126 to 3,360 students.
The survey link was available online to all students from September 26, 2018 through October 26, 2018. It was distributed using all means available to the capstone student and client and included the ASCP newsletter, ASCP social media, campus tabling events, school and department email lists, and faculty email lists (C. Herr, personal communication, August 31, 2018). Reminders were sent one week and three weeks from the original post, as suggested by Hoddinott and Bass (1986), using ASCP’s newsletter and social media outlets. The survey link was also shared through communication channels managed by the three institutions, in which case regular reminders were not possible. As this distribution method was based on what communication channels were available, this capstone project used convenience sampling. Past studies have encountered the need for a similar methodology as mailing lists suitable for random sampling are not always available (Campbell-Arvai, 2015; Heeren et al., 2016).
Reliability and Validity
Given the distribution methods available, the replicability was maximized in sharing the survey through as many communication channels as possible in an attempt to reach every member of the student population, ensuring that any student that would choose to respond was


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
22
given the opportunity. The survey was tested on five students to ensure that the questions were easily understood. These participants were not included in the findings.
Not being able to directly contact a random sample of students may affect the generalizability of the study across the target population as a whole. However, with information on students’ demographic data, the data was compared to the general student population to see if it was a representative sample. Those with some interest in the topic may also be more likely to take the time to answer the survey, meaning that this group may be disproportionately represented (Lambert & Cushing, 2017).
Data Analysis
Stata was used to analyze the responses to the closed-ended questions including descriptive statistics and appropriate statistical tests, t-test, ANOVA, and linear regression, to determine if any variables comparisons were statistically significant (p < 0.05). The responses to the open-ended questions were coded for themes. All themes mentioned in each response were counted, meaning that a single response could be counted in more than one theme category, if appropriate.
Results
The survey yielded 634 responses. Twenty-seven responses were removed because of one of the following: the respondent stated that they do not attend classes at the Auraria Campus, the respondent graduated prior to ASCP’s creation in 2004, or the respondent indicated that they are a graduate student at CCD even though CCD does not have a graduate program. This led to 607 responses being included in the analysis, representing 1.4% of all students at the Auraria Campus. Of those, 469 and 467 students replied to the open-ended sustainability and motivation


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
23
questions, respectively. Two hundred one students chose to write additional comments. These comments were provided to the client, but they were not analyzed in this project.
The respondents included 60 CCD students (10%), 189 MSU students (31%), and 358 UCD students (59%) (Appendix C, Table 1). For its internal studies, AHEC estimates that the breakdown of the student population is 10% CCD students, 55% MSU students, and 35% UCD students (C. Herr, personal communication, October 16, 2018). This shows that the proportion of MSU and UCD students was not representative of the whole student population. The respondents’ level of education comprised of 292 undergraduate students (48%), 250 Master’s students (41%), 35 PhD students (6%), and 30 alumni (5%) (Appendix C, Table 1). Of the respondents, 241 were UCD Master’s students, which represents 67% of the UCD respondents in this project. However, when looking at the whole UCD student population only 28% of UCD students are in the graduate program, which means UCD graduate students were over represented in the sample (“Fact Sheet,” 2017). Respondents were primarily first (n = 246, 41%) and second (n = 134, 22%) year students as well as primarily full-time students (n = 516, 85%). Five hundred twenty-two respondents (86%) provided their field of study. A diverse number of academic programs were included (Appendix C, Figure 1) with the most represented programs being social sciences (n = 124, 24%), business (n = 80, 15%), and architecture and design (n =
61, 12%).
Awareness of ASCP and its Programs
ASCP program awareness (Question 1) was low, as hypothesized, with 337 (56%) respondents not aware of the program, and 210 (35%) respondents having heard of ASCP but being unsure of what they do. Only 60 (10%) students were aware of ASCP and its programs.
The awareness of individual programs (Question 2), however, differed from what was


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
24
hypothesized. Five students selected “None” in addition to other options, so their answers were removed as they contradicted themselves. Of the remaining 602 respondents, 534 (89%) and 442 (73%) were aware of recycling and water bottle filling stations, respectively. The other programs included in the survey were known by less than half of the respondents (Appendix C, Table 2). The mean number of programs that students were aware of was 4.27 out of 12, and the frequency of how many programs students were aware of is displayed in Appendix C, Figure 2. Sustainability Importance
As hypothesized, students are concerned with environmental issues (Question 3). Four hundred sixty-nine (77%) respondents strongly agreed that they are concerned about environmental issues, and 117 (19%) respondents somewhat agreed. Only 21 respondents (3%) disagreed or were neutral about the statement. Respondents also agreed that it is important that the Auraria Campus continue to become more sustainable as hypothesized (Question 4). Five hundred seventeen (85%) students strongly agreed, 75 (12%) somewhat agreed, and only 15 (2%) disagreed or felt neutral about it being important that the Auraria Campus continue to become more sustainable. The hypothesis for Question 5 must be rejected as renewable energy was not the most important program to students. Recycling (n = 437, 72%) was most frequently selected by respondents. As in the 2017/2018 survey results, renewable energy (n = 335, 55%) was the second most important program to students (“2017/2018 Survey Results,” 2018). Water bottle filling stations came in third (n = 289, 48%), and all other programs included in the survey were selected by less than 25% of students (Appendix C, Table 3).
Defining Sustainability
The majority of respondents did feel that they understood the term “sustainability,” which supports Hypothesis 6. Three hundred forty-eight (57%) strongly agreed, 192 (32%) somewhat


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
25
agreed, and 67 (11%) disagreed or felt neutral that they fully understood the term “sustainability.” Five hundred sixty-one (92%) respondents felt that sustainability efforts should focus on environmental conservation and stewardship supporting Hypothesis 7. However, most respondents also thought sustainability efforts should focus on social consciousness and equity (n = 451, 74%) and economic responsibility (n = 401, 66%). All three pillars were selected by 341 (55%) respondents. Only three (<1%) respondents did not select at least one of the three pillars. To answer Question 8, the 469 responses to the open-ended question regarding students’ meanings of “sustainability” were coded by hand for common themes. Only themes that occurred in at least 10% of responses were included in this project. Much like Owens and Legere (2015), this project did not find a single theme that occurred more than 26% of the time in student’s definitions of “sustainability.” Unlike the hypothesis to Question 8, the most common theme was not “not depleting a resource.” The top three themes were thinking long-term (n = 121, 26%), maintaining a resource (n = 115, 25%), and reducing harm (n = 80, 17%). The other themes and their frequencies can be found in Appendix C, Table 4.
Performing Sustainable Behaviors
Hypothesis 9 is partially supported with students recycling (n = 561, 92%), turning the lights off when not in use (n = 591, 97%), and using a reusable water bottles (n = 576, 95%) at least half of the time, and students composting (n = 370, 60%) either never or only sometimes. Students chose lower emissions transportation more than hypothesized (Question 9) with 68% (n = 311) of students choosing lower emissions transportation at least half of the time. A breakdown of the frequencies of each behavior can be found in Appendix C, Table 5. As hypothesized, most respondents did indicate that they are willing to adopt more sustainable behaviors (Question 10). Students strongly or somewhat agreed that they would be willing to


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
26
adopt more sustainable behaviors (n = 584, 96%). The 467 responses provided in regards to what motivates students to act sustainably were coded for themes to answer Question 11. This capstone project focused on the four themes that appeared in at least 10% of responses. Hypothesis 11 was rejected as students most often stated fear or concern for negative environmental impacts (n = 160, 34%) as their motivation to act sustainably instead of a desire to help the planet. The negative environmental impacts that students mentioned included climate change, pollution, and species extinction. Wanting a future (n = 126, 27%), wanting to help the planet, nature, or the environment (n = 105, 23%), and wanting to do the right/moral/ethical thing (n = 54, 12%) were the next most common motivators for students.
Differences between Demographic Groups
Hypothesis 12 was supported as there were several differences in students’ responses based on school, level of education, years spent on campus, full-time status, and field of study. The statistical outputs for each comparison are in Appendix D, and the statistically significant results are discussed in this section. ANOVA was used to compare responses based on school, level of education, and field of study; a t-test was used to look at the effect of fulltime status; and, a regression was used to look at the effect of years spent on campus. Only the top three themes for the “sustainability” definition and motivation questions were analyzed by groups.
School. MSU respondents were more aware of ASCP and individual sustainability programs than CCD and UCD respondents. CCD students were less environmentally concerned than both MSU and UCD students. Only the importance of educational workshops and conferences differed significantly by school. CCD respondents chose educational workshops most often, and MSU respondents chose sustainability conferences and fairs most often. Using long-term thinking and maintaining a resource as themes in the meanings of “sustainability” did


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
27
differ by school. MSU students most often expressed long-term thinking while CCD students expressed maintaining a resource more often. The frequency with which students recycled and used reusable water bottles were the only two behaviors that differed between schools. In both cases, UCD students performed the behavior most often and CCD students least often. Willingness to perform more sustainable behavior also differed along a similar pattern with UCD students being the most willing and CCD students the least willing. The only student motivation that differed by school was wanting to help the planet. MSU students mentioned this theme most often out of the three schools. All other variables did not differ based on school.
Level of education. ASCP awareness and individual program awareness differed based on level of education with undergraduate students being most aware. Like school, the selection of educational workshops and conferences were the only programs that differed significantly in importance. Undergraduate students chose both educational workshops and sustainability conferences and fairs most often. Recycling, using reusable water bottles, and the willingness to perform more sustainable behaviors differed as well. Undergraduates performed both behaviors the least and were least willing to perform more behaviors. None of the other variables differed by level of education.
Years on campus. There were only a few statistically significant differences as the number of years on campus increased. Students that had spent more years on campus were more aware of ASCP and its programs, placed more importance on sustainability conferences and fairs, more frequently defined “sustainability” as reducing harm, and recycled more often.
Full-time status. Full-time students were more aware of ASCP and its programs than part-time students. Full-time students also more often chose water efficiency and secure bike parking as a part of their top three most important programs. Full-time students reported that they


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
28
more fully understood the term “sustainability.” Full-time students more often used a reusable water bottle and chose lower emissions transportation, but they recycled less often than part-time students. Finally, full-time students were more willing to adopt more sustainable behaviors.
There were no significant differences in the other variables.
Field of study. While awareness of individual programs did not differ significantly based on field of study, knowledge of ASCP itself did vary by field of study with natural sciences students having the highest awareness and education students having the lowest. Both environmental concern and the importance of sustainability on campus varied based on field of study. In both cases, natural sciences students most agreed with the statements. Education students were the least environmentally concerned, and students in the formal sciences (mathematics and computer sciences) expressed the least importance for continuing to make the Auraria Campus more sustainable. The selection of recycling, renewable energy, water bottle filling stations, and sustainability conferences and fairs as being in the top three most important programs differed between fields of study with “other” students, formal sciences students, health sciences students, and natural sciences students, respectively, choosing them the most.
The level of understanding of sustainability also differed based on field of study. Architecture and design students indicated the highest level of understanding while education students indicated the lowest understanding. There were no significant differences in which sustainability pillars were selected or which themes were expressed in the sustainability definitions. How often students recycled, chose lower emissions transportation, and used reusable water bottles did differ. Natural sciences students recycled and used reusable water bottles the most while formal sciences students most often chose lower emission transportation. Willingness to perform more sustainable behaviors differed, with communications students being


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
29
the most willing and education students being the least willing. Whether students were motivated to act sustainably by “the future” differed based on field of study. Student in the “Other” category indicated this theme two thirds of the time, and communications students indicated it more than half of the time.
Discussion and Recommendations
Although awareness of ASCP was low, 95% of students were aware of at least one of ASCP’s programs. This shows that students know that environmentally sustainable practices are being implemented, but may not be connecting the practices to the name of the organization. Additionally, the differences in awareness based on demographic factors showed that the students that were more exposed to campus or sustainability education were more aware of ASCP and its programs. To increase awareness, ASCP could use marketing to link the organization name to its projects. ASCP has already started a “Did you know?” marketing campaign to help link ASCP to the progress that the Auraria Campus is making on sustainability (C. Herr, personal communication, October 16, 2018). The ASCP’s upcoming waste diversion project could also be a great opportunity for ASCP to continue to market itself and increase student awareness of the organization. ASCP could use campus and school welcoming events to specifically promote the program to first year students that are less likely to have heard of sustainability programs on campus.
Most students at the Auraria Campus are concerned with environmental issues and think that it is important that the Auraria Campus become more sustainable. Natural sciences students were the most concerned with environmental issues and sustainability on campus. However, natural sciences programs likely are pursued by students who were already concerned about environmental sustainability, so this difference may not be linked with ASCP and its programs.


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
30
Even so, the support for Hypotheses 3 and 4 shows that ASCP has student support in its mission to address environmental issues on campus. The most important sustainability efforts of recycling and renewable energy also confirm that ASCP is already heading in the right direction as it recently approved a solar project on top of the library and is working on a campus wide waste diversion project (C. Herr, personal communication, October 16, 2018).
The relationships between sustainability importance and demographic factors is not consistent enough to choose a single group that should receive more attention in marketing campaigns. The importance of educational workshops and conferences and fairs did differ between multiple groups, so those events could be specifically marketed towards the groups that reported that they were most important. Educational workshops might find an attendance boost if marketed towards CCD and undergraduate students, and sustainability conferences and fairs could also gain more attendees if marketed towards MSU, undergraduate, and natural sciences students.
Students at the Auraria Campus strongly or somewhat agree that they understand “sustainability” and more than half of students reported that all three pillars of sustainability were important. Much like Owens and Legere’s study (2015), however, there were many themes that were discussed in students’ definitions of sustainability, and these themes varied between different demographic groups. This shows that the ASCP needs to be mindful that although students may feel that they understand what “sustainability” means, they do not necessarily share the same definition of the term. According to Owens and Legere (2015) this can be a challenge when trying to bring a large number of students together on a single project. Educational efforts and clear marketing could be used to ensure that all students correctly understand a continuing or new program despite having different definitions of “sustainability.”


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
31
Auraria Campus students already perform sustainability efforts including recycling, turning of lights that are not in use, and using a reusable water bottle. Students are also willing to adopt more sustainable behaviors. This means students are open to changing their behavior for programs ASCP may want to start, and since students already frequently recycle, turn off lights, and use reusable water bottles, ASCP’s efforts can place more focus on more difficult sustainability efforts such as composting and alternative transportation.
Finally, there were some interesting trends regarding students in the field of education. Education students had the lowest awareness of ASCP, the least environmental concern, the lowest understanding of sustainability, and the least willingness to perform more sustainable behaviors. While more research would be needed to understand why this is the case, this is not ideal as the students in the school of education may become teachers who then educate future generations. ASCP could consider outreach based on academic programs to help tie the importance of sustainability to the academic interests of different groups. For education students, this may entail ASCP having a presence at their welcoming events. The framing of marketing materials at those events, or otherwise shared with education students, could focus on how sustainability is specifically important for teachers to understand. Sustainability is an ongoing concept that needs to be passed from generation to generation, and teachers will play a key role in making sure future generations understand sustainability and its importance.
Limitations
Even though this project yielded many interesting findings, it is important to remember its limitations, especially its limitations in being able to generalize the findings to the entire Auraria Campus student population.


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
32
First, UCD students, specifically UCD graduate students, were over represented. This could be for a couple reasons. The capstone student was a UCD student so name and email recognition could have played a role. The survey was also shared by nearly every UCD department via an all student email list which was not the case at MSU and CCD even though all departments were contacted. Plus, according to a marketing contact at Auraria Campus, graduate students tend to reply more than undergraduate students (E. Marsh, personal communication, October 10, 2018).
Second, students that already care about sustainability were probably more likely to take the time to complete a survey about sustainability, which means students that care less about environmental sustainability may have been under represented. However, this project did exceed the response rates of a similar published research study and is still important in the larger context of the campus (Emanuel & Adams, 2011).
Finally, the statistical tests and sample size were a limitation. Even with over 600 responses, some groups such as alumni were small, which makes them difficult to compare to other groups. Many of the groups also did not have an ideal distribution that meets the assumption of equal variances for the statistical tests that were performed.
Considerations for Future Studies
This capstone project could be expanded upon in a few ways. With more time, it may have been possible to establish a relationship with some key outreach contacts at all three institutions to streamline the outreach process. All of the schools, departments, and academic programs have email blasts and newsletters that are shared on different timelines, not all of which fit within the timeline of this project, so more time could have allowed for the survey to be shared in additional ways. This could have included it being shared in alumni emails to increase


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
33
the number of alumni in the study. These approaches may have increased the response rate overall perhaps allowing the sample to be more representative of the whole student population and allowing for a better comparison between groups.
Additional statistical tests and surveys may be beneficial to ASCP. The comparisons between groups did not control for any variables and only two variables were compared at a time. Evaluating several variables together may yield new or different results. For example, it could be interesting to control the comparisons between groups based on students’ level of concern for the environment as the students that are most concerned may be more inclined to seek out ways to be involved in sustainability on campus. More advanced tests may also be able to address the limitations of unequal variances. Overtime, the survey could be reused after ASCP has changed or added programs to gauge whether student perspectives are changing as a result. ASCP is about to invest in more solar energy on campus and start a large waste diversion project, so this survey could be repeated once those projects are completed to understand their effect.
Conclusion
This capstone study provides a baseline of student perceptions on sustainability at the Auraria Campus in Denver, Colorado. While awareness of ASCP was low, students were aware of its programs, were environmentally concerned, reported that sustainability on campus was important, regularly performed environmentally sustainable behaviors such as recycling, turning off lights, and using reusable water bottles, and were willing to perform more sustainable behaviors. ASCP is already pursuing some projects that will address students’ desires and knowledge gaps, and based on this project, ASCP could also pursue some targeted educational efforts. Regardless of what programs ASCP decides to pursue in the future, this information can serve as a starting point to inform those programs.


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
34
References
Alshuwaikhat, H. M. and Abubakar, I. (2008). An integrated approach to achieving campus
sustainability: Assessment of the current campus environmental management practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 1777-1785.
Auraria Higher Education Center. (2018). Retrieved from: https://www.ahec.edu/
Ben-Eli, M. (2018). Sustainability: Definition and five core principles, a systems perspective. Sustainability Science. 13(5), 1337-1343.
Campbell-Arvai, C. (2015). Food-related environmental beliefs and behaviors among university undergraduates: A mixed-methods study. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 16(3), 279-295.
Campus sustainability. (2018). Auraria Higher Education Center. Retrieved from: https://www.ahec.edu/campus-info/campus-sustainability.
Community College of Denver. Retrieved from: www.ccd.edu. Accessed 2 Nov. 2018.
Dagiliute, R., Liobikiene, G., and Minelgaite, A. (2018). Sustainability at universities: Students’ perceptions from green and non-green universities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 181, 473-482.
Driza, P. and Park N. (2014). Occupant satisfaction in LEED-certified higher education buildings. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 3(3), 223-236.
Emanuel, R. and Adams, J. N. (2011). College students’ perceptions of campus sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(1), 79-92.
Fact Sheet. (2017). University of Colorado Denver. Retrieved from: http://www.ucdenver.edu/ about/WhoWeAre/Documents/CUDenver_facts.pdf


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
35
Heeren, A. J., Singh, A. S., Zwickle, A., Koontz, T. M., Slagle, K. M., and McCreelry, A. C. (2016). Is sustainability knowledge half the battle?: An examination of sustainability knowledge, attitudes, norms, and efficacy to understand sustainable behaviors. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 17(5), 613-632.
Herr, C. (2018). Auraria Sustainable Campus Program: 2008-2028 [PowerPoint slides],
Hoddinott, S. N. and Bass, M. J. (1986). The Dillman total design survey method: A sure-fire way to get high survey return rates. Canadian Family Physician, 32, 2366-2386.
Hopkins, E. A. (2016). Barriers to adoption of campus green building policies. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 5(4), 340-351.
Horhota, M., Asman, J., Stratton, J. P., and Halfacre, A. C. (2014). Identifying behavioral
barriers to campus sustainability: A multi-method approach. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 15(3), 343-358.
Lambert, M. and Cushing, K. K. (2017). How low can you go? Understanding ecological
footprint reduction in university students, faculty, and staff. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 18(7), 1142-1156.
Lertpratchya, A. P., Besley, J. C., Zwickle, A., Takahashi, B., and Whitley, C. T. (2017).
Assessing the role of college as a sustainability communication channel. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 18(7), 1060-1075.
Metropolitan State University of Denver. Retrieved from: www.msudenver.edu. Accessed 2 Nov. 2018.
2017/2018 Survey Results. (2018). Auraria Sustainable Campus Program. Unpublished data.


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
36
Olson, L., Arvai, J., and Thorp, L. (2011). Mental models research to inform community
outreach for a campus recycling program. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(4), 322-337.
Owens, K. A. and Legere, S. (2015). What do we say when we talk about sustainability?: Analyzing faculty, staff and student definitions of sustainability at one American university. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 16(3), 367-384.
Perrault, E. K. and Clark, S. K. (2018). Sustainability attitudes and behavioral motivations of college students: Testing the extended parallel process model. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(1). 32-47.
Sustainability primer. (2015). Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents/ sustainability_primer_v7.pdf
Sustainable development. (2018). General Assembly of the United Nations: President of the 65th Session. Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/en/ga/president/65/issues/sustdev.shtml
Vedachalam, S. and Mancl, K. M. (2010). Water resources and wastewater reuse: Perceptions of students at The Ohio State University campus. Ohio Journal of Science, 110(5), 104-113.
Whitley, C. T., Takahashi, B., Swickle, A., Besley, J. C., and Lertpratchya, A. P. (2018).
Sustainability behaviors among college students: An application of the VBN theory. Environmental Education Research, 24(2), 245-262.
Wilson, J. P. (2015). The triple bottom line: Undertaking an economic, social, and environmental retail sustainability strategy. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 43(4/5), 432-447.


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
37
Appendix A
Auraria Campus Sustainability Survey
Please note that the survey will be created and distributed via Qualtrics, so this figure represents the content and order of the questions, not the formatting.
Thank you for choosing to complete this brief survey about sustainability on the Auraria Campus! Your responses are greatly appreciated.
The purpose of this study is to gain information on how students at the Auraria Campus understand sustainability. The information provided in the survey will inform how sustainability efforts are implemented at the Auraria Campus and will be used for a Master’s in Public Administration capstone project. Your response will remain confidential including your email address if you choose to provide it.
All students from the Community College of Denver, Metropolitan State University of Denver, and the University of Colorado Denver who have attended or are currently attending classes at the Auraria are invited to participate. Participation is voluntary and can be stopped at any time. The survey consists of 9 questions followed by 6 questions about your academic experience.
Thank you for your participation!
1. Please indicate your level of awareness of the Auraria Sustainable Campus Program before taking this survey.
a. I was not aware that the Auraria Campus had a Sustainability Program.
b. I was aware that the Auraria Campus had a Sustainability Program, but I was unsure of what it does.
c. I was aware that the Auraria Campus had a Sustainability Program, and I was aware of its projects and programs,
2. Which of the following sustainability efforts are most important to you? Select up to three.
a. Recycling
b. Composting
c. Solar or other renewable energy
d. Energy Efficient Lighting
e. Efficient Toilets, Urinals or Sinks
f. Water Bottle Filling Stations
g. Secure Bike Parking
h. B-Cycle or dockless bike share
i. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
j. Educational Workshops
k. Sustainability Conferences/Fairs
l. Community Garden
m. Other (optional open-ended response)


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
38
n. None of the above
3. To your knowledge, which of the following sustainability efforts are being implemented on the Auraria Campus? Select all that apply.
a. Recycling
b. Composting
c. Solar or other renewable energy
d. Energy Efficient Lighting
e. Efficient Toilets, Urinals or Sinks
f. Water Bottle Filling Stations
g. Secure Bike Parking
h. B-Cycle or dockless bike share
i. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
j. Educational Workshops
k. Sustainability Conferences/Fairs
l. Community Garden
m. Other (optional open-ended response)
n. None. I am not aware that any of these are being implemented.
4. Sustainability efforts should focus on: Check all that apply.
a. Environmental conservation and stewardship
b. Social consciousness and equity
c. Economic responsibility
d. None of the above
5. How often do you do the following: (Always, Most of the time, About half the time, Sometimes, Never)
a. Use a reusable water bottle.
b. Choose transportation with lower emissions (walking, biking, riding the bus).
c. Turn off the lights when they are not in use.
d. Recycle
e. Compost
How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? (Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Strongly Disagree)
6. I am concerned about environmental issues.
7. It is important that the Auraria Campus continue to become more sustainable (i.e. reducing our carbon footprint, conserving water, bike friendly, etc.).
8. I would be willing to adopt more sustainable behaviors into my everyday life (recycling, composting, biking, turning lights off, using a reusable water bottle, etc.).
9. I fully understand the meaning of the term ‘ sustainability’.
Please respond to the following with one or more sentences:
10. What does “sustainability” mean to you?
11. What, if anything, motivates you to act sustainably?
12. Is there anything else you would like to tell us that is related to the Auraria Sustainable Campus Program?


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
39
Now we need some information about you to help us understand how different groups think about sustainability at Auraria Campus:
1. Which Auraria Campus school do/did you attend?
a. Community College of Denver
b. Metropolitan State University of Denver
c. University of Colorado Denver
2. Are you currently an undergraduate student, Master’s student, PhD student, or alumni?
a. Undergraduate student
b. Master’s student
c. PhD student
d. Alumni
i. Follow up: In what year did you graduate?
1. Dropdown of years, last option is 2003 or prior
3. How many years have you been, or were you, a student on the Auraria Campus?
a. Drop down of 1 through 6+
4. Are, or were, you a full-time or part-time student?
a. Full-time
b. Part-time
5. What is your intended or competed field of study?
a. (Open-ended text box)
6. Email Address:
7. Would you like to receive the Auraria Sustainable Campus Program’s newsletter?
a. Yes
b. No


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
40
Appendix B Measurement Table
Research Question Variable Measure Level of Measurement Survey Question
Dependent Variables
1 ASCP Awareness Level of awareness of ASCP Ordinal 1
2 Sustainability Effort Awareness Awareness that a sustainability effort is being implemented at the Auraria Campus Nominal 3
3 Environmental Concern Level of concern for environmental issues Ordinal 6
4 Importance of Campus Sustainability Level of importance of increasing Auraria Campus sustainability Ordinal 7
5 Sustainability Effort Importance Whether or not a sustainability effort is within a student’s top three based on importance Nominal 2
6 Understanding of Sustainability Level of understanding of‘sustainability’ Ordinal 9
7 Three Pillars Do students think sustainability should focus on the environment, social, or economic pillars of sustainability Nominal 4
8 Meaning of Sustainability What does sustainability mean to the student Nominal 10
9 Sustainable Behavior Frequency of performing certain sustainable behaviors Ordinal 5a-e
10 Willingness to Adopt New Behavior Willingness of the student to adopt new sustainable behaviors Ordinal 8
11 Motivation What motivates a student to act sustainably Nominal 11


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
41
Research Question Variable Measure Level of Measurement Survey Question
Independent Variables
12 School The school that the student attends or attended Nominal 1
12 Level of Education The student’s level of education Ordinal 2
12 Years on Campus The number of years the student has attended classes on campus Ordinal 3
12 Full/P art-time Status The full or part-time status of a student Nominal 4
12 Field of Study The intended or completed field of study of the student Nominal 5


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
42
Appendix C
Table 1
Respondent Frequency by Institution and Degree Status
Undergraduate Master's PhD Alumni Total
Community College of Denver 56 0 0 4 60
Metropolitan State University of Denver 171 9 1 8 189
University of Colorado Denver 65 241 34 18 358
607
Figure 1: Frequency of respondents’ fields of study


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
43
Table 2
Frequency and Percent of Student Awareness of ASCP Programs
Program Frequency Percent of Total
Recycling 534 89%
Water Bottle Filling Stations 442 73%
Secure Bike Parking 256 43%
Water Efficiency 226 38%
Energy Efficient Lighting 195 32%
B-Cycle / Dockless Bikes 183 30%
Composting 176 29%
Renewable Energy 144 24%
Community Garden 118 20%
Educational Workshops 117 19%
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 102 17%
Sustainability Conferences and Fairs 96 16%
Not Aware of Any Programs 29 5%
Total Number of Students 602 100%
o
m
o
o
o
m
o
01 23456789 10 11 12
Number of ASCP Programs
Figure 2: Total number of ASCP programs of which students are aware


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
44
Table 3
Frequency and Percent of a Program being included in Students ’ Top Three Most Important Programs
Program Frequency Percent of Total
Recycling 437 72%
Renewable Energy 335 55%
Water Bottle Filling Stations 289 48%
Composting 145 24%
Water Efficiency 138 23%
Energy Efficient Lighting 136 22%
Community Garden 86 14%
Educational Workshops 71 12%
Secure Bike Parking 52 9%
Sustainability Conferences and Fairs 32 5%
B-Cycle / Dockless Bike Share 13 2%
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 13 2%
None of the Programs are Important 5 1%
Total 607 100%
Table 4 Frequency and Percent of Themes Presented in Student’s Definitions of “Sustainability ”
Theme Frequency Percent of Total
Long-term thinking 121 26%
Maintaining a resource 115 25%
Reducing harm 80 17%
Protecting the planet 69 15%
Reducing waste 66 14%
Using less 65 14%
Recycling / Reusing 58 12%
It is ethical, logical, and responsible 56 12%
Balance / Equilibrium 55 12%
Improving a resource 55 12%
Not depleting a resource 48 10%
Total 469 100%


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
45
Table 5
Frequency and Percent of Students Performing Sustainable Behaviors
Recycling Composting Lights Transportation Water Bottle
Always 283 47% 87 14% 345 57% 134 22% 387 64%
Most of the 207 34% 79 13% 207 34% 177 29% 159 26%
time
About half of the time 71 12% 71 12% 39 6% 104 17% 30 5%
Sometimes 42 7% 165 27% 14 2% 143 24% 25 4%
Never 4 1% 205 34% 2 0% 49 8% 6 1%
Total 607


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
46
Appendix D
Statistical Output for Research Question 12: Comparison by Groups
Codebook
Variable Stata Label Values or Explanation
ASCP Awareness ASCP Awareness 1 = Not aware of ASCP 2 = Aware of ASCP, but unsure of its projects 3 = Aware of ASCP and its projects
Sustainability Effort Awareness K - Total The total number of ASCP programs that the student was aware of.
Environmental Concern Environmental Concern 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Somewhat disagree 3 = Neither agree not disagree 4 = Somewhat agree 5 = Strongly disagree
Importance of Campus Sustainability AC More Sustainable 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Somewhat disagree 3 = Neither agree not disagree 4 = Somewhat agree 5 = Strongly disagree
Sustainability Effort Importance I - Recycling I - Composting I - Renewables I - Energy efficient lighting I - Efficient toilets, etc. I - Water bottle stations I - Bike parking I - B-cycle I-EV I - Educational Workshops I - Conferences Fairs I - Garden 0 = Not included in the student’s top three 1 = Included in the student’s top three
Understanding of Sustainability UnderstandingSustainability 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Somewhat disagree 3 = Neither agree not disagree 4 = Somewhat agree 5 = Strongly disagree
Three Pillars TP - Environment TP - Social TP - Economic TP - All 0 = The pillar(s) was(were) not selected 1 = The pillar(s) was(were) selected


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
47
Variable Stata Label Values or Explanation
Meaning of Sustainability Long-term Maintaining a resource Reducing harm or damage 0 = Not included in the student’s response 1 = Included in the student’s response
Sustainable Behavior Reusable water bottle Lower emissions transportation Turn off the lights Recycle Compost 1 = Never 2 = Sometimes 3 = About half the time 4 = Most of the time 5 = Always
Willingness to Adopt New Behavior Willingness 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Somewhat disagree 3 = Neither agree not disagree 4 = Somewhat agree 5 = Strongly disagree
Motivation Negative impacts Future Wanting to help the planet 0 = Not included in the student’s response 1 = Included in the student’s response
School School 1 = CCD 2 = MSU 3 = UCD
Level of Education Level of Education 1 = Undergraduate 2 = Master’s 3 = PhD 4 = Alumni
Years on Campus Years 1 = 1 2 = 2 3 = 3 4 = 4 5 = 5 6 = 6+
Full/P art-time Status Full-time 0 = Part-time 1 = Full-time
Field of Study Field of Study 1 = Architecture and design 2 = Business 3 = Communications 4 = Education 5 = Engineering 6 = Formal sciences 7 = Health sciences 8 = Humanities 9 = Natural sciences 10 = Other 11 = Social sciences


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
ASCP Awareness.
Summary of ASCP Awareness School Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 1.3 .53042995 60
2 1.7037037 .72716078 189
3 1.5 .63840663 358
Total 1.5436573 .66822394 607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 9.08567332 2 4.54283666 10.49 0.0000
ISithin groups 261.507407 604 .432959284
Bartlett '<
270.59308:
Comparison of ASCP Awai (Bonferron.
446523236
2(2) = 9.3932 Prob>chi2 = 0.009
by School
403704
0.000
Sustainability Effort Awareness.
Summary of K - Total
Toi

1 3.85
2 4.8783069
3 4.0111732
:al 4.2652389
Std. Dev.
2.3056673 2.6937685 2.7622684
2.7269274

607
Soi
Analysis of Variance SS df MS

Between groups 104.490175 2 52.2450874 7.17 0.0008
Within groups 4401.80637 604 7.28775888
Total 4506.29654 606 7.4361329
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 3.0218 Prob>chi2 = 0.221
Comparison of K - Total by School (Bonferroni)
Row Mean-
Col Mean 1 2
2 1.02831
0.031
3 .161173 -.867134
1.000 0.001
School
Environmental Concern.
Summary of E vironmental Conce
School Mean Std. Dev. F eq.
1 4.5 .67648143 60
2 4.7724868 .45672825 189
3 4.7346369 .62126306 358
Total 4.723229 . 58516093 607
Analysis of Var ance
Source SS df MS
Between groups 3.49503716 2 1.74751858 5.17 0.0059
Within groups 204.007434 604 .337760652
Total 207.502471 606 .342413319
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 24.9538 Prob>chi2 = 0.000
Comparison of Environmental Concern by School (Bonferroni)
Row Mean-
Col Mean 1 2
2 .272487
0.005
3 .234637 -.03785
0.012 1.000
Importance of Campus Sustainability.
School Summary of Mean AC More Sustainable Std. Dev. Freq.
1 4 . 7 .53042995 60
2 4.8148148 .51837778 189
3 4 . 82960 8 9 . 52555465 358
Total 4.8121911 .52430968 607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between qroups Within qroups .865122062 2 165.724664 604 .432561031 .274378582 1.58 0.2075
Total
166.589786 606 .274900637
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(2)
0.0670 Prob>chi2
0 .967


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Sustainability Effort Importance.
Recycling.
Summary of I - Recycling School Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 .76666667 .42652187 60
2 .6984127 .46016604 189
3 .72346369 .44791113 358
Total .7199341 .4494015 607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups .223035193 2 .111517597 0.55 0.5765
Within groups 122.165762 604 .202261196
Total 122.388797 606 .201961712
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 0.5304 Prob>chi2 = 0.767
Composting.
Summary of I - Composting School Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 .18333333 .39020493 60
2 .22751323 .42034011 189
3 .25418994 .43601427 358
Total .23837974 .42675079 607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups .293458587 2 .146729293 0.81 0.4475
Within groups 110.06898 604 .18223341
Total 110.362438 606 .182116235
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 1.3059 Prob>chi2 = 0.521
Renewable Energy.
Summary of I - Renewables School Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 .53333333 .50309775 60
2 .52380952 .5007593 189
3 .5698324 .49579235 358
Total .55189456 .49770981 607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups .284940832 2 .142470416 0.57 0.5634
Within groups 149.83038 604 .248063544
Total 150.115321 606 .247715052
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 0.0377 Prob>chi2 = 0.981
49
Efficient Lighting.
Summary of I - Energy efficient lighting
School Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 .16666667 .37582301 60
2 .2010582 .40185599 189
3 .24581006 .43116907 358
Total .22405272 .41730083 607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS

Between groups .466993536 2 .233496768 1.34 0.2620
ISithin groups 105 . 061837 604 . 173943438
Total 105.52883 606 .174139984
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 2.4990 Prob>chi2 = 0.287
Water Efficiency.
Summary of I - Efficient toilets, School Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 .16666667 .37582301 60
2 .22751323 .42034011 189
3 .23743017 .42610356 358
Total .22734761 .41946459 607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups .25732935 2 .128664675 0.73 0.4820
Within groups 106.3687 604 .17610712
Total 106.62603 606 .175950544
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 1.4988 Ptob>chi2 = 0.473
Water Bottle Filling Stations.
Summary of I - Hater bottle stations
School Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 .58333333 .49716712 60
2 .49206349 .50126486 189
3 .44972067 .49816181 358
Total .47611203 .49984094 607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups .987223744 2 .493611872 1.98 0.1387
Hithin groups 150.416401 604 .249033776
Total 151.403624 606 .249840964
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 0.0113 Prob>chi2 = 0.994


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Secure Bike Parking.
Summary of I - Bike Parking
School Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 . 06666667 .25154887 60
2 .06349206 .24449356 189
3 . 10055866 .30116435 358
Total . 08566722 .28010284 607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS
Between groups .193987938 2 .096993969 1.24 0.2909
Within groups 47.3513168 604 .07839622
Total 47.5453048 606 .078457599
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 11.5290 Prob>chi2 = 0.003
B-Cycle and Dockless Bikes
School Summary Mean of I - B-cycle Std. Dev. Freq.
1 . 01666667 . 12909944 60
2 . 02116402 .14431319 189
3 . 02234637 .1480142 358
Total .0214168 . 14488861 607
Analysis of Varj .ance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups . 00167525 2 .000837625 0. 04 0.9610
Within groups 12.7199063 604 .021059448
Total 12.7215815 606 .020992709
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 1.7826 Prob>chi2 = 0.410
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations.
School Summary of I - EV Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 .03333333 .18102033 60
2 .02116402 .14431319 189
3 .01955307 .13865226 358
Total .0214168 .14488861 607
)f Variance df MS
F
Prob > F
Between groups .009775808 2 .004887904 0.23 0.7928
Within groups 12.7118057 604 .021046036
Total 12.7215815 606 .020992709
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 8.1381 Prob>chi2 = 0.017
50
Educational Workshops.
School Summary Mean of I - Education Workshops Std. Dev. al Freq.
1 . 2 .40337559 60
2 .14814815 .35619033 189
3 .08659218 .28163012 358
Total . 1169687 .32164804 607
Analysis of Var iance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups . 927728095 2 .463864048 4.54 0. 0111
Within groups 61.7674943 604 .102264063
Total 62.6952224 606 .103457463
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 22.6970 Prob>chi2 = 0.000
Comparison of I - Educational Workshops by School (Bonfe rroni)
Row Mean-
Col Mean 1 2
2 -.051852
0. 823
3 -.113408 -.061556
0.034 0.098
Conferences and Fairs
Summary of I - Conference Fairs School Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 .03333333 .18102033 60
2 .1005291 .30150286 189
3 .03072626 .1728166 358
Total .05271829 .22365482 607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups .627723231 2 .313861615 6.39 0.0018
Within groups 29.6852916 604 .049147834
Total 30.3130148 606 .050021477
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 85.7985 Prob>chi2 = 0.000
Comparison of I - Conference Fairs by School (Bonferroni)
Row Mean-
Col Mean 1 2
2 .067196
0.124
3 -.002607 -.069803
1.000 0.001


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Community Garden.
Summary of I - Garden
School Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 .15 .36008474 60
2 .15873016 .36639485 189
3 .13128492 .33818435 358
Total .1416804 .34900965 607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups .09778182 2 .04889091 0.40 0.6701
Within groups 73.7177042 604 .122049179
Total 73.815486 606 .121807733
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 1.7219 Prob>chi2 = 0.423
Understanding of Sustainability.
Summary of
Understanding Sustainability School Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 4.2833333 .88474197 60
2 4.4232804 .77231886 189
3 4.4608939 .75026142 358
Total 4.431631 .77172889 607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 1.6392719 2 .81963595 1.38 0.2529
Within groups 359.273413 604 .594823532
Total 360.912685 606 .595565487
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 2.9651 Prob>chi2 = 0.227
Three Pillars.
Environmental
Summary of TP - Environment School Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 .86666667 .34280333 60
2 .93121693 .25375709 189
3 .9301676 .25522106 358
Total .92421746 .26486812 607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups .220659912 2 .110329956 1.58 0.2077
Within groups 42.2933434 604 .070022092
Total 42.5140033 606 .070155121
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 10.9798 Prob>chi2 = 0.004
Social.
Summary of TP - Social
School Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 .75 .43666688 60
2 .77248677 .42034011 189
3 .72625698 .4465027 358
Total .74299835 .43734072 607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups .267627424 2 .133813712 0.70 0.4975
Within groups 115.640116 604 .191457145
Total 115.907743 606 .191266903
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 0.8835 Prob>chi2 = 0.643
Economic.
Summary of TP - Economic School Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 .7 .46212479 60
2 .6984127 .46016604 189
3 .63407821 .48236185 358
Total .66062603 .47388738 607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups .615192489 2 .307596245 1.37 0.2545
Within groups 135.47377 604 .224294321
Total 136.088962 606 .224569244
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 0.6158 Prob>chi2 = 0.735
All Three Pillars.
School Summary of TP - All Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 .56666667 .49971743 60
2 .62433862 . 48557951 189
3 . 52793296 . 4 9991784 358
Total .56177924 . 4 965778 6 607
Source
Analysis of Variance
SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 1.15123237 2 .575616183 2.34 0.0968
Within groups 148.282046 604 .245500076
Total 149.433278 606 .246589568
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 0.2160 Prob>chi2 = 0.898


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Meaning of Sustainability. Long-term Thinking.
Summary of Long-term
School Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 .07407407 .26435053 54
2 .24475524 .43145321 143
3 .30147059 .45974247 272
Total .25799574 .43799884 469
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 2.36583409 2 1.18291704 6.31 0.0020
Within groups 87.4166819 466 .187589446
Total 89.782516 468 .191842983
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 20.9954 Prob>chi2 = 0.000
Comparison of Long-term by School (Bonferroni)
Row Mean-
Col Mean 1 2
2 .170681
0.042
3 .227397 .056715
0.001 0.617
Maintaining a Resource.
School Summary of Mean Maintaining a Std. Dev. Freq.
1 .48148148 .50434866 54
2 .23076923 . 42280598 143
3 .20588235 . 40509025 272
Total .24520256 .43066661 Analysis of Var 469
Source SS df MS
Between groups 3.46502066 2 1.73251033 9.69 0.0001
Within groups 83.3366851 466 .178834088
Total 86.8017058 468 .18547373
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 4.6649 Prob>chi2 = 0.097
Comparison of Maintaining a resource by School (Bonferroni)
Row Mean-
Col Mean 1 2
2 -.250712
0.001
3 -.275599 -.024887
0.000 1.000
Reducing Harm.
School Summary of Mean Reducing harm or Std. Dev. damage Freq.
1 .14814815 .3585825 54
2 .23076923 . 4228 0598 143
3 .14338235 . 35110836 272
Total .17057569 .37653942 469
Source
Analysis of Variance
SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups .746426128 2 .373213064 2.65 0.0717
Within groups 65.6075184 466 .140788666
Total 66.3539446 468 .141781933
Bartlett's test for egual variances: chi2(2) = 6.8600 Prob>chi2 = 0.032
Sustainable Behavior.
Reusable Water Bottle.
School Summary of Mean Reusable water Std. Dev. bottle. Freq.
1 4.0833333 .96184263 60
2 4 . 4867725 .8909024 189
3 4.5363128 .78327749 358
Total 4 .47 6112 .84568759 607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 10.5754269 2 5.28771344 7.55 0.0006
Within groups 422.828198 604 .700046685
Total 433.403624 606 .715187499
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 7.0152 Prob>chi2 = 0.030
Comparison of Reusable water bottle, by School (Bonferroni)
Row Mean-
Col Mean 1 2
2 .403439
0.004
3 .45298 .04954
0.000 1.000


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Choosing Lower Emissions Transportation.
School Summary of Lower emissions transportation Mean Std. Dev. Freg.
1 3 .4333333 1.306654 60
2 3.3650794 1.2919751 189
3 3.3044693 1.2611551 358
Total 3.3360791 1.2739066 607
Source
Analysis of Variance
SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 1.0841619 2 .54208095 0.33 0.7167
Within groups 982.355706 604 1.62641673
Total 983.439868 606 1.62283807
Bartlett's test for egual variances: chi2(2) = 0.2221 Prob>chi2 = 0.895
Turning Off the Lights.
School Summary of Mean Turn off the Std. Dev. lights Freg.
1 4 . 4 .90572567 60
2 4.4497354 .72483486 189
3 4.4553073 .72719275 358
Total 4.4481054 .74474542 607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS
Between groups .157918278 2 .078959139 0.14 0.8677
Within groups 335.957403 604 .556220866
Total
336.115321 606 .554645745
Bartlett's test for egual variances: chi2(2)
5.8169 Prob>chi2
0 . 055
Recycling.
School Summary of Recycle Mean Std. Dev. Freg.
1 3 . 9 1.0366177 60
2 4.2010582 . 92356786 189
3 4.2346369 . 92625946 358
Total 4 .1911038 .94032503 607
Source
Analysis of Variance
SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 5.78166931 2 2.89083465 3.29 0.0378
Within groups 530.050291 604 .877566707
Total 535.83196 606 .884211156
Bartlett's test for egual variances: chi2(2) = 1.4560 Prob>chi2 = 0.483
Comparison of Recycle by School (Bonferroni)
Row Mean-
Col Mean 1 2
2 .301058
0.091
3 .334637 .033579
0.032 1.000
Composting.
School Summary of Compost Mean Std. Dev. Freg.
1 2.6666667 1.4690787 60
2 2.4708995 1.3704518 189
3 2.4357542 1.4571588 358
Total 2.4695222 1.4311401 607
Source
Analysis of Variance
SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 2.74053466 2 1.37026733 0.67 0.5130
Within groups 1238.44563 604 2.05040667
Total 1241.18616 606 2.04816198
Bartlett's test for egual variances: chi2(2)
0.9985 Prob>chi2
0.607


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Willingness to Adopt New Behavior.
School Summary of Willingnes Std. Dev. Freq.
1 4.5333333 . 62345855 60
2 4.7354497 .58697062 189
3 4.7597765 .52750876 358
Total 4.7298188 .55948214 607
Sc
Analysis of Variance
SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 2.64367784 2 1.32183892 4.27 0.0144
Within groups 187.046602 604 .309679805
Total 189.69028 606 .313020264
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 4.7073 Prob>chi2 = 0.095
Comparison of Willingness by School (Bonferroni)
Row Mean-
Col Mean 1 2
2 .202116
0.044
3 .226443 .024327
0.011 1.000
Motivation.
Seeing Negative Impacts.
School Summa ry Mean of Negative impacts Std. Dev. F -eq.
1 .33333333 .47609523 51
2 .36363636 .48273654 143
3 .33333333 . 47227028 273
Total .34261242 .47509207 Analysis of Variance 467
Source SS df MS
Between groups .091103757 2 .045551879 0.20 0.8179
Within groups 105.090909 464 .226489028
Total 105.182013 466 .225712474
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 0.0896 Prob>chi2 = 0.956
Concern for the Future
School Summary of Future Mean Std. Dev. Freg.
1 .19607843 .40097919 51
2 .25874126 . 43 94 8252 143
3 .29304029 . 45599268 273
Total .27194861 .44544072 467
Source
Analysis of Variance
SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups .439961097 2 .219980548 1.11 0.3307
Within groups 92.0225657 464 .198324495
Total 92.4625268 466 .198417439
Bartlett's test for egual variances: chi2(2) = 1.3795 Prob>chi2 = 0.502
Wanting to Help the Planet.
School Summary of Mean Wanting to help planet Std. Dev. the Freq.
1 .17647059 .38501337 51
2 .3006993 .46017396 143
3 .2014652 .40183135 273
Total .22912206 .42071863 Analysis of Varian 467
Source SS df MS
Between groups 1.08283135 2 .541415674 3.09 0.0466
Within groups 81.4011087 464 .175433424
Total 82.48394 466 .177004163
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 4.2415 Prob>chi2 = 0.120
Comparison of Wanting to help the planet by School (Bonferroni)
Row Mean-
Col Mean 1 2
2 .124229
0.209
3 .024995 -.099234
1.000 0.067


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
55
Level of Education
ASCP Awareness.
Level of Education Summary Mean of ASCP Awareness Std. Dev. Freq.
1 1.6130137 .70166848 292
2 1.468 .62170901 250
3 1.3714286 .59831697 35
4 1.7 .70221325 30
Total 1.5436573 .66822394 607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 4.60710421 3 1.5357014 3.48 0.0157
Within groups 265.985977 603 .441104439
Total 270.593081 606 .446523236
Bartlett's test for egual variances: chi2(3) = 4.7451 Prob>chi2 = 0.191
Sustainability Effort Awareness.
Level of Education Summary Mean of K - Total Std. Dev. Fr eq.
1 4.6849315 2.702305 292
2 3.884 2.7062593 250
3 3.7428571 2.7044936 35
4 3.9666667 2.6843523 30
Total 4.2652389 2.7269274 607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 99.9944608 3 33.3314869 4.56 0.0036
Within groups 4406.30208 603 7.3073003
Total 4506.29654 606 7.4361329
Environmental Concern.
Level of Education Summary of Mean Envi r onment al Std. Dev. Concern Freq.
1 4.6712329 .5990782 292
2 4.756 .60159093 250
3 4 . 8 .40583972 35
4 4 . 8666667 .43417249 30
Total 4 .723229 .58516093 607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 1.88144834 3 .627149446 1.84 0.1388
Within groups 205.621023 603 .340996721
Total 207.502471 606 .342413319
Bartlett's test for egual variances: chi2(3) = 12.1291 Prob>chi2 = 0.007
Importance of Campus Sustainability.
Level of Summary of AC More Sustainable
Education Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 4.7773973 .51948568 292
2 4 . 836 .56067945 250
3 4.8571429 . 42996971 35
4 4.9 .30512858 30
Total 4.8121911 .52430968 607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups .797249628 3 .265749876 0.97 0.4081
Within groups 165.792536 603 .274946163
Total 166.589786 606 .274900637
Bartlett's test for egual variances: chi2(3) = 0.0035 Prob>chi2 = 1.000
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(3) = 16.8370 Prob>chi2 = 0.001


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Sustainability Effort Importance
Recycling.
. oneway IRecycling LevelofEducation, bonferroni tabulate
. 45660947 .45559441 .40583972 .3457459
Source
Analysis of Variance
Between groups .966897821 3 .322299274 1.60 0.1881
lilithin groups 121.4219 603 .201363017
Total 122.388797 606 .201961712
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(3) = 4.2421 Prob>chi2 = 0.236
Composting.
Level of
Summary of I - Composting
Education

1 .21575342
2 .268
3 .31428571
4 .13333333
Total
.23887974

.41205017
.4438061
.47100822
.3457459
.42675079

292
250
35
30
607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS
Between groups .901380165 3 .300460055 1.66 0.1755
ISithin groups 109 .461058 603 .181527459
Total 110.362438 606 .182116235
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2 (3) = 4
Prob>chi2 = 0.221
Renewable Energy.
Education
Summary of I - Renewables Mean Std. Dev. F
. 52054795 .584 .45714286
.50043525 292
.49388225 250
.50543267 35
.4660916 30
.55189456 .49770981
Analysis of Variance
Between groups 1.51689464 3 .505631546 2.05 0.1055
Within groups 148.598427 603 .246431885
Total 150.115321 606 .247715052
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(3) = 0.2921 Prob>chi2 = 0.962
Efficient Lighting.
Level of
Summary of I - Energy efficient light ing
Education

1 .19520548
2 .256
3 .22857143
4 .23333333
Total
. 22405272
Std. Dev.
.39703925 .43729729 . 42604296 .43018307
.41730083

292
250
607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS
F Prob > F
Between groups .501447404 3 .167149135 0.96 0.4114
Within groups 105.027383 603 .174174764
Total 105.52883 606 .174139984
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(3) = 2.5853 Prob>chi2 = 0.460
Water Efficiency.
Level of
Summary of I
Efficient

Education

1 .20547945
2 .256
3 .17142857
4 .26666667
Total
.22734761
Std. Dev.
.40474519
.43729729
.38238526
.44977645
.41946459

292
250
607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS
Between groups .500701539 3 .166900513 0.95 0.4169
Within groups 106.125328 603 .175995569
Total 106.62603 606 .175950544
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(3) = 2.4381 Prob>chi2 = 0.487
Water Bottle Filling Stations.
Level of
Summary

Education
1 .51712329
2 . 448
3 .37142857
4 .43333333

.47611203

.50056457
.49828622
.49024089
.50400693
.49984094

607
Source
Analysis of Variance
Between groups 1.12714558 3 .375715194 1.51 0.2114
raithin groups 150.276479 603 .249214724
Total 151.403624 606 .249840964
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2 (3) = 0.0332 Prob>chi2 = 0.998


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Secure Bike Parking.
Level of Summary of I - Bike Parking
Education Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 . 06849315 .25302389 292
2 .108 .31100304 250
3 . 08571429 .28402864 35
4 . 06666667 .25370813 30
Total .08566722 .28010284 607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS
Between groups .221643982 3 .073881327 0.94 0.4202
Within groups 47.3236608 603 .078480366
Total 47.5453048 606 .078457599
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(3) = 11.9365 Prob>chi2 = 0.008
B-Cycle and Dockless Bikes.
Summary of I - B-cycle Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
.02054795 .14210872
.024 .15335603
.02857143 .16903085
S<
Analysis of Variance SS df MS
F Pi
Between groups .017440648 3 .005813549 0.28 0.8428
Within groups 12.7041409 603 .021068227
Total 12.7215815 606 .020992709
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 2.8459 Prob>chi2 = 0.241
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations.


1 .02739726
2 . 016
3 0
4 .03333333
Total
. 02:
.68
iry of I - EV Std. Dev.
.16351825
.1257268
0
.18257419
.14488861

607
Soi
Analysis of Variance SS df MS

Between groups .038092964 3 .012697655 0.60 0.6128
Within groups 12.6834886 603 .021033978
Total 12.7215815 606 .020992709
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 20.8366 Prob>chi2 = 0.000
57
Educational Workshops.
Level of
Summary of K - Educ.
Wo rkshops

Total
Mean
.22260274
.16
.22857143
.13333333
.19275124
Std. Dev.
. 41670785 .36734147 . 42604296 .3457459
.3947847
Freq.
607
Soi
Analysis of V, SS df
MS

Between groups .679188281 3 .226396094 1.46 0.2255
Within groups 93.7689172 603 .155504009
Total 94.4481054 606 .155854959
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(3) = 5.5353 Prob>chi2 = 0.137
Conferences and Fairs.
Education
1
2
3
4
Summary of Mean
. 07876712 .028 0
. 06666667
I - Confer Std. Dev.
.2698374 . 16530366 0
. 25370813
292
250
607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS
F
Prob > F
Between groups .453991996 3 .151330665 3.06 0.0279
Within groups 29.8590228 603 .049517451
Total 30.3130148 606 .050021477
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(2) = 60.8451 Prob>chi2 = 0.000
Community Garden.
Level of
Summary of I - G<

Total
Mean
.15068493
.136
.17142857
.06666667
. 1416804

. 35835565 . 34347621 . 38238526 .25370813
. 34900965
Freq.
607
Soi
Analysis of Variance SS df MS

Between groups .231527745 3 .077175915 0.63 0.5943
Within groups 73.5839583 603 .122029782
Total 73.815486 606 .121807733
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(3) = 5.9179 Prob>chi2 = 0.116


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Understanding of Sustainability.
Level of
Summary of
UnderstandingSustainability
Education

1 4.3869863
2 4.484
3 4.2571429
4 4.6333333
Total
.431631
Std. Dev.
.81916592
.72376747
.78000215
.6149479
.77172889

607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS

Between groups 3.55375644 3 1.18458548 2.00 0.1130
ISithin groups 357.358929 603 .59263504
Total 360.912685 606 .595565487
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2 (3) = 6.6556 Prob>chi2 = 0.084
Three Pillars.
Environmental
Level of
Summary of TP - Environment
Education
1 .92123288
2 . 92
3 .97142857
4 .93333333

.92421746
.2698374 .27183742 .16903085 .25370813
.26486812

607
Source
Analysis of Variance SS df MS

Between groups .087551892 3 .029183964 0.41 0.7424
raithin groups 42.4264514 603 .070358958
Total 42.5140033 606 .070155121
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(3) = 10.9517 Prob>chi2 = 0.012
Social.
Level of
Summary of TP - Social
Education

1 .72945205
2 .748
3 .85714286
Total
.74299835
Std. Dev.
44500555
.4350322
.3550358
.4660916
.43734072

292
250
35
30
607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS
Between groups .571316384 3 .190438795 1.00 0.3944
ISithin groups 115.336427 603 .191271023
Total 115.907743 606 .191266903
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(3) = 2.9984 Prob>chi2 = 0.392
Economic.
Level of
Summary of TP - Economic
Education

1 .68493151
2 .64
3 .57142857
Total
. 66062603
Std. Dev.
.46534065
.48096289
.50209645
.4660916
.47388738

292
250
35
30
607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS
Between groups .603834907 3 .201278302 0.90 0.4430
ISithin groups 135.485127 603 .22468512
Total 136.088962 606 .224569244
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(3) = 0.5488 Prob>chi2 = 0.908
All Three Pillars.
. oneway TPA11 LevelofEducation, bonferroni tabulate
Level of
Summary of TP - All
Education

1 .57534247
2 .544
3 .57142857
4 .56666667
Total
.56177924
Std. Dev.
.49513949
.49905936
.50209645
.50400693
.49657786

607
Source
Analysis of Variance
SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups .136717427 3 .045572476 0.18 0.9072
ISithin groups 149.296561 603 .247589653
Total 149.433278 606 .246589568
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2 (3) = 0.0334 Prob>chi2 = 0.998
Meaning of Sustainability. Long-term Thinking.
Level of
Summary of Long-t
Educatio n
1 .21145374
2 .30102041
3 .30434783
4 .30434783

.25799574
.4092418 .45987621 .47047197 .47047197
.43799884

469
Source
Analysis of Variance
Between groups .953369374 3 .317789791 1.66 0.1741
Within groups 88.8291466 465 .191030423
Total 89.782516 468 .191842983
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(3) = 3.3819 Prob>chi2 = 0.336


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Maintaining a Resource.
Level of
Summary of Maintaining
Educ ation

1 .25991189
2 .20408163
3 .39130435
4 .30434783
Total
.24520256
Std. Dev.
.43955528
.40406102
.49901088
.47047197
.43066661
resource
227
196
469
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS

Between groups .951946738 3 .317315579 1.72 0.1623
Within groups 85.849759 465 .184623138
Total 86.8017058 468 .18547373
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(3) = 3.0938 Prob>chi2 = 0.377
Reducing Harm.
Level of
Summary of Reducing harm or damage
Education

1 .17621145
2 .1377551
3 .2173913
4 .34782609
Total
.17057569
Std. Dev.
.38184196 .34552533 . 42174117 .48698475
.37653942

469
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS
Between groups .991355685 3 .330451895 2.35 0.0717
Within groups 65.3625889 465 .140564707
Total 66.3539446 468 .141781933
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(3) = 6.8131 Prob>chi2 = 0.078
Sustainable Behavior.
Reusable Water Bottle.
Level of
Summary of Reusable ^
Education
1 4.3732877
2 4.576
3 4.5428571
4 4.5666667

I. 476112
.92374489 .77370438 .56061191 . 81720015
. 84568759

292
250
35
30
607
Source
Analysis of Variance
Between groups 5.98359959 3 1.9945332 2.81 0.0386
Within groups 427.420025 603 .708822595
Total 433.403624 606 .715187499
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2 (3) = 17.3386 Prob>chi2 = 0.001
59
Choosing Lower Emissions Transportation.
Level of
Summary of Lower emissions transportation
Education

1 3.390411
2 3.208
3 3.5714286
4 3.6
Total
3.3360791
Std. Dev.
1.2701884
1.2850453
1.2434703
1.1919269
1.2739066

292
250
35
30
607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS

Between groups 8.99128895 3 2.99709632 1.85 0.1361
Within groups 974.448579 603 1.61600096
Total 983.439868 606 1.62283807
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(3) = 0.3198 Prob>chi2 = 0.956
Turning Off the Lights.
Level of
Summary of Turn off 1
Educat ion

1 4.4280822
2 4.464
3 4.4285714
4 4.5333333
Total
.4481054
Std. Dev.
.79838696
.70047603
.69813678
.62881022
.74474542

292
250
607
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS

Between groups .411499987 3 .137166662 0.25 0.8639
Within groups 335.703821 603 .556722755
Total 336.115321 606 .554645745
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(3) = 6.4529 Prob>chi2 = 0.092
Recycling.
Level of Education Summary of Recycle Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 4.0719178 .99740165 292
2 4 . 272 . 90846974 250
3 4.3714286 .6456057 35
4 4.4666667 . 77607915 30
Total 4.1911038 .94032503 607
Source
Analysis of Variance
SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 9.2001392 3 3.06671307 3.51 0.0151
Within groups 526.631821 603 .873352937
Total 535.83196 606 .884211156
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(3) = 12.0279 Prob>chi2 = 0.007


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Composting.
Level of
2.5171233 1.425003
2.424 1.4686223
2.7142857 1.5062893
2.1 .99481414
2.4695222 1.4311401
Sc
Analysis of Variance SS df MS
Between groups 7.37292075 3 2.45764025 1.20 0.3086
Within groups 1233.81324 603 2.04612478
Total 1241.18616 606 2.04816198
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(3) = 6.5879 Prob>chi2 = 0.086
Willingness to Adopt New Behavior.
Std. Dev.
.63977442
.47565638
.3550358
.50400693
Sc
Analysis of Variance SS df MS
Between groups 2.59231007 3 .864103357 2.78 0.0401
Within groups 187.09797 603 .310278557
Total 189.69028 606 .313020264
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2 (3) = 34.1975 Prob>chi2 = 0.000
Motivation.
Seeing Negative Impacts.
.37668161
.30808081
.31818182
Std. Dev.
.48564411
.46287049
.47673129
.48154341
Total .34261242 .47509207
Analysis of Var:

Between groups .51013714 3 .170045713 0.75 0.5215
Within groups 104.671876 463 .226073166
Total 105.182013 466 .225712474
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(3) = 0.4835 Prob>chi2 = 0.922
60
Concern for the Future

Summary of Future
Education

1 .22421525
2 .31818182
3 .40909091
4 .20833333
Total
27194861
Std. Dev.
. 41800275 . 46695115 .50323628 . 41485112
. 44544072
223
198
467
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS
F
Prob > F
Between groups 1.44222849 3 .480742831 2.45 0.0633
Within groups 91.0202983 463 .196588117
Total 92.4625268 466 .198417439
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(3) = 3.4690 Prob>chi2 = 0.325
Wanting to Help the Planet.
. oneway Wantingtohelptheenvironment LevelofEducation, bonferroni tabulate
Education Summary of Mean Wanting to help planet Std. Dev. the Freq.
1 . 24215247 .42934985 223
2 . 21212121 .40984651 198
3 . 27272727 . 45584231 22
4 . 20833333 .41485112 24
Total . 22912206 . 42071863 467
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups .147294439 3 .049098146 0.28 0.8427
Within groups 82.3366456 463 .177832928
Total
82.48394 466 .177004163
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(3^
0.7320 Prob>chi2 = 0.866


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
61
Years on Campus
ASCP Awareness
Importance of Campus Sustainability.
Source SS df MS Number of obs = 607
Model Residual 3.62130887 1 3.62130887 Prob > F = 0.0043 266.971772 605 .441275656 R-squared = 0.0134
Total 270.593081 606 .446523236 Root MSE = .66429
ASCPAwaren-s Coef. Std. Err. t P>lt| [95% Conf. Interval]
Years cons .0490086 .0171078 2.86 0.004 .0154107 .0826065 1.426021 .049125 29.03 0.000 1.329544 1.522497
Sustaina Source jility Effort Awareness. SS df MS Number of obs = 607
Model Residual 89.5993739 1 89.5993739 Prob > F = 0.0005 4416.69717 605 7.3003259 R-squared = 0.0199
Total 4506.29654 606 7.4361329 Root MSE = 2.7019
KTotal Coef. Std. Err. t P>lt| [95% Conf. Interval]
Years cons .2437767 .0695842 3.50 0.000 .1071207 .3804326 3.680095 .1998106 18.42 0.000 3.287688 4.072501
Source SS df MS Number of obs = F(l, 605) 607 0.02

Model .004614075 1 .004614075 Prob > F 0.8970
Residual 166.585172 605 . 275347391 R-squared = Adj R-squared = 0.0000 -0.0016

Total 166.589786 606 . 274900637 Root MSE .52474
ACMoreSust-e Coef. Std. Err. t P> 11 | [95% Conf. Interval]
Years .0017494 . 0135139 0.13 0. 897 -.0247904 .0282892
_cons 4.807992 .038805 123.90 0. 000 4 . 731783 4 . 884201
Sustainability Effort Importance
Recycling.
Source SS df MS Number of obs = F(1, 605) Prob > F R-squared = 607 1.07 0.3012 0.0018 0.0001 .44938
Model Residual . 216233536 122.172564 1 605 . 216233536 . 201938122
Total 122.388797 606 . 201961712 Root MSE
IRecycling Coef. Std. Err. P> 111 [95% Conf. Interval]
'Toll .0119757 .6911885 . 0115731 .033232 1.03 0. 20.80 0. 301 000 -.0107526 .6259244 .034704 .7564525
Environmental Concern.
Source SS df MS Number of obs F(1, 605) = 607 0.08

Model . 025952735 1 .025952735 Prob > F = 0.7833
Residual 207.476518 605 .342936394 R-squared Adj R-squared = 0.0001 -0.0015

Total 207.502471 606 .342413319 Root MSE = . 58561
Environmen^n Coef. Std. Err. t P> 1 11 [95% Conf. Int e rval ]
Years .0041489 .0150816 0.28 0.783 -.0254697 .0337675
cons 4 . 71327 .0433066 108.83 0.000 4.628221 4 .79832
Composting.
Source SS df MS Number of obs = F (1, 605) Prob > F R-squared = 607 1.45 0.2289 0.0024 0.0007 .42659
Model Residual . 264035273 110.098403 1 605 . 264035273 .181980831
Total 110.362438 606 .182116235 Root MSE
IComposting Coef. Std. Err. t P> 111 [95% Conf. Interval]
Yc“o . 0132334 . 2071153 . 0109863 .0315472 1.20 0. 6.57 0. 229 000 -.0083426 .14516 .0348093 .2690705


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Renewable Energy.
Source SS df MS Number of obs = 607
F(1, 605) 1. 08

Model .268237708 1 .268237708 Prob > F = 0.2984
Residual 14 9. 847084 605 . 24768113 R-squared = 0.0018
Adj R-squared 0.0001

Total 150. 115321 606 .247715052 Root MSE = .49768
IRenewables Coef. Std. Err. t P> 111 [95% Conf. Interval]
Years -. 0133383 .012817 -1. 04 0.298 -.0385095 . 0118329
cons .5839108 .0368039 15.87 0.000 .5116319 .6561897
Efficient Lighting.
Source SS df MS Number of obs = 607
F (1, 605) 0.02

Model .004330375 1 .004330375 Prob > F = 0.8749
Residual 105.5245 605 .174420661 R-squared = 0.0000
Adj R-squared -0.0016

Total 105.52883 606 .174139984 Root MSE = .41764
IEnerqyeff~g Coef. Std. Err. t P> 111 [95% Conf. Interval]
Years . 0016947 . 0107557 0.16 0.875 -.0194283 . 0228178
cons .2199848 . 030884 9 7.12 0.000 . 1593301 .2806394
Water Efficiency.
Source SS df MS Number of obs = 607
F(1, 605) 0.23

Model . 039883231 1 . 039883231 Prob > F = 0.6344
Residual 106.586146 605 .176175449 R-squared = 0.0004
Adj R-squared -0.0013

Total 106.62603 606 . 175950544 Root MSE = .41973
IEfficient-c Coef. Std. Err. t P> 111 [95% Conf. Interval]
Years .0051432 . 0108097 0.48 0.634 -.0160858 .0263722
cons .2150022 . 0310399 6. 93 0.000 .1540432 .2759612
62
Water Bottle Filling Stations.
Source SS df MS Number of obs = p / 1 Cf|C\ 607 2. 19 0.1394 0.0036 0.0020 .49935
Model Residual .546133118 150.857491 1 605 . 546133118 Prob > F .249351225 R-squared =
Total 151.403624 606 . 249840964 Root MSE
IWaterbott-s Coef. Std. Err. t P>1t1 [95% Conf. Interval]
Years cons -.0190322 .5217956 .0128601 . 0369278 -1.48 0.139 14.13 0.000 -. 0442881 .4492734 .0062237 .5943178
Secure Bike Parking.
Source SS df MS Number of obs = p / 1 (Z fl c \ 607 0.29 0.5932 0. 0005 -0. 0012 .28027
Model Residual .022443851 47.5228609 1 605 .022443851 Prob > F .078550183 R-squared =
Total 47.5453048 606 .078457599 Root MSE
IBikeParkinq Coef. Std. Err. t P>1t1 [95% Conf. Interval]
Years cons -. 0038582 . 094 9282 . 0072179 . 0207263 -0.53 0.593 4.58 0.000 -. 0180335 . 0542241 . 010317 . 1356324
B-Cycle and Dockless Bikes.
Source SS df MS Number of obs = 607
F (1, 605) 0.73

Model . 015254092 1 .015254092 Prob > F = 0.3944
Residual 12.7063275 605 . 021002194 R-squared = 0.0012
Adj R-squared -0.0005

Total 12.7215815 606 . 020992709 Root MSE = .14492
IBcycle Coef. Std. Err. t P> 1 11 [95% Conf. Interval]
Years .0031808 . 0037323 0.85 0.394 - .004149 .0105105
cons .0137819 . 0107172 1.29 0.199 - .0072655 . 0348293


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations.
Source SS df MS Number of obs = 607
F(1, 605) 0.86

Model . 017963923 1 .017963923 Prob > F = 0.3554
Residual 12.7036176 605 .020997715 R-s quared = 0.0014
Adj R-squared -0.0002

Total 12.7215815 606 .020992709 Root MSE = .14491
IEV Coef. Std. Err. t P> 111 [95% Conf. Interval]
Years -.0034518 .0037319 -0. 92 0.355 -.0107807 . 0038772
cons . 0297022 .010716 2.77 0.006 .0086571 . 0507473
Educational Workshops.
Source SS df MS Number of obs = 607
F(1, 605) 2 . 18

Model .225122338 1 .225122338 Prob > F = 0.1403
Residual 62.4701001 605 .103256364 R-squared = 0.0036
Adj R-squared 0.0019

Total 62.6952224 606 .103457463 Root MSE = . 32134
IEducation-s Coef. Std. Err. t P> 111 [95% Conf. Interval]
Years -. 0122194 . 0082756 -1.48 0.140 -.0284717 .004033
cons .1462992 . 0237632 6.16 0.000 .0996308 . 1929677
Conferences and Fairs.
Source SS df MS Number of obs = 607
F (1, 605) 4.91

Model .24423318 1 .24423318 Prob > F = 0.0270
Residual 30.0687816 605 .049700466 R-squared = 0.0081
Adj R-squared 0.0064

Total 30.3130148 606 . 050021477 Root MSE = .22294
IConferences Coef. Std. Err. t P> 111 [95% Conf. Interval ]
Years . 0127275 . 0057414 2.22 0.027 .0014519 .024003
cons .0221682 . 0164865 1.34 0.179 -.0102095 . 0545458
Community Garden.
Source SS df MS Number of obs 607 0 .11 0.7362 0.0002 -0.0015 .34927
Model Residual .013862065 73.8016239 1 605 F(1 605) .013862065 Prob > F .121986155 R-squared
Total 73.815486 606 .121807733 Root MSE
IGarden Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
Years cons .0030322 .1344022 .0089949 . 0258287 0.34 0.736 5.20 0.000 -.0146328 .0836774 . 02 0697 1 .185127
Understanding of Sustainability.
Source SS df MS Number of obs 607 0.49 0.4863 0.0008 -0.0008 .77206
Model Residual .289336641 360 . 623349 1 605 F (1 60 5) .289336641 Prob > F .596071651 R-squared
Total 360 . 912 685 606 .595565487 Root MSE
Understand~y Coef. Std. Err. t P>1t| [95% Conf. Interval]
Years cons -.0138529 4.464883 .0198833 .0570948 -0.70 0.486 78.20 0.000 -.0529016 4 . 352754 .0251958 4.577011
Three Pillars.
Environmental.
Source SS df MS Number of obs tt- / i r n c \ 607 0.41 0.5224 0.0007 -0 .0010 .265
Model Residual .028758765 42.4852445 1 605 .028758765 Prob > F .070223545 R-squared
Total 42.5140033 606 .070155121 Root MSE
TPEnvironm~t Coef. Std. Err. t P>1t| [95% Conf. Interval]
Years cons -.0043674 . 93 47 007 .0068247 .019597 -0.64 0.522 47.70 0.000 - . 0177703 .8962144 .0090355 . 973187


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Social.
Source SS df MS Number of obs = 607
F(1, 605) 0.32

Model . 060472607 1 .060472607 Prob > F = 0.5743
Residual 115.84727 605 .191483092 R-squared = 0.0005
Adj R-squared -0.0011

Total 115.907743 606 .191266903 Root MSE = .43759
TPSocial Coef. Std. Err. t P> 111 [95% Conf. Interval]
Years -.0063331 .0112695 -0.56 0.574 -. 0284652 .015799
cons .7582 . 0323603 23.43 0.000 .6946478 . 8217521
Economic.
Source SS df MS Number of obs = 607
F (1 , 605) 0.01

Model .001556926 1 . 001556926 Prob > F = 0. 9337
Residual 136.087405 605 .22493786 R-squared = 0. 0000
Adj R-squared -0. 0016

Total 136.088962 606 . 224569244 Root MSE = .47428
TPEconomic Coef. Std. Err. t P> 11 | [95% Conf. Interval ]
Years -.0010162 . 0122144 -0. 08 0. 934 -. 0250039 .0229715
cons .6630652 . 0350735 18. 91 0. 000 .5941847 .7319457
All Three Pillars.
Source SS df MS Number of obs = 607
F (1 , 605) 0.05

Model .013504733 1 . 013504733 Prob > F = 0.8152
Residual 149.419774 605 .246974833 R-squared = 0.0001
Adj R-squared -0.0016

Total 149.433278 606 .246589568 Root MSE = .49697
TPA11 Coef. Std. Err. t P> 11 | [95% Conf. Interval]
Years -.0029928 . 0127987 -0.23 0 . 815 -. 0281281 .0221424
cons .568963 . 0367514 15.48 0.000 .4967873 .6411388
Meaning of Sustainability. Long-term Thinking.
Source SS df MS Number of obs = 469
F (1 , 467 ) 0 .19

Model .037048391 1 .037048391 Prob > F = 0.6608
Residual 89.7454676 467 .192174449 R-squared = 0.0004
Adj R-squared -0 .0017

Total 89.782516 468 .191842983 Root MSE = .43838
LonqtermLa~e Coef. Std. Err. t P> 1 11 [95% Conf. Interval]
Years -.0056415 .0128486 -0.44 0 .661 -.0308896 .0196067
cons .2716363 . 037 0795 7.33 0.000 . 1987729 .3444997
Maintaining a Resource.
Source SS df MS Number of obs 469 0 . 92 0.3392 0.0020 -0.0002 .43071
Model Residual .169810996 86.6318948 1 467 F (1 4 6 n ) .169810996 Prob > F .185507269 R-squared
Total 86.8017058 468 .18547373 Root MSE
Maintainin'-! Coef. Std. Err. t P>1t| [95% Conf. Interval]
Years cons -.0120779 .2744057 .0126237 .0364307 -0.96 0.339 7.53 0.000 -.0368842 .2028174 .0127285 .345994
Reducing Harm.
Source SS df MS Number of obs tt- / i n r —i \ 469 5.35 0 .0212 0.0113 0.0092 . 374 8
Model Residual .750987925 65.6029566 1 467 .750987925 Prob > F .140477423 R-squared
Total 66.3539446 468 .141781933 Root MSE
LessharmRe~i Coef. Std. Err. t P>1t| [95% Conf. Interval]
Years cons . 0253994 . 1091622 .0109853 . 03 17022 2.31 0.021 3.44 0.001 .0038127 .0468656 .046986 .1714589


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Sustainable Behavior.
Reusable Water Bottle.
Source SS df MS Number of obs tt- / i r n c \ 607 3 .43 0.0645 0.0056 0.0040 .844
Model Residual 2 . 4433 64 94 430.960259 1 605 2.44336494 Prob > F .712331007 R-squared
Total 433.403624 606 .715187499 Root MSE
Reusablewa~e Coef. Std. Err. t P>1t| [95% Conf. Interval]
Years cons -.0402563 4.57274 .021736 .0624149 -1.85 0.065 73.26 0.000 -.0829436 4.450164 .002431 4.695317
Choosing Lower Emissions Transportation.
Source SS df MS Number of obs = F (1, 605) Prob > F R-squared = Adj R-squared = Root MSE 607 3 . 60 0.0582 0.0059 0.0043 1.2712
Model Residual 5.81908292 977 . 620785 1 605 5.81908292 1.61590212
Total 983 . 4398 68 606 1.62283807
Loweremiss~n Coef. Std. Err. t P> 111 [95% Conf. Interval]
Years cons -.0621251 3.4852 . 0327376 .0940059 -1.90 37.07 0.058 -.1264183 0.000 3.300582 .0021681 3 . 669817
Turning Off the Lights.
Source SS df MS Number of obs = F (1, 605) Prob > F R-squared = Adj R-squared = Root MSE 607 0.00 0.9970 0.0000 -0.0017 .74536
Model Residual 8.0808e-06 336.115313 1 605 8 . 08 0 8e-06 .555562501
Total 336.115321 606 .554645745
Turnoffthe~s Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
Years cons .0000732 4 . 447 93 .0191958 .0551206 0.00 0 80.69 0 997 -.0376253 000 4.339679 .0377717 4.556181
65
Recycling.
Source SS df MS Number of obs = 607
F(1, 605) 4.90

Model 4.3046458 1 4.3046458 Prob > F = 0.0272
Residual 531.527315 605 . 878557545 R-squared = 0.0080
Adj R-squared 0.0064

Total 535.83196 606 .884211156 Root MSE = . 93731
Recycle Coef. Std. Err. t P> 1 11 [95% Conf. Interval]
Years . 0534329 .0241393 2.21 0.027 .0060258 .1008399
cons 4.062847 .0693158 58.61 0.000 3.926718 4.198976
Composting.
Source SS df MS Number of obs = 607
F(1, 605) 1 .58

Model 3.24122676 1 3.24122676 Prob > F = 0.2087
Residual 1237.94493 605 2.04618997 R-squared = 0.0026
Adj R-squared 0.0010

Total 1241.18616 606 2.04816198 Root MSE = 1.4305
Compost Coef. Std. Err. t P> 1 11 [95% Conf. Interval]
Years .0463654 .0368394 1.26 0.209 - . 0259832 .1187141
cons 2.35823 .1057841 22.29 0.000 2.150481 2.565979
Willingness to Adopt New Behavior.
Source SS df MS Number of obs = 607
F (1, 605) 0 . 00

Model .000283715 1 .000283715 Prob > F = 0.97 60
Residual 189.689996 605 .313537184 R-squared = 0.0000
Adj R-squared -0.0017

Total 189.69028 606 .313020264 Root MSE = .55994
Willinqness Coef . Std. Err. t P> 1 11 [ 95 % Conf. Interval]
Years .0004338 .0144206 0 . 03 0. 976 - . 0278868 .0287544
cons 4.728778 .0414087 114.20 0 . 000 4 . 647455 4.8101


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Motivation.
Seeing Negative Impacts.
Source SS df MS Number of obs tt- / i a r c \ 467 0 . 66 0.4180 0.0014 -0.0007 .47527
Model Residual .148443704 105.033569 1 465 .148443704 Prob > F .225878643 R-squared
Total 105.182013 466 .225712474 Root MSE
Negativeim~o Coef. Std. Err. t P>1t| [95% Conf. Interval]
Years cons -.0112629 .3699376 .0138934 .0402473 -0.81 0.418 9.19 0.000 -.0385645 .2908486 .0160386 .4490267
Concern for the Future
Source SS df MS Number of obs = 467
F (1, 465) 2 .90

Model .572456792 1 .572456792 Prob > F = 0.0894
Residual 91.89007 465 .197613054 R-squared = 0.0062
Adj R-squared 0.0041

Total 92.4625268 466 .198417439 Root MSE = .44454
FutureGene~r Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
Years . 0221178 .012995 1.70 0.089 -.0034185 .047654
cons .2182882 .0376449 5.80 0.000 .1443129 .2922635
Wanting to Help the Planet.
Source SS df MS Number of obs = 467
F(1, 465) 2 . 43

Model .428961306 1 .428961306 Prob > F = 0 .1196
Residual 82.0549787 465 . 17646232 R-squared = 0.0052
Adj R-squared 0 . 0 031

Total 82.48394 466 . 1770 0 4 163 Root MSE = .42007
Wantingtoh~t Coef. Std. Err. t P> 111 [95% Conf. Interval]
Years .019146 .0122799 1.56 0.120 -.004985 .0432771
cons .1826714 .0355734 5.14 0.000 .112767 . 2525759
66


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
67
Fulltime Status
ASCP Awareness.
Two-sample t test with equal variances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev.
[95% Conf. Interval]
91 1.406593
516 1.567829
.0584246
.0300914
.5573354 . 6835458
1.290523 1.522664
1.508712 1.626947
diff = mean(0) - mean(l) Ho: diff = 0
t = -2.1284
degrees of freedom = 605
Ha: diff < 0 Pr (T < t) = 0.0169
Ha: diff != 0 Pr ( ITI > 111) = 0.0337
Ha: diff > 0 Pr (T > t) = 0.9831
Sustainability Effort Awareness.
Two-sample t test with equal variances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err.
Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]
91 3.824176
516 4.343023
.2909264
.1194599
2.775261
2.713606
3.2462 4.402152
4.108335 4.577712
-.5188474
-1.126833
diff = mean(0) - mean(l) Ho: diff = 0
Ha: diff < 0 Pr (T < t) = 0.0471
Ha: diff Pr(|T| > 111 ) ^
t = -1.6760
degrees of freedom = 605
Ha: diff > 0 Pr(T > t) = 0.9529
Environmental Concern.
Two-sample t test with equal variances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]
91 4.703297
516 4.726744
.0672039
.0253278
.6410842 .575336
4.569784 4.836809
4.676986 4.776503
607 4.723229 .0237509 .5851609 4.676585 4.769873
-.0234475 .0665791
diff = mean(0) - mean(l) Ho: diff = 0
-.1542018 .1073068
t = -0.3522
degrees of freedom = 605
Ha: diff < 0 Pr (T < t) = 0.3624
Ha: diff != 0 Pr ( ITI > 111) = 0.7248
Ha: diff > 0 Pr (T > t) = 0.6376
Importance of Campus Sustainability.
: with equal variances
combined
diff
Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]
91 4.769231 .0626577 .5977165
516 4.819767 .0224755 .5105458
607 4.812191 .0212811 .5243097
-.0505367 .0596263
4.64475 4.893711
.775612 4.863922
4.770397 4.853985
-.1676363 .0665629
diff = mean(0) - mean(l) Ho: diff = 0
degrees of freedom =
Ha: diff â– 
Ha: diff . Pr(ITI > It I) =
Ha: diff > 0 •(T > t) = 0.8015
Sustainability Effort Importance
Recycling.
Two-sample t test with equal variances
.7802198
.7093023
diff = mean(0) - mean(l) Ho : diff = 0
Ha: diff < 0 Pr(T < t) = 0.9173
Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]
.0436497 . 0200093
.4163919
.4545249
.693502 .8669376
.6699923 .7486123
-.0293519 .1711868
Ha: diff . Pr ( ITI > It I ) =
t = 1 .3890
degrees of freedom = 605
Ha: diff > 0 Pr (T > t) = 0.0827
Composting.
: with equal variances
Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]
91 .1978022 .041989 .4005491 .1143838 .2812206
516 .246124 .0189812 .4311697 .208834 .2834141
combined
.0173213 .4267508
.2728968
-.0483218 .0485206
-.1436111 .0469674
diff = mean(0) - mean(l) Ho: diff = 0
Ha: diff < 0 Pr(T < t) = 0.1598
t = -0.9959
degrees of freedom = 605
Ha: diff != 0 Ha: diff > 0
Pr(|T| > |tI) = 0.3197 Pr(T > t) = 0.8402


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Renewable Energy.
Two-sample t test with equal variances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]
0 91 .5274725 .052625 .5020106 .4229238 .6320213
1 516 .5562016 .021893 .4973135 .513191 .5992121
combined 607 .5518946 . 0202014 .4977098 .5122213 .5915679
diff -.028729 .0566228 -.1399301 .0824721
diff = mean(0) - mean(l) t = -0.5074
Ho: diff = 0 degrees of freedom = 605
Ha: diff < 0 Ha: diff ! = 0 Ha: diff > 0
Pr(T < t = 0.3060 Pr ( 1 T | > | 11 ) = 0.6121 Pr(T > t ) = 0.6940
Efficient Lighting.
Two-sample t test with equal va riances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]
0 91 .2857143 .047619 .4542568 .1911107 .3803178
1 516 .2131783 .018047 .40995 .1777234 . 2486332
combined 607 .2240527 . 0169377 .4173008 .190789 . 2573165
diff .072536 . 0473934 -.0205395 .1656115
diff = mean(0) - mean(l) t = 1.5305
Ho: diff = 0 degrees of freedom = 605
Ha: di f f < 0 Ha: diff ! = 0 Ha: diff > 0
Pr (T < t = 0.9368 Pr( TI > |t| ) = 0.1264 Pr(T > t = 0.0632
Water Efficiency.
Two-sample t test with equal va riances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]
0 91 .1538462 .0380318 .3628001 .0782894 .2294029
1 516 .2403101 .0188278 . 4276864 .2033213 .2772989
combined 607 .2273476 .0170255 .4194646 .1939114 .2607838
diff -.0864639 .0476016 -.1799484 . 0070206
diff = mean(0) - mean(l) t = -1.8164
Ho: diff = 0 degrees of freedom = 605
Ha: diff < 0 Ha: diff ! = 0 Ha: diff > 0
Pr (T < t = 0.0349 Pr( T I > |t| ) = 0.0698 Pr(T > t = 0.9651
68
Water Bottle Filling Stations.
Two-sample t test wi th equal var lances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]
0 91 . 4945055 .0527014 .5027397 3898049 .5992061
1 516 . 4728682 .0220002 .4997478 4296471 .5160893
combined 607 .476112 .0202879 .4998409 4362689 .5159552
diff .0216373 .0568705 0900504 .1333249
diff = mean(0) - mean(1) t = 0.3805
Ho : di f f = 0 degrees o : freedom = 605
Ha: diff < 0 Ha: diff != 0 Ha: di f f > 0
Pr(T < t = 0.6481 Pr ( | T | > |11 ) = 0.7037 Pr(T > t) = 0.3519
Secure Bike Parking.
Two-sample t test w ith equal va riances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf . Interval]
0 91 .032967 .0188209 .1795395 -.0044239 .0703579
1 516 .0949612 .0129182 .2934459 .0695823 .1203402
combined 607 . 0856672 .011369 .2801028 .0633397 .1079947
diff -.0619942 .0317733 -.1243936 .0004052
diff = mean(0) - mean(1) t = -1.9511
Ho: diff = 0 degrees of freedom = 605
Ha: d iff < 0 Ha: diff != 0 Ha: diff > 0
Pr(T < t = 0.0258 Pr |T| > |t|) =0.0515 Pr (T > t) = 0.9742
B-Cycle and Dockless Bikes.
Two-sample t test with equal variances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]
0 91 .021978 .0154542 .147424 -.0087245 .0526805
1 516 .0213178 .0063649 .1445818 .0088136 .0338221
combined 607 .0214168 .0058808 .1448886 .0098675 .0329661
diff .0006602 .016487 -.0317185 .0330389
diff = mean(0) - mean(1) t = 0.0400
Ho: diff = 0 degrees of freedom = 605
Ha: diff < 0 Ha: diff ! = 0 Ha: diff > 0
Pr (T < t = 0.5160 Pr ( TI > |t|) = 0.9681 Pr (T > t) = 0.4840


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations.
Two-sample t test with equal variances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]
0 1 91 .043956 516 .0174419 .0216086 .0057686 .2061331 .1310379 .0010268 .0061089 .0868853 .0287748
combined 607 .0214168 .0058808 .1448886 .0098675 .0329661
diff .0265142 .0164517 -.0057952 .0588236
diff Ho: diff = mean(0) - mean(l) 0 degrees t of freedom = 1.6116 = 605
Ha: diff < Pr(T < t) = 0. 9462 Pr( Ha: diff ! T I > I t | = = 0 0.1076 Ha: diff > 0 Pr(T > t) = 0.0538
Educational Workshops.
Two-sample t test with equal va iances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]
0 1 91 .1318681 516 .1143411 .0356649 .0140227 .3402219 .3185339 .0610135 .0867924 . 2027228 .1418898
combined 607 .1169687 .0130553 .321648 .0913296 .1426078
diff .017527 .0365937 -.054339 .0893931
diff = Ho: diff = mean(0) - mean(l) 0 degrees t = of freedom = 0.4790 605
Ha: diff < Pr (T < t) = 0.6839 Pr( Ha: diff ! T I > | t = = 0 0.6321 Ha: diff > 0 Pr (T > t) = 0.3161
Conferences and Fairs.
Two-sample t test with equal va riances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]
0 1 91 .0769231 516 .0484496 .0280883 . 0094614 .2679457 . 2149227 .0211207 .0298618 .1327255 .0670374
combined 607 .0527183 .0090779 .2236548 .0348904 .0705462
diff .0284735 .0254235 -.0214556 . 0784026
diff Ho: diff = mean(0) - mean(l) = 0 degrees t of freedom = 1.1200 = 605
Ha: diff < Pr(T < t) = 0.8684 Pr ( Ha: diff . T I > | t | ) = = 0 0.2632 Ha: diff > 0 Pr(T > t) = 0.1316
69
Community Garden.
Two-sample t test with equal variances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. nterval]
0 91 .1648352 .0391102 . 3730873 .087136 . 2425344
1 516 . 1375969 .0151794 . 3448107 .1077757 .1674181
combi ned 607 .1416804 .0141659 . 3490096 .1138602 .1695005
diff . 0272383 . 0396987 -.0507257 . 1052022
diff = mean (0) - mean (1) t = 0.6861
Ho: diff = 0 degrees of freedom = 605
Ha: diff < 0 Ha: diff != 0 Ha: diff > 0
Pr (T < t = 0.7536 Pr( TI > |t|) = 0.4929 Pr (T > t) = 0.2464
Understanding of Sustainability.
Two-sample t test with equal variances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. In terval]
0 91 4 . 296703 .0862946 .8231984 4.125264 4 .468143
1 516 4.455426 . 0334858 . 7606523 4.389641 4 . 521212
combined 607 4.431631 . 0313235 . 7717289 4.370115 4 .493147
diff -.1587231 .0875783 -.3307174 0132713
diff = mean (0) - me an(1) t = -1.8124
Ho: diff = 0 degrees of freedom = 605
Ha: diff < 0 Ha: diff ! = 0 Ha: diff > 0
Pr (T < t = 0.0352 Pr( ITI > |t|) = 0.0704 Pr (T > t) = 0.9648
Three Pillars.
Environmental.
Two-sample t test with equal variances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]
0 91 .9120879 .0298484 . 2847358 .8527888 .971387
1 516 .9263566 .0115094 .2614432 .9037455 .9489677
combined 607 .9242175 .0107507 .2648681 .9031044 .9453305
diff -.0142687 .030134 -.0734486 .0449113
diff = mean(0) - mean 1) t = -0.4735
Ho: diff = 0 degrees of freedom = 605
Ha: diff < 0 Ha: diff ! = 0 Ha: diff > 0
Pr (T < t = 0.3180 Pr ( T1 > lt|) = 0.6360 Pr(T > t = 0.6820


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Social.
Two-sample t test with equal variances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]
0 91 . 7582418 .0451308 .4305206 .6685815 .847902
1 516 . 7403101 .0193211 .4388899 . 7023523 .7782678
combined 607 . 7429984 .0177511 .4373407 .7081372 .7778595
diff .0179317 .04976 -.0797917 .1156551
diff = mean(0) mean 1) t = 0.3604
Ho: diff = 0 degrees of freedom = 605
Ha: diff < 0 Ha: diff ! = 0 Ha: diff > 0
Pr(T < t = 0.6406 Pr ( T I > | t | ) = 0.7187 Pr(T > t = 0.3594
Economic.
Two-sample t test w th equal va dances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]
0 91 .6043956 .051543 .4916892 .5019964 . 7067948
1 516 .6705426 .0207114 . 4704723 .6298534 . 7112318
combined 607 .660626 .0192345 . 4738874 .6228517 .6984004
diff -.066147 .053857 -.1719163 .0396223
diff = mean(0) mean 1) t = -1.2282
Ho: diff = 0 degrees of freedom = 605
Ha: diff < 0 Ha: diff ! = 0 Ha: diff > 0
Pr(T < t = 0.1099 Pr ( T I > | t | ) = 0.2199 Pr(T > t = 0.8901
All Three Pillars.
Two-sample t test w th equal va dances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]
0 91 .5164835 .052676 .5024968 .4118335 .6211335
1 516 .5697674 .0218171 .495589 .526906 .6126289
combined 607 .5617792 .0201555 . 4965779 .5221962 .6013623
diff -.0532839 .0564645 -.1641741 .0576063
diff = mean(0) mean 1) t = -0.9437
Ho: diff = 0 degrees of freedom = 605
Ha: diff < 0 Ha: diff ! = 0 Ha: diff > 0
Pr(T < t = 0.1729 Pr ( T I > | t | ) = 0.3457 Pr(T > t = 0.8271
Meaning of Sustainability. Long-term Thinking.
70
Two-sample t test w th equal va nances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]
0 74 . 2432432 . 0502154 .4319694 .1431641 . 3433224
1 395 . 2607595 . 022119 .4396058 .2172735 . 3042455
combined 469 .2579957 .0202249 .4379988 .2182529 . 2977386
diff -.0175163 . 0555345 -.1266448 . 0916123
diff = an (0) mean (1) t = -0.3154
Ho: diff = 0 degrees of freedom = 467
Ha: diff < 0 Ha: diff ! = 0 Ha: diff > 0
Pr (T < t = 0.3763 Pr( ITI > |t|) = 0.7526 Pr (T > t) = 0.6237
Maintaining a Resource.
Two-sample t test with equal variances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]
0 74 . 2297297 .0492344 .4235304 .1316057 .3278538
1 395 .2481013 .0217594 .4324587 .2053223 .2908802
combined 469 . 2452026 .0198863 .4306666 .206125 .2842801
diff -.0183715 .0546041 -.1256716 .0889286
diff = mean(0) - mean 1) t = -0.3364
Ho: diff = 0 degrees of freedom = 467
Ha: diff < 0 Ha: diff ! = 0 Ha: diff > 0
Pr(T < t = 0.3683 Pr ( T I > 11 = 0.7367 Pr(T > t = 0.6317
Reducing Harm.
Two-sample t test w th equal va fiances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]
0 74 .1621622 .0431413 .3711156 .0761817 .2481427
1 395 .1721519 .0190188 .3779912 .1347609 .2095429
combined 469 .1705757 .017387 .3765394 .1364095 .2047419
diff -.0099897 .0477449 -.1038111 .0838316
diff = mean(0) mean(1) t = -0.2092
Ho: diff = 0 degrees of freedom = 467
Ha: diff < 0 Ha: diff ! = 0 Ha: diff > 0
Pr(T < t = 0.4172 Pr ( T I > | t | ) = 0.8344 Pr(T > t = 0.5828


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Sustainable Behavior.
Reusable Water Bottle.
Two-sample t test with equal variances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]
0 91 4.307692 .0972043 .9272697 4.114579 4.500806
1 516 4.505814 .0364459 . 8278907 4.434213 4.577415
combined 607 4.476112 .0343254 . 8456876 4.408701 4.543523
diff -.1981216 .0958938 -.3864469 -.0097964
diff = mean(O) - mean(l) t = -2.0661
Ho: diff = 0 degrees of freedom = 605
Ha: diff < 0 Ha: diff != 0 Ha: diff > 0
Pr(T < t) = 0.0196 Pr(IT I > |t|) = 0.0392 Pr(T > t) = 0.9804
Choosing Lower Emissions Transportation.
Two-sample t test with equal variances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err Std. Dev. [95% Conf . Interval]
0 1 91 516 3.021978 3.391473 .1316543 . 055918 1.255902 1.270213 2.760424 3.281617 3. 283532 3.501328
combined 607 3.336079 .0517063 1.273907 3.234534 3.437624
diff -.3694948 .1441785 -. 6526459 -.0863438
diff Ho: diff = mean(0) = 0 - mean(l) degree t s of freedom = -2.5628 = 605
Ha: diff < 0 Pr (T < t) = 0.0053 Pr ( Ha: diff ITI > |t|) = 0 = 0.0106 Ha: Pr (T > diff > 0 t) =0.9947
Turning Off the Lights.
Two-sample t test wi th equal var lances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]
0 1 91 516 4.351648 4.465116 . 0755503 . 0329419 .7207038 . 7482953 4.201555 4 . 400399 4.501742 4.529833
combined 607 4.448105 . 0302283 .7447454 4 . 388741 4 . 50747
diff -.1134679 .0846196 -.2796517 .0527159
diff = Ho: diff = me an(0) -0 mean(1) degrees t = of freedom = -1.3409 605
Ha: di Pr (T < t ff < 0 = 0.0902 Pr ( I Ha: diff != T I > | 11 ) = 0 0.1805 Ha: di Pr (T > t) ff > 0 = 0.9098
Recycling.
Two-sample t test with equal variances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [ 95% Conf. Interval]
0 91 4.351648 . 0802524 .765559 4 .192213 4.511084
1 516 4.162791 . 0425147 .9657489 4 .079267 4.246314
combined 607 4.191104 . 0381666 .940325 4 .116149 4.266059
diff .1888577 .1067246 -â–  0207379 .3984533
diff = mean(0) - mean 1) t = 1.7696
Ho: diff = 0 degrees of freedom = 605
Ha: diff < 0 Ha: diff ! = 0 Ha: diff > 0
Pr(T < t = 0.9613 Pr ( T I > I 11 = 0.0773 Pr (T > t) = 0.0387
Composting.
Two-sample t test with equal variances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]
0 1 91 516 2.461538 2 .47093 .1541511 .0627559 1.470508 1.42554 2.15529 2 .347 641 2 .7 67787 2 .594219
combined 607 2.469522 .0580882 1.43114 2.355444 2 .583601
diff -.0093918 .1628502 -.3292122 . 3104286
diff Ho: diff = mean(0) -0 mean 1) degrees t = of freedom = -0.0577 605
Ha: diff Pr(T < t) = < 0 0.4770 Pr ( Ha: diff != T I > I 11 ) = 0 0. 9540 Ha: diff > 0 Pr(T > t) =0.5230
Willingness to Adopt New Behavior.
Two-sample t test with equal variances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]
0 1 91 516 4.615385 4 .75 .0694813 .0236592 .6628094 .5374337 4.477348 4.753421 4.70352 4.79648
combined 607 4.729819 .0227087 .5594821 4.685222 4.774416
diff -.1346154 .0634283 -.2591817 -.010049
diff = Ho: diff = meant 0) -0 mean 1) degrees t = -2 .1223 of freedom = 605
Ha: diff Pr (T < t) = < 0 0.0171 Pr ( Ha: diff != TI > |t|) = 0 0.0342 Ha: diff > 0 Pr(T > t) =0.9829


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
72
Motivation.
Seeing Negative Impacts.
Two-sample t test w th equal va nances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]
0 74 .3783784 . 0567629 .4882932 . 26525 .4915067
1 393 . 3358779 .0238546 .4728985 . 288979 . 3827768
combined 467 .3426124 . 0219846 .4750921 . 2994111 . 3858137
diff . 0425005 . 0602363 -.0758685 . 1608696
diff = an (0) mean(1) t = 0.7056
Ho: diff = 0 degrees of freedom = 465
Ha: diff < 0 Ha: diff ! = 0 Ha: diff > 0
Pr (T < t = 0.7596 Pr( ITI > |t|) = 0.4808 Pr (T > t) = 0.2404
Concern for the Future
Two-sample t test with equal variances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. nterval]
0 74 .2837838 . 052766 .4539106 .1786212 . 3889463
1 393 . 2697201 .022416 .4443801 .2256495 . 3137907
combined 467 .2719486 .0206125 .4454407 .2314436 . 3124536
diff . 0140637 .0565033 -.0969697 . 1250971
diff = mean(0) - mean(1) t = 0.2489
Ho: diff = 0 degrees of freedom = 465
Ha: diff < 0 Ha: diff != 0 Ha: diff > 0
Pr (T < t = 0.5982 Pr( TI > |t|) = 0.8035 Pr (T > t) = 0.4018
Wanting to Help the Planet.
Two-sample t test with equal variances
Group Obs Mean Std. Err. Std. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval]
0 74 .2027027 .047052 .404757 . 1089281 .2964773
1 393 .2340967 .0213866 . 4239727 .1920499 .2761435
combined 467 .2291221 .0194685 . 4207186 .1908651 .267379
diff -. 031394 .053351 -. 136233 .073445
diff = mean(0) - mean 1) t = -0.5884
Ho: diff = 0 degrees of freedom = 465
Ha: diff < 0 Ha: diff ! = 0 Ha: diff > 0
Pr (T < t = 0.2783 Pr ( T I > I t I = 0. 5565 Pr(T > t) = 0.7217


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
73
Field of Study
ASCP Awareness
Environmental Concern.
Field of Summary of ASCP Awar eness Field of Summary of environmental Concern
Study Mean Std. Dev. Freq. Study Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 1.6557377 .68032458 61 1 4.8852459 . 55070744 61
2 1.425 . 59053719 80 2 4.6875 .56464955 80
3 1.5416667 .65800533 24 3 4.8333333 .38069349 24
4 1.40625 .61483672 32 4 4.5 .62217102 32
5 1.7692308 .76460145 26 5 4.6923077 .67936622 26
6 1.6111111 .68776149 36 6 4.5555556 .69465076 36
7 1.4166667 .60356086 36 7 4.7222222 . 45425676 36
8 1.7083333 .75060362 24 8 4 . 75 .60791876 24
9 2.0892857 .6681531 56 9 4.9642857 .18725634 56
10 1.3913043 . 5830274 23 10 4.5652174 .58976782 23
11 1.4354839 .60137965 124 11 4.7822581 . 45192423 124
Total 1.5708812 .67000071 522 Total 4.7490421 .52959355 522
Analysis of Var lance Analysis of Var ance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F Source SS df MS
Between groups Within groups
Bartlett's test fo
23.4848427
210.392552
2.34848427
.411727107
233.877395 521 .448900949
chi2 (10) = 6.6803 Prob>chi2 = 0.755
Between groups Within groups
8.55568069 137.56884
146.124521 521
.855568069 . 269214952
Bartlett's test for equal -
chi2(10) = 90.0950 Prob>chi2 = 0.000
Sustainability Effort Awareness,
Importance of Campus Sustainability.
Field of Study Summary of K - Total Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 4.442623 3.1703028 61
2 3.975 2.6480229 80
3 4.125 2.786809 24
4 3.96875 3.1055037 32
5 5.3076923 2.9768336 26
6 4 . 7222222 2.502697 36
7 4.1111111 2.0945886 36
8 4.5833333 2.6851713 24
9 5.4107143 2.8589686 56
10 4 2.3548789 23
11 3.9435484 2.6696196 124
Total 4.3390805 2.763549 522
Field of Study Summary of Mean AC More Sustainable Std. Dev. Freq.
1 4.9016393 .53866867 61
2 4.725 .63594841 80
3 4.9583333 . 20412415 24
4 4 65625 .4825587 32
5 4.6923077 . 73589297 26
6 4.6388889 . 59294798 36
7 4.9722222 .16666667 36
8 4.9166667 . 28232985 24
9 4.9821429 .13363062 56
10 4.7391304 .54082356 23
11 4. 8548387 .39701218 124
Total 4. 8295019 . 47957449 522
Sc
Analysis of Variance
SS df MS F Prob > F
Sc
Analysis of Variance
SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 136.081846 10 13.6081846 1.81 0.0563
Within groups 3842.90091 511 7.52035404
Total 3978.98276 521 7.63720299
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(10) = 10.4242 Prob>chi2 = 0.404
Between groups 6.83515621 10 .683515621 3.09 0.0008
Within groups 112.990514 511 .221116466
Total 119.82567 521 .22999169
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(10) = 201.9791 Prob>chi2 = 0.000


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Sustainability Effort Importance
Recycling.
Field of Study Summary Mean of I - Recycling Std. Dev. Freq.
1 .63934426 . 48417582 61
2 .7625 .428236 80
3 .83333333 .38069349 24
4 71875 .45680341 32
5 .65384615 . 48516452 26
6 .80555556 . 40138649 36
7 .80555556 . 40138649 36
8 . 625 . 49453536 24
9 . 55357143 .50162075 56
10 .91304348 .28810407 23
11 . 75806452 . 42999277 124
Total . 72605364 .44640958 522
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 4.27581208 10 .427581208 2.19 0.0169
Within groups 99.5498584 511 .194813813
Total 103.82567 521 .199281517
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(10) = 12.6702 Prob>chi2 = 0.243
Composting.
Field of Study Summary Mean of I - Composting Std. Dev. Freq.
1 .2295082 . 42400639 61
2 .225 . 42021694 80
3 .20833333 . 41485112 24
4 .21875 . 42001344 32
5 .15384615 .36794648 26
6 .27777778 .45425676 36
7 .25 . 43915503 36
8 .25 . 44232587 24
9 .28571429 . 45584231 56
10 .13043478 . 34435022 23
11 .29032258 . 45575263 124
Total .24521073 . 43062475 522
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups Within groups 1.00656646 10 95.6064604 511 .100656646 . 187096791 0.54 0.8634
Total 96.6130268 521 .185437671
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(10)
4.6354 Prob>chi2
0.914
Renewable Energy.
Field of Study Summary Mean of I - Renewables Std. Dev. Freq.
1 . 6557377 .47907014 61
2 .575 .49746191 80
3 . 54166667 .50897738 24
4 . 3125 .47092907 32
5 . 57692308 .50383147 26
6 . 72222222 .45425676 36
7 .38888889 .49441323 36
8 . 625 .49453536 24
9 . 53571429 .50323628 56
10 . 52173913 .51075392 23
11 . 54032258 .50039324 124
Total . 55172414 .49779446 522
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 4.73460256 10 .473460256 1. 95 0.0373
Within groups 124.368846 511 .24338326
Total 129.103448 521 .247799325
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(10) = 0.9015 Prob>chi2 = 1.000
Efficient Lighting.
Field of Study Summary of Mean I - Energy lighting Std. Dev. efficient F req.
1 .2295082 . 42400639 61
2 . 2375 . 428236 80
3 . 16666667 . 38069349 24
4 15625 . 36890203 32
5 . 26923077 . 45234432 26
6 . 19444444 .40138649 36
7 .05555556 . 23231068 36
8 . 125 . 33783196 24
9 . 14285714 . 35309393 56
10 .30434783 . 47047197 23
11 .31451613 .46620655 124
Total . 22030651 .41485088 522
Analysis of Var
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups Within groups 3.10954094 10 86.55521 511 .310954094 . 169383973 1. 84 0.0521
Total 89.664751 521 .172101249
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(10)
26.6839 Prob>chi2
0.003


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Water Efficiency.
Field of Study Summary of I Mean - Efficient etc. Std. Dev. toilets,
1 .32786885 .47333256 61
2 . 275 .44933143 80
3 .20833333 .41485112 24
4 .21875 .42001344 32
5 . 11538462 .32581259 26
6 .13888889 .35073619 36
7 .19444444 .40138649 36
8 .25 . 44232587 24
9 .25 .43693145 56
10 .2173913 .42174117 23
11 .20967742 .40872981 124
Total .22988506 .42116235 522
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 1.53436565 10 .153436565 0.86 0.5683
Within groups 90.8794275 511 .177846238
Total 92.4137931 521 .177377722
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(10) = 7.9081 Prob>chi2 = 0.638
Water Bottle Filling Stations.
Field of Study Summary Mean of I - Water stations Std. Dev. bottle
1 . 3442623 .47907014 61
2 . 55 .50063251 80
3 . 625 .49453536 24
4 .4 6875 .50700735 32
5 .46153846 .50839113 26
6 .41666667 . 5 36
7 .66666667 .47809144 36
8 .54166667 .50897738 24
9 .33928571 .47775177 56
10 .56521739 .5068698 23
11 .46774194 .50098251 124
Total .47701149 .49995036 522
Source
Analysis of Variance
SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 4.81331125 10 .481331125 1.96 0.0355
Within groups 125.410827 511 .245422361
Total 130.224138 521 .249950361
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(10) = 0.5344 Prob>chi2 = 1.000
Secure Bike Parking.
Field of Study Summary Mean of I - Bike Std. Dev. Parking Freq.
1 .18032787 .3876509 61
2 .05 .21932001 80
3 .08333333 .28232985 24
4 . 0625 .24593469 32
5 .15384615 .36794648 26
6 .13888889 .35073619 36
7 . 0 555 555 6 .23231068 36
8 .04166667 .20412415 24
9 .07142857 . 2598701 56
10 .13043478 .34435022 23
11 .08064516 .27339403 124
Total .09195402 .28923822 522
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 1.0075572 10 .10075572 1.21 0.2821
Within groups 42.5786497 511 .083324168
Total 43.5862069 521 .083658746
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(10) = 41.0742 Prob>chi2 = 0.000
B-Cycle and Dockless Bikes.
Field of Study Summary Mean of I - B-cycle Std. Dev. Freq.
1 .03278689 .17955622 61
2 . 0125 . 1118034 80
3 0 0 24
4 .03125 .1767767 32
5 .03846154 .19611614 26
6 0 0 36
7 .02777778 .16666667 36
8 0 0 24
9 .01785714 .13363062 56
10 0 0 23
11 .01612903 .12648281 124
Total .01724138 .13029442 522
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups .07050588 10 . 007050588 0.41 0.9417
Within groups 8 .77432171 511 . 017170884
Total 8.84482759 521 .016976636
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(6)
29.8554 Prob>chi2
0.000


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations.
Field of Study Summary of I EV Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 . 01639344 .12803688 61
2 . 0125 . 1118034 80
3 0 0 24
4 .03125 .1767767 32
5 .03846154 .19611614 26
6 . 02777778 .16666667 36
7 0 0 36
8 . 08333333 .28232985 24
9 . 01785714 .13363062 56
10 .04347826 .20851441 23
11 . 01612903 .12648281 124
Total .0210728 .14376484 522
Source
Analysis of Variance
SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups .154842127 10 .015484213 0.75 0.6815
Within groups 10.6133571 511 .020769779
Total 10.7681992 521 .020668329
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(8) = 63.2354 Prob>chi2 = 0.000
Educational Workshops.
Field of Study Summary Mean of I - Educational Workshops Std. Dev. Freq.
1 .04918033 . 21803895 61
2 . 1125 .3179742 80
3 .08333333 .28232985 24
4 .21875 . 42001344 32
5 .23076923 .42966892 26
6 .11111111 . 31872763 36
7 .11111111 . 31872763 36
8 .125 . 33783196 24
9 .21428571 . 41403934 56
10 .04347826 . 20851441 23
11 .08064516 . 27339403 124
Total .11685824 . 32155944 522
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups Within groups 1.79946788 10 52.0721796 511 .179946788 . 101902504 1.77 0.0641
Total 53.8716475 521 .103400475
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(10)
45.5291 Prob>chi2
0.000
Conferences and Fairs.
Field of Study Summary of Mean I - Conference Std. Dev. Fai rs Freq.
1 .04918033 . 21803895 61
2 .025 . 15710998 80
3 .08333333 .28232985 24
4 0 0 32
5 0 0 26
6 0 0 36
7 .08333333 . 28030596 36
8 .08333333 .28232985 24
9 .19642857 . 40089186 56
10 0 0 23
11 .03225806 . 17740147 124
Total .05172414 . 22168197 522
Source
Analysis of Variance
SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 1.67406914 10 .167406914 3.57 0.0001
Within groups 23.9293791 511 .046828531
Total 25.6034483 521 .049142895
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(6) = 86.8151 Prob>chi2 = 0.000
Community Garden.
Field of Study Summary Mean of I - Garden Std. Dev. F req.
1 .09836066 .3002731 61
2 . 125 . 33280549 80
3 . 125 . 33783196 24
4 .15625 .36890203 32
5 .15384615 .36794648 26
6 . 08333333 . 28030596 36
7 .22222222 . 42163702 36
8 .16666667 . 38069349 24
9 . 25 . 43 693145 56
10 .04347826 . 20851441 23
11 .10483871 . 30758827 124
Total . 13601533 .34313367 522
Analysis of Var
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups Within groups 1.55553636 10 59.7873755 511 . 155553636 . 117000735 1.33 0.2112
Total 61.3429119 521 .117740714
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(10) = 27.2612 Prob>chi2 = 0.002


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Understanding of Sustainability.
Field of Study Summary of UnderstandingSustainability Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 4 .7704918 .42400639 61
2 4.3625 .76710453 80
3 4 . 375 .71093937 24
4 4.0625 1. 1053389 32
5 4.6923077 .47067872 26
6 4 .0833333 1.0246951 36
7 4.3888889 .90325689 36
8 4 .4583333 .83297094 24
9 4.6071429 . 65167118 56
10 4 .7391304 .54082356 23
11 4 .4193548 .7110827 124
Total 4 .4521073 .76800547 522
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 21.7404725 10 2.17404725 3.89 0.0000
Within groups 285.56221 511 .558830156
Total 307.302682 521 .589832403
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(10) = 65.8151 Prob>chi2 = 0.000
Three Pillars.
Environmental
Field of Study Summary of TP - Environment Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 . 95081967 .21803895 61
2 . 925 .26505314 80
3 . 91666667 .28232985 24
4 .96875 .1767767 32
5 . 92307692 .27174649 26
6 . 97222222 .16666667 36
7 . 91666667 .28030596 36
8 .79166667 .41485112 24
9 .96428571 .18725634 56
10 . 95652174 .20851441 23
11 . 91935484 .27339403 124
Total . 93103448 .25363856 522
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups Within groups .707348073 10 32.8098933 511 .070734807 .064207228 1.10 0.3587
Total 33.5172414 521 .064332517
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(10)
47.0182 Prob>chi2
0.000
Social.
Field of Study Summary Mean of TP - Social Std. Dev. Freq.
1 .73770492 . 44353276 61
2 .725 .44933143 80
3 . 75 . 44232587 24
4 . 8125 . 39655777 32
5 .69230769 . 47067872 26
6 .72222222 . 45425676 36
7 .83333333 .37796447 36
8 . 75 . 44232587 24
9 .83928571 . 37059096 56
10 .69565217 . 47047197 23
11 .75806452 .42999277 124
Total .75862069 . 42833026 522
Source
Analysis of Variance
SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 1.03217232 10 .103217232 0.56 0.8484
Within groups 94.5540346 511 .18503725
Total 95.5862069 521 .183466808
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(10) = 5.1480 Prob>chi2 = 0.881
Economic.
Field of Study Summary Mean of TP - Economic Std. Dev. Freq.
1 . 67213115 .47333256 61
2 .7 .46114881 80
3 . 625 .49453536 24
4 .5625 .50401613 32
5 .53846154 .50839113 26
6 . 694 44 4 44 .46717659 36
7 .63888889 .48713611 36
8 .70833333 .46430562 24
9 .73214286 .44685045 56
10 .7826087 .42174117 23
11 . 62096774 .48711432 124
Total . 66091954 .47385129 522
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 1.79514922 10 .179514922 0.80 0.6324
Within groups 115.187609 511 .225416065
Total
116.982759 521 .224535045
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(10)
1.8790 Prob>chi2
0 .997


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
All Three Pillars.
Field of Study Summary of TP - All Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 . 57377049 .49863201 61
2 . 575 .49746191 80
3 . 54166667 . 50897738 24
4 53125 .50700735 32
5 .42307692 .50383147 26
6 . 55555556 .50395263 36
7 .61111111 .49441323 36
8 .58333333 .50361016 24
9 .69642857 .46396093 56
10 .69565217 .47047197 23
11 .53225806 . 50098251 124
Total .57279693 .49514673 522
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS
F
Prob
F
Between groups 2.13485006 10 .213485006 0.87 0.5627
Within groups 125.598866 511 .245790345
Total 127.733716 521 .245170281
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(10) = 0.7131 Prob>chi2 = 1.000
Meaning of Sustainability.
Long-term Thinking.
Field of Summary of Long-ter
Study Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 .33333333 .47609523 51
2 .21538462 . 41428808 65
3 .21052632 . 41885391 19
4 .19230769 . 40191848 26
5 .26315789 . 45241393 19
6 .21428571 . 41785545 28
7 .16666667 .37904902 30
8 .27777778 .4608886 18
9 . 3 . 46291005 50
10 .33333333 . 48507125 18
11 .26666667 . 44433759 105
Total .25641026 . 43716074 429
An alysis of Vari nee
Source SS df MS
Between groups 1.07095945 10 .107095945 0.55 0.8506
Within groups 80.7239123 418 .193119408
Total 81.7948718 428 .191109514
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(10) = 3.5633 Prob>chi2 = 0.965
Maintaining a Resource.
Field of Summary of Maintaining a esource
Study Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 .21568627 . 4153902 51
2 . 3384 6154 .47686879 65
3 . 31578947 .47756693 19
4 . 2307 6923 .42966892 26
5 .15789474 .37463432 19
6 . 14285714 .35634832 28
7 . 26666667 .44977645 30
8 . 22222222 .42779263 18
9 . 12 .32826072 50
10 .11111111 .32338083 18
11 . 28571429 .45392065 105
Total . 2377 6224 . 4262098 429
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS
Between groups 2.42729264 10 .242729264 1.35 0.2030
Within groups 75.3209591 418 .180193682
Total
77.7482517 428 .181654794
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(10) = 13.0826 Prob>chi2 = 0.219
Reducing Harm.
Field of Study Summary of Reducing harm or Mean Std. Dev. damage Freq.
1 .1372549 .34754038 51
2 . 12307692 .33108214 65
3 . 31578947 .47756693 19
4 . 11538462 .32581259 26
5 . 31578947 .47756693 19
6 .10714286 .31497039 28
7 . 16666667 .37904902 30
8 . 16666667 .38348249 18
9 .26 .4430875 50
10 . 22222222 .42779263 18
11 .14285714 .35160542 105
Total .17016317 .37621482 429
Source
Analysis of Variance
SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 1.72562374 10 .172562374 1.23 0.2722
Within groups 58.8524648 418 .14079537
Total 60.5780886 428 .14153759
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(10)
14.0935 Prob>chi2
0.169


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Sustainable Behavior.
Reusable Water Bottle.
Field of Study Summary of Reusable water Std. Dev. bottle.
1 4.6721311 .81078792 61
2 4.425 . 8826743 80
3 4.375 .92372121 24
4 4.5625 .80070533 32
5 4.6153846 .57109881 26
6 4.0833333 .93732141 36
7 4.6111111 .72812 36
8 4.4583333 .9770927 24
9 4 . 75 .47673129 56
10 4.3043478 .97396951 23
11 4.3790323 .91591832 124
Total 4.4789272 .84529657 522
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 15.8027922 10 1.58027922 2.27 0.0135
Within groups 356.465407 511 .697583967
Total 372.268199 521 .714526294
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(10) = 37.9627 Prob>chi2 = 0.000
Choosing Lower Emissions Transportation.
Field of Study Summary of Lower emissions transportation Mean Std. Dev. Free,.
1 3.6721311 1.0443708 61
2 3.1625 1.2573203 80
3 3.5416667 1.1025333 24
4 2 . 875 1.2889105 32
5 3.7692308 1.1066234 26
6 4.0833333 .90632697 36
7 3.4444444 1.4627654 36
8 3. 875 1.2958965 24
9 3.8214286 1.097222 56
10 2.3478261 1.2652235 23
11 2.9032258 1.2258686 124
Total 3.3409962 1.2677172 522
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups Within groups 108.364566 728.938116 10 511 10.8364566 1.42649338 7 . 60 0.0000
Total 837.302682 521 1.60710688
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(10) = 12.3903 Prob>chi2 = 0.260
Turning Off the Lights.
Field of Study Summary of Mean Turn off the Std. Dev. lights Freq.
1 4 .42622 95 . 66980137 61
2 4.4875 .77938226 80
3 4 .4583333 .58822997 24
4 . 4375 . 80070533 32
5 4 .5384615 . 58177447 26
6 4.3055556 .8218253 36
7 4.6388889 .59294798 36
8 4.6666667 . 70196412 24
9 4 .5892857 . 59625454 56
10 4.173913 . 71682215 23
11 4 .4193548 . 73359316 124
Total 4 .4 655172 . 70897632 522
Source
Analysis of Variance
SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 6.34966034 10 .634966034 1.27 0.2445
Within groups 255.52965 511 .500058023
Total 261.87931 521 .502647429
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(10) = 12.8134 Prob>chi2 = 0.234
Recycling.
Field of Study Summary of Recycle Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 4.3770492 .79924828 61
2 4.1875 . 95591099 80
3 4.1666667 .81649658 24
4 4 . 95038193 32
5 4.2692308 . 72430338 26
6 3.6944444 1.2379579 36
7 4.1944444 .88864084 36
8 4.25 1.1515585 24
9 4.4107143 . 73303319 56
10 4.0869565 . 99603959 23
11 4.2580645 . 91838465 124
Total 4.2068966 . 92 901117 522
Source
Analysis of Variance
SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 15.791714 10 1.5791714 1.86 0.0484
Within groups 433.863458 511 .849047864
Total 449.655172 521 .863061751
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(10)
20.8944 Prob>chi2
0.022


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Composting.
Field of Study Summary of Compost Mean Std. Dev. F req.
1 2 .3442623 1.4706602 61
2 2 . 675 1.5325581 80
3 2 .2083333 1.3824731 24
4 2 . 25 1.2700013 32
5 2 .5 1.6309506 26
6 2 .2222222 1.375523 36
7 2 .4722222 1.2980449 36
8 2 . 9166667 1.5012072 24
9 2.5178571 1.3482793 56
10 2.6086957 1.5879985 23
11 2.3951613 1.4416485 124
Total 2.4597701 1.4395398 522
Source
Analysis of Variance
SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 15.751069 10 1.5751069 0.76 0.6709
Within groups 1063.9041 511 2.08200412
Total 1079.65517 521 2.0722748
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(10) = 4.2991 Prob>chi2 = 0.933
Willingness to Adopt New Behavior.
Field of Study Summary Mean of Willingness Std. Dev. Freq.
1 4.8852459 .32137002 61
2 4 . 7375 .4966661 80
3 4.9583333 .20412415 24
4 4 . 5 .71842121 32
5 4.5769231 . 90213422 26
6 4.5555556 . 65222452 36
7 4.8055556 .52478265 36
8 4.75 . 60791876 24
9 4 . 9107143 . 28773635 56
10 4 . 6086957 .5830274 23
11 4.7903226 . 46458642 124
Total 4.7605364 .52402372 522
Source
Analysis of Variance
SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 8.47034414 10 .847034414 3.22 0.0005
Within groups 134.596706 511 .263398641
Total 143.06705 521 .274600863
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(10)
109.9643 Prob>chi2
0.000
Motivation,
Seeing Negative Impacts.
Field of Study Summary Mean of Negative Std. Dev. impacts
1 . 28 .45355737 50
2 .34375 .47871355 64
3 . 35 .48936048 20
4 . 34615385 .48516452 26
5 .47368421 . 51298918 19
6 . 5 . 50917508 28
7 . 36666667 .49013252 30
8 .44444444 . 51130999 18
9 . 36 .48487322 50
10 . 16666667 .38348249 18
11 . 35849057 .48183536 106
Total .35664336 .47956748 429
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 1.93613934 10 .193613934 0.84 0.5915
Within groups 96.4974271 418 .230855089
Total 98.4335664 428 .229984968
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(10) = 2.3182 Prob>chi2 = 0.993
Concern for the Future
Field of Study Summary of Future Mean Std. Dev. Freq.
1 . 24 . 43141911 50
2 .15625 . 36596253 64
3 . 55 . 51041779 20
4 .34615385 . 48516452 26
5 .21052632 . 41885391 19
6 . 17857143 . 39002103 28
7 .2 .4068381 30
8 . 27777778 .4608886 18
9 . 18 .38808793 50
10 . 66666667 . 48507125 18
11 . 31132075 .46523333 106
Total . 27039627 . 44468311 429
Source
Analysis of Variance
SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 6.45935345 10 .645935345 3.45 0.0002
Within groups 78.1746792 418 .187020764
Total 84.6340326 428 .197743067
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(10) = 8.5799 Prob>chi2 = 0.572


STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Wanting to Help the Planet.
Field of Study Summary of Mean Wanting to help Std. Dev. the
1 . 22 .41845196 50
2 . 25 .43643578 64
3 . 1 .30779351 20
4 .19230769 .40191848 26
5 . 15789474 .37463432 19
6 . 1071428 6 .31497039 28
7 .16666667 .37904902 30
8 . 3888888 9 .50163133 18
9 . 36 .48487322 50
10 .38888889 .50163133 18
11 .18867925 .39311231 106
Total .22610723 .41879779 429
Analysis of Variance
Source SS df MS F Prob > F
Between groups 2.97561299 10 . 2975 61299 1.73 0.0729
Within groups 12.0919861 418 .172468866
Total 75.0675991 428 .175391587
Bartlett's test for equal variances: chi2(10) = 13.2835 Prob>chi2 = 0.208
81


School of Public Affairs
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER
Form Name: Submission Time: Browser:
IP Address: Unique ID: Location:
capstone repository permission December 3, 2018 4:20 pm Firefox 63.0 / Windows 7 129.19.92.13 459068569
40.087799072266, -105.37349700928
Description Area
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS ELECTRONIC CAPSTONE REPOSITORY
Description Area Dear Capstone Author and Capstone Client:The Auraria Library
Digital Library Program is a nonprofit center responsible for the collection and preservation of digital resources for education.The capstone project, protected by your copyright, and/or created under the supervision of the client has been identified as important to the educational mission of the University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library.The University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library respectfully requests non-exclusive rights to digitize the capstone project for Internet distribution in image and text formats for an unlimited term. Digitized versions will be made available via the Internet, for on- and off-line educational use, with a statement identifying your rights as copyright holder and the terms of the grant of permissions.Please review, sign and return the follow Grant of Permissions. Please do not hesitate to call me or email your questions.Sincerely,Matthew C. MarinerAuraria LibraryDigital Collections ManagerMatthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303.556.5817
Grant of Permissions
Description Area In reference to the following title(s):
Author (Student Name) Lauren Deriaz
Title (Capstone Project Title) Student Perspectives of Sustainability at the Auraria Campus
Publication Date 12.3.2018
I am the: Client
Description Area As client of the copyright holder affirm that the content submitted is identical to that which was originally supervised and that the content is suitable for publication in the Auraria Library Digital Collections.


Description Area
This is a non-exclusive grant of permissions for on-line and off-line use for an indefinite term. Off-line uses shall be consistent either for educational uses, with the terms of U.S. copyright legislation's "fair use" provisions or, by the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library, with the maintenance and preservation of an archival copy. Digitization allows the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library to generate image-and text-based versions as appropriate and to provide and enhance access using search software.
This grant of permissions prohibits use of the digitized versions for commercial use or profit.
Signature
Your Name Chris Herr
Date 12.3.2018
Address
ATTENTION
Description Area Grant of Permissions is provided to:
Auraria Digital Library Program / Matthew C. MarinerAuraria Libraryl 100 Lawrence | Denver, CO 80204matthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303-556-5817


School of Public Affairs
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER
Form Name: Submission Time: Browser:
IP Address: Unique ID: Location:
capstone repository permission December 9, 2018 10:24 pm Chrome 70.0.3538.110 / Windows 8.1 75.166.47.9 461334986
39.752498626709, -104.99949645996
Description Area
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS ELECTRONIC CAPSTONE REPOSITORY
Description Area Dear Capstone Author and Capstone Client:The Auraria Library
Digital Library Program is a nonprofit center responsible for the collection and preservation of digital resources for education.The capstone project, protected by your copyright, and/or created under the supervision of the client has been identified as important to the educational mission of the University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library.The University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library respectfully requests non-exclusive rights to digitize the capstone project for Internet distribution in image and text formats for an unlimited term. Digitized versions will be made available via the Internet, for on- and off-line educational use, with a statement identifying your rights as copyright holder and the terms of the grant of permissions.Please review, sign and return the follow Grant of Permissions. Please do not hesitate to call me or email your questions.Sincerely,Matthew C. MarinerAuraria LibraryDigital Collections ManagerMatthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303.556.5817
Grant of Permissions
Description Area In reference to the following title(s):
Author (Student Name) Lauren Deriaz
Title (Capstone Project Title) Student Perspectives of Sustainability at the Auraria Campus
Publication Date December 3, 2018
I am the: Author (student)
Description Area As copyright holder or licensee with the authority to grant copyright permissions for the aforementioned title(s), I hereby authorize Auraria Library and University of Colorado Denver to digitize, distribute, and archive the title(s) for nonprofit, educational purposes via the Internet or successive technologies.


Description Area
This is a non-exclusive grant of permissions for on-line and off-line use for an indefinite term. Off-line uses shall be consistent either for educational uses, with the terms of U.S. copyright legislation's "fair use" provisions or, by the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library, with the maintenance and preservation of an archival copy. Digitization allows the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library to generate image-and text-based versions as appropriate and to provide and enhance access using search software.
This grant of permissions prohibits use of the digitized versions for commercial use or profit.
Signature
Your Name
Date
December 9, 2018
Email Address
ATTENTION
Description Area Grant of Permissions is provided to:
Auraria Digital Library Program / Matthew C. MarinerAuraria Libraryl 100 Lawrence | Denver, CO
80204matthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303-556-5817


Full Text

PAGE 1

Running h ead: STUDENT P ERSPECTIVE OF SUSTAI NABILITY

PAGE 2

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 2 Capstone Project Disclosures This client based project was completed on behalf of the Auraria Sustainable Campus Program and supervised by PUAD 5361 Capstone course instructor Wendy L. Bolyard, PhD, and second faculty reader Denise Scheberle, PhD . This project does not necessarily ref lect the views of the School of Public Affairs or the faculty readers. Raw data were not included in this document, rather relevant materials were provided directly to the client. Permissions to include this project in the Auraria Library Digital Repositor y are found in the final Appendix. Questions about this capstone project should be directed to the student author.

PAGE 3

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 3 Table of Contents Executive Summary 6 Introduction 7 Organization Background 9 Literature Review 10 Understanding Campus Sustainability 1 1 Defining sustainability 1 2 The three pillars of sustainability 1 3 Changing Student Sustainability Behaviors 1 3 Motivation 1 4 Knowledge 1 5 Values 1 6 Evaluating the Effect of Sustainability Programs 1 6 Trends in Sustainability Baselines 1 7 Methodology 1 7 Previous Findings 1 7 Research Questions and Hypotheses 1 8 Awareness of ASCP and its Programs 1 8 Sustainability Importance 1 8 Defining Sustainability 1 9 Performing Sustainable Behaviors 1 9 Differe nces between Demographic Groups 20 Data Collection 20

PAGE 4

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 4 Reliability and Validity 2 1 Data Analysis 2 2 Results 2 2 Awareness of ASCP and its Programs 2 3 Sustainability Importance 2 4 Defining Sustainability 2 4 Performing Sustainable Behaviors 2 5 Differences between Demographic Groups 2 6 School 2 6 Level of education 2 7 Years on campus 2 7 Full time status 2 7 Field of study 2 8 Discussion and Recommendations 2 9 Limitations 3 1 Considerations for Future Studies 3 2 Conclusion 3 3 References 3 4 Appendi x A : Auraria Campus Sustainability Survey 3 7 Appendix B : Measurement Table 40 Appendix C 4 2 Table 1: Respondent Frequency by Institution and Education Level 4 2 Figure 1: Total number of ASCP programs of which students are aware 4 2

PAGE 5

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 5 Table 2: Frequency and Percent of Student Awareness of ASCP Programs 4 3 Figure 2: Frequency of Respondents 4 3 4 4 Three Most Important Programs 4 4 Table 5: Frequency and Percent of Students Performing Sustainable Behaviors 4 5 Appendix D 4 6 Codebook 4 6 School 4 8 Level of Education 5 5 Years on Campus 6 1 Fulltime Status 6 7 Field of Study 7 3

PAGE 6

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 6 Executive Summary The purpose of this capstone project was to work with the Auraria Sustainable Campus Program (ASCP) to expand on its 2017/2018 student survey and create a baseline of student knowledge and perspectives on sustainability that can be used to inform future programs. Students were asked about their awareness of several sustainability programs, the importance of sustainability, the definition of sustain ability, and the sustainable behaviors they perform. Although many students were not aware of ASCP, most were aware that recycling and water bottle filling stations were environmental sustainability efforts. Overall, students were concerned about environmental issues, reported that sustainability on campus was important, and chose recycling as being the th ree pillars even though the themes of their definitions varied considerably. More than 80% of students frequently recycle, turn of f lights when not in use, use reusable water bottles , and are willing to adopt additional sustainable behaviors . S tudents are primarily motivated to act sustainably due to the negative environmental impacts of not doing so. the results of the survey. ASCP already has a marketing campaign that will help students associate ASCP to susta inability programs on campus. ASCP is also pursuing waste diversion and renewab le energy projects which match with could continu e to increase its support by foc using on engaging students based on their academic programs and working with students to perform more difficult sustainability behaviors including composting and choosing lower emissions transportation.

PAGE 7

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 7 Student Perspectives of Sustainability at the Aurari a Campus Sustainability is a complex concept and has hundreds of published definitions (Alshuwaikhat & Abubakar, 2008; Owens & Legere, 2015). A t its most basic , sustainability implies the continuity of a resource or action (Ben Eli, 2018). I n a development context , it is . Sustainab ility is also thought of in a framework coined ttom line framework, a successful organization must consider dimensions of economic, environmental, and social equity to be sustainable ( Wilson, 2015). S ustainability is becoming increasingly important to U.S. institut ions of higher education. H igher education campuses have been compared to small cities in terms of their facilities, services, and population s (Alshuwaikhat & Abubakar, 2008). They also face similar environmental sustainability concerns as they produce significant emissions and waste (Lambert & Cushing, 2017). H igher education campus es are important actors in creating a sustainable future not only in becoming sustainable themselves, but also because they shape the way that students view the world and set an example for other institutions (Dagiliute et al., 2018). Many institutions of higher education have taken on the responsibility of campus environmental sustainability through various programs and commitments incl uding the American College and students in the United States including the institutions at ( Herr, 2018 ; Horhota et al ., 2014). I nstitutional support is one of many factor s needed to achieve environmental sustainability . T he behaviors of individuals, especially students, are critical to successful

PAGE 8

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 8 programs (Horhota et al., 2014). creasing campus sustainability , likely due to the many differences between campuses (Whitley et al., 2018). P ast studies encourage institutions of higher education to establish a baseline of student perspectives on environmental sustainability as it informs decisions that will efficiently expand campus sustainability programs (Campbell Arvai, 2015; Emanuel & Adams, 2011 ; Olson et al., 2011 ; Whitley et al., 2018 ). The Auraria Campus located in downtown Denver, Colorado is looking to efficiently expand its environmental sustainability programs (C. Herr, personal communication, May 22, 2018). The Auraria Campus context is different from most campuses in that it hosts three separate institutions of higher education, the Community College of Denver (CCD) , the Metropolitan State University of Denver (MSU) , and the University of Colorado Denver (UCD) , anaged by a separate entity called the Auraria Higher Education Center (AHEC) which also leads the Auraria Campus efforts to reduc e its ecological footprint with the Auraria Sustainable Campus Program (ASCP) Durin g the 2017 /2018 academic year , the Auraria Campus Sustainability Office r began the process of gathering data on student perspectives on environmental sustainability to create a baseline of their s ustainability knowledge (C. Herr, personal communication, Ma y 22, 2018). The initial survey received over 200 responses, but it also indicated some limitations in collecting the desired data (C. Herr, personal communication, May 22, 2018). T he purpose of this capstone project is to expand on the 2017 /2018 survey and address its limitations. This p rovide s the client with a dditional understanding of student perspectives on

PAGE 9

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 9 sustainability that can provide a baseline for future sustainability efforts on the Auraria Campus. This paper opens with a brief overview of the ASCP followed by a review of the literature. Then, it provides a discussion of the research questions this project answers as well as th e sampling plan, plan of analysis, and limitations of the proposed methodology. Findings and recommendations are then presented. Organization Background The Auraria Campus hosts three unique institutions of higher education. CCD offers courses exclusively at the undergraduate level, primarily Associate Degrees , and several of their programs are taught in other locations ( Community College of Denver, 2018) . UCD is part of the larger University of Colorado system and has a variety of degree levels, including a graduate students attend MSU, which is comprise d of 96% undergraduate students and 4% graduate students (Metropolitan State University of Denver, 2018). AHEC manages and provides services, facilities, and property for the Auraria Campus in three institutions of higher education bring 42,000 students and 5,000 faculty and staff to the Auraria Campus 2018). This substantial number of people creates the challenge of managing the environmental footprint of the campus including energy use , water consumption , and waste production To address the se challenge s , students voted to start the ASCP in 2004 to fund projects including renewable energy, recycling, Sustaina This fee was set at $5 per semester per student in 2016 and adjusts with

PAGE 10

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 10 inflation over time; at the time of this project the fee was $ 5.15 per semester The ASCP breaks its programs into seven categories : alternative transportation, education and outreach, energy efficiency, food and gardens, renewable energy, water conservation, and waste diversion (Herr, 2018). Improvements have already been made, but the ASCP plans to meet additional ambitious goals su ch as reducing energy consumption 80% by 2050 as outlined that was signed in 2008 by the p residents of all three institutions (Herr, 2018). In its most recent five y ear p lan, the ASCP hi ghlights focusing on executing its mission, efficient use of funds, increasing productivity, expanding student outreach, and encouraging student proposals (Herr, 2018). Literature Review Higher education campuses are seen as an ideal environment in which to explore ways of reaching sustainability because of their mission of education ( Horhota et al., 2014). They shape student s that they ultimately bring to countless other institutions , and they have been found to be effective sustainability communication channels (Dagiliute et al., 2018 ; Lertpratchya et al., 2017 ). As a result, there has been increasing pressure on U.S. institutions of higher education to improve their sustainability and provide students with knowledge on sustainability (Alshuwaikhat & Abubakar, 2008 ; Lambert & Cushing, 2017 ). This pressure has come from various sources including students, the majority of which express concern over environmental problems (Emanuel & Adams, 2011). T he Env ironmental Protection Agency , a nation wide sustainability grading system, annual conferences , and the perspective that higher education should be responsible for educating students about their impacts on the environment

PAGE 11

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 11 and society also have played a role in pressuring institutions of higher education to become more sustainable (Alshuwaikhat & Abubakar, 2008 ; Emanuel & Adams, 2011 ; Horhota et al., 2014 ). As a result of the growing importance and pressure, an increasing number of ins titutions of higher education ha ve started to manage their environmental performance and strive for improvement (Alshuwaikhat & Abubakar, 2008 ; Campbell Arvai, 2015 ). Thirteen percent of all projects certified in Leadership in Energy and Environmental Desi gn (LEED) are higher education buildings (Driza & Park, 2014). Campuses are having an increasing amount of student organizations and events that are related to sustainability (Emanuel & Adams, 2011). Institutions of higher education are also stating their commitment to sustainability through various agreements and environmental charters (Driza & Park, 2014 ; Horhota et al., 2014 ). As more i nstitutions of higher education strive to improve their sustainability, there is a growing need to understand how they can make the most gains in sustainability with the resources that they have. Urban campuses, like the Auraria Campus, face th e additional challenge of connecting students to a campus that they may only visit for class (Hopkins, 2016). S ince the field is s till young, s more sustainable (Emanuel & Adams, 2011, p. 82; Lambert & Cushing, 2017). However, past research does show what information has been useful to other institutions , including understanding of how students view campus sustainability . Understanding Campus Sustainability Many institutions of higher education have committed to their responsibility in sustainability and understand that improving sustainability requires an integrated approach because it affects several aspects of a campus including buildings, services, and transportation

PAGE 12

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 12 (Alshuwaikhat & Abubakar, 2008). T here are certain factors campu ses should consider when creating an approach for improving sustainability. U sustainability is one of these key factors that allow s campuses to design successful programs based on insight into whether or not students n eed further education on the concept of sustainability and what they expect to see from sustainability programs (Campbell Arvai, 2015; Emanuel & Adams, 2011; Olson et al., 2011 ; Whitley et al., 2018 ). Several studies have evaluated student perceptions of sustainability at U.S. campuses and found benefit in establishing a baseline prior to expanding programs or starting new ones ( Campbell Arvai, 2015; Emanuel & Adams, 2011 ; Lambert & Cushing, 2017 ). Th e baseline also allows the effect of sustainability programs to be monitored over time and inform program modification s (Horhota et al., 2014 ; Lambert & Cushing, 2017 ). D efining sustainability . Measuring whether or not students understand what sustainability means is a key component of the baseline of student perceptions on sustainability . Sustainability is a difficult concept to define as there are hundreds of published definitions for the term (Alshuwaikhat & Abubakar, 2008; Owens & Legere, 2015). This may be problematic for a higher education campus when their goal is to educate students about sustaina bility , as there may be significant variation in how the term is understood (Owens & Legere, 2015). Owens and Legere (2015) studied how students , faculty, and staff define sustainability by asking them to state whether or not they felt that they underst ood the term and then asking them to provid e a definition in their own words. More than half of the respondents felt that they understood the meaning of but the definitions varied greatly among students and among students, faculty, and st aff (Owens & Legere, 2015). The idea of not depleting a resource was the most common theme even though only 26% of students, staff, and

PAGE 13

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 13 faculty expressed it (Owens & Legere , 2015 ). Owens and Legere (2015) worry that sustainability education may not be succ essful if students do not first understand the concept of sustainability as there may not be a shared vision for the students to work towards . Therefore, gauging sustainability baseline. T he t hree p illars of s ustainability. Understanding whether or not students know of the three pillars of sustainability may also be an important component to campus baseline studies. Each pillar focuses on concepts that are needed f or an organization, such as an institution of higher education , to achieve overall sustainability. The environmental pillar focuses on maintaining and improving environmental quality; the social pillar focuses on protecting human health and engaging the pu blic; and the economic pillar focuses on promoting jobs, providing It is importan t to incorporat e all three pillars of sustainability into sustainability initiatives ( Alshuwaikhat & Abubakar, 2008; Hopkins, 2016). vary, students may also not have similar levels of understanding of the three pillars or even know that multiple pillars exist . Students have been shown to associate environmental pillar more so than the pillars of economy or society (Owens & Legere, 2015). Understanding these differences, provides additional information on sustainability, which could be used to buil d programs around the pillars that students are already aware of , a s well as provide education on the pillars with which students are less familiar . Changing Student Sustainability Behaviors Several studies have also focused on identifying factors that are related to environmentally sustainable behaviors in students so that campuses can most effectively

PAGE 14

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 14 motivate students to participate in environmental sustainability programs . Most of these studies start by surveying s tudents on how often they engage in certain behaviors. For example, students tend to recycle most of the time but rarely or never compost (Campbell Arvai, 2015; Perrault & Clark, 2018). Simple behaviors such as turning off the lights when leaving a room an d using a reusable water bottle are also often practiced by students (Perrault & Clark, 2018), while behaviors that might be logistically more complicated , such as choosing low emissions transportation, are not practiced as often (Whitley et al., 2018). Emanuel and Adams (2011) found that students want to help create a sustainable campus and are willing to participate in initiatives to protect the environment. Willingness, however, does not necessarily mean they will always participate ; it merely means th at they would if the opportunity presented itself. Programs need to be designed to inspire students to participate. Three factors seem to play a significant role in changing student behaviors : motivation, knowledge, and values. Researchers found that all t hree of these factors show correlation with sustainable behaviors in students but that they are not necessarily associated with one another (Perrault & Clark, 2018; Heeren et al., 2016; Whitley et al., 2018). For example, a student may be motivated to act sustainably due to the influence of friends and family even though they do not have biospheric values. Therefore, it is important to look at each of these factors independently . Motivation . Uncovering why students perform sustainable behaviors could allow campus sustainability programs to promote participation based on these motivations. Perrault and Clark (2018) found that wanting to help the environment is the most common motivator for students . Other motivators included monetary savings , ethics , the influence of family and friends, and not wanting to wast e resources (Perrault & Clark, 2018). Students also stated that they c ould be

PAGE 15

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 15 motivated to change their behaviors if they were provided with more information on the impact of their actions and how sustainable behaviors compared in cost to their usual behaviors (Perrault & Clark, 2018). Knowledge. , knowledge can be a powerful factor in influencing behavior. The assumes that if individuals ha d better information, they would also make better decisions (Heeren et al., 2016). Simply being aware of sustainable options has been found to be an important factor in sustainable action s (Hopkins, 2016) . In the context of c ampus sustainability , however , studies Heeren et al. (2016) found that knowledge of sustainability was negatively correlated with sustainable behavior, explained a small amount of variation in their model , and varied for each behavior that was tested . On the other hand, Lambert and Cushing (2017) study educated s tudents on ecological footprints, and students successfully met the goal of reducing their footprint by 10 percent. Education was also found to be a more powerful tool when knowledge gaps were identified before hand and used to create the education program (Olson et al., 2011). Although the effect of knowledge varies by context, t here is still general consensus that education is a first step to introducing sustainability to a campus (Heeren et al., 2016) . This is e specially important when students tend to demonstra te limited knowledge on certain topics such as water consumption (Vedachalam & Mancl, 2010). Furthermore, the studies that first identified specific knowledge gaps were successful in modifying behavior (Lambert & Cushing, 2017; Olson et al., 2011). Therefore, it is likely that students that study the natural sciences are more likely to incorporate sustainability into their lives as their curriculum may fill in some of these knowledge gaps. U knowledge gaps should inform the c reat ion of

PAGE 16

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 16 successful education programs f or the specific context of the student body (Emanuel & Adams, 2011; Olson et al., 2011). Values. While education is still thought to be important in changing behavior, values can sometimes be a better predictor of sustainable behaviors in students (Heeren et al., 2016). Specifically, altruistic and biospheric values are associated with more sustainable behaviors while egoistic values are associated with less sustainable behaviors (Whitley et al., 2018). Values are strong and difficult to change, but higher education campus es can market their sustainability programs by specifically targeting the values, even egoistic ones, that are most common in their students (Whitley et al., 2018). Evaluating the Effect of Sustai nab ility Program s magnitude of the effects of knowledge, motivations, and values on sustainable behaviors may vary between different campuses, campuses can use a baseline of student perceptions on these fac tors not only to evaluate current views, but also to evaluate the effect of sustainability programs over time . Undergraduates specifically can be an indicator of how student perspectives change over time as they tend to spend several years at the same campus , and they are still developing their identities and are more open to new ideas (Lertpratchya et al., 2017). After one year at a university with a significant sustainability program, undergraduate students were found to develop more sustainable behaviors (Lertpratchya et al., 2017). Lertpratchya et al. (2017) found that sophomores, juniors, and seniors had more positive attitudes about sustainability th a n freshmen. Therefore, if designed carefully, a higher education campus, like the Auraria Cam pus, can conduct a single study t hat reveals the current baseline of student perceptions of sustainabilit y and indicates how student perceptions may have change d overtime.

PAGE 17

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 17 Trends in Sustainability Baselines Although e ach campus and student experience is unique, the literature discussed in this review does help create a hypothetical baseline of student perspectives of sustainability. Emanuel and Adams (2011) found that students tend to express concern over environmental issues. Students also tend to fe only associate it with the environmental pillar of sustainability (Owens & Legere, 2015). Student also students sharing the most common definition of not depleting a resource (Owens & Legere, 2015). Students perform sustainable behaviors more frequently if they are less difficult (turning off lights, recycling, using a reusable water bottle) and less freq uently if they are logistically more difficult (composting, using low emissions transportation) (Campbell Arvai, 2015; Perrault & Clark, 2018; Whitley et al., 2018). Overall, however, students are willing to perform more sustainable behaviors (Emanuel and Adams, 2011), and they are most motivated to act more sustainably by a desire to help the environment (Perrault & Clark, 2018). This capstone project evaluated whether these trends are accurate for the Auraria Campus. Methodology This capstone project use d a survey to gather the perspectives of Auraria Campus students on sustainability , to build on the 2017/2018 survey , and to create a sustainability knowledge baseline for the Auraria Campus. This section outlines the findings of the 2017/2018 survey as well as the research questions, hypotheses, and methodology of th is project. Previous Findings ASCP suspects that many students are not fully aware of ASCP and the sustainability programs that it provides to students (C. Herr, personal communication, October 16, 2018). The

PAGE 18

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 18 2017/2018 survey revealed that students were most aware of alternative transportation options 2017/2018 Survey Results most important to them and renewable energy was second ( 2017/2018 Survey Results ). population (C. Herr, person al communication, May 22, 2018). The survey also showed that 88% of respondents believed that sustainability at the Auraria Campus was very important ( 2017/2018 Survey Results ). These findings were considered in the research questions and hypotheses of this capstone project to allow for a comparison of the results between the two studies in addition to evaluating the baseline suggested by the literature. Research Questions and Hypotheses Th is capstone project answer s the following research questions and hypothese s that were informed by the literature and the past findings of ASCP . The research questions and hypotheses are in the order of highest to lowest priority to the client . Awareness of ASCP and its Programs. 1 . How aware are students of the Auraria Sustainable Campus Program (ASCP) ? Hypothesis 1: Student awareness of ASCP is low. 2 . Of w hich Auraria Campus sustainability efforts are students most aware? Hypothesis 2: Students are most aware of alternative transportation efforts (secure bike parking, B cycle and dockless bike share, and electric vehicle charging stations ) . Sustainability Importance. 3 . How concerned are students about environmental issues ?

PAGE 19

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 19 Hypothesis 3 : Students have a high level of concern for environmental issues. 4 . How important is increasing the sustainability of the Auraria Campus to students? Hypothesis 4 : Students think it is important that the Auraria Campus become more sustainable. 5 . Which sustainability efforts are most important to students? Hypothesis 5 : Renewable energy is most important to students. Defining Sustainability. 6 . Hypothesis 6 : Students do feel that they understand the meaning of 7 . Do students feel that sustainability should focus on all pillars of sustainability? Hypothesis 7 : Students believe sustainability should mostly focus on environmental stewardship an d conservation. 8 . How do students currently define sustainability? Hypothesis 8 : Students will mostly use the theme of to explain what sustainability means to them. Performing Sustainable Behaviors. 9 . How often do students engage in sustainable behaviors ( reusing water bottles, low emissions transportation, turning off lights, recycling, and composting) ?

PAGE 20

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 20 Hypothesis 9 : Students often recycle, turn off the lights while not in use, and use a reusable water bottle, but students do not often compost or choose low emissions transportation. 10 . A re students willing to perform more sustainable behaviors? Hypothesis 10 : Students are willing to perform more sustainable behaviors. 1 1 . What motivates students to perform sustainable behaviors ? Hypothesis 11 : Students are mostly motivated to act sustainably by a desire to help the environment and planet. Differences between Demographic Groups. 12 . Do the answers to Questions 1 1 1 differ between (a) school, (b) level of education, (c) number of years spent on campus, ( d ) full time or part time status , and (e) field of study ? Hypothesis 12 : Students Questions 1 11 will differ based on (a) school, (b) level of education, (c) number of years spent on campus, (d) full time or part time status , and (e) field of study. Data Collection This capstone project use d an online survey created in Qualtrics ( Appendix A ). The survey questions include d six close d ende d questions (multiple choice and Likert scale) and three open ended questions followed by six close d ended and open ended demographic questions. The questions and variables associated with each research question can be found in Appendix B .

PAGE 21

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 21 The unit of analysis for this capstone project is an individual student. The target population and intended sample consists of the approximately 42,000 students of CCD, MSU, and UCD that spend time on the Auraria Campus as well as any alumni that attend one these thre e institutions at the Auraria Campus since the ASCP was created in 2004 The response rates in similar studies range from 0.3% (Emanuel & Adams, 2011) to 8% (Vedachalam & Mancl, 2010). For current students, this le ads to an expected sample size of 126 to 3,360 students. The survey link was available online to all students from September 26, 2018 through October 26, 2018. It was distributed using all means available to the capstone student and client and includ e d the ASCP newsletter , ASCP social media, campus tabling events , school and department email lists, and faculty email lists (C. Herr, personal communication, August 31, 2018). Reminder s were sent one week and three weeks from the original post , as suggested by Hoddinott and Bass (1986 ), . The survey link was also shared through communication channels managed by the three institutions , in which case regular reminders were not possible. As this distr ibution method was based on what communication channels were avail able, this capstone project used convenience sampling. Past studies have encountered the need for a similar methodology as mailing lists suitable for random sampling are not always available ( Campbell Arvai, 2015; Heeren et al., 2016). Reliability and Validity Given the distribution methods available, the replicability wa s maximized in sharing the survey through as many communication channels as possible in an attempt to reach every member of the student population , ensuring that any student that would choose to respond was

PAGE 22

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 22 given the opportunity. T he survey was tested on five students to ensure that the questions were easily understood. These participants were not included in the findings . No t being able to directly contact a random sample of students may affect the generalizability of the study across the target population as a whole. However, with information was compared to the general s tudent population to see if it wa s a representative sample. Those with some interest in the topic may also be more likely to take the time to answer the survey , meaning that this group may be disproportionately represented (Lambert & Cushing, 2017). Data Analysi s S tata w as used to analyze the responses to the close d ended questions including descriptive statistics and appropriate statistical tests , t test, ANOVA , and linear regression , to determine if any variables comparisons were statistically significant (p < 0.05) . The responses to the open ended questions were coded for themes . All themes mentioned in each response were counted , meaning that a single response could be counted in more than one theme category, if appropriate. Results The survey yielded 634 re sponses. Twenty s even responses were removed because of one of the following: the respondent stated that they do not attend classes at the Auraria Campus, the a graduate student at CCD even though CCD does not have a graduate program. This le d to 60 7 responses being included in the analysis , representing 1.4% of all students at the Auraria Campus . Of those, 4 69 and 4 67 students replied to the open ended sustainability and motivation

PAGE 23

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 23 questions, respectively . Two hundred one students chose to write additional comments. These comments were provided to the client, but they were not analyzed in this project. The respondents included 60 CCD students (10%), 189 MSU students (31%), and 358 UCD students (59%) ( Appendix C, Table 1) . For its internal studies, AHEC estimates that the breakdown of the student population is 10% CCD students, 55% MSU students, and 35% UCD students (C. Herr, personal communication, October 16, 2018). This shows that the proportion of MSU and UCD students was not representative of the whole student population. The respondents level of education students (41%), 35 PhD students (6%), and 30 alum ni (5%) (Appendix C, Table 1). Of the respondents, 24 1 this project . However, when looking at the whole UCD student population only 28% of UCD students are in the graduate program , which means UCD graduate students were over represented in the sample Respondents were primarily first ( n = 246, 41%) and second ( n = 134, 22%) year students as well as primarily full time students ( n = 516, 85%). Five hundred twenty two respondents (86%) provided their field of study . A diverse number of academic programs were included ( Appendix C, Figure 1 ) with the most represented programs being social sciences ( n = 124, 24 %), business ( n = 80, 15%), and architecture and design ( n = 61, 12%). Awareness of ASCP and its Programs ASCP program awareness (Question 1) was low , as hypothesized, with 337 (56%) respondents not aware of the program , and 210 (35%) respondents ha ving heard of ASCP but being unsure of what they do. Only 60 (10%) students were aware of ASCP and its programs. The awareness of individual programs (Question 2) , however, differed from what was

PAGE 24

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 24 hypothesized . Five removed as they contr adicted themselves. Of the remaining 602 respondents, 534 (89%) and 442 (73%) were aware of recycling and water bottle filling stations, respectively. The other programs included in the survey were known by less than half of the respondents ( Appendix C, Ta ble 2). The mean number of programs that students were aware of was 4.27 out of 12 , and the frequency of how many programs students were aware of is displayed in Appendix C, Figure 2 . Sustainability Importance As hypothesized, students are concerned with environmental issues (Question 3). Four hundred sixty nine (77%) respondents strongly agreed that they are concerned about environmental issues, and 117 (19%) respondents somewhat agreed. Only 21 respondents (3%) disagreed or were neutr al about the statement. Respondents also agreed that it is important that the Auraria Campus continue to become more sustainable as hypothesized (Question 4). Five hundred seventeen (85%) students strongly agree d , 75 (12%) somewhat agree d , and only 15 ( 2%) disagree d or fe lt neutral about it being important that the Auraria Campus continue to become more sustainable . The hypothesis for Question 5 must be rejected as renewable energy was not the most important program to student s . Recycling ( n = 437, 72%) was most frequently selected by respondents. As in the 2017/2018 survey results, r enewable energy ( n = 335, 55%) was the second most important program to students . W ater bottle filling stations came in third ( n = 289, 48 %) , and a ll other programs included in the survey were selected by less than 25% of students ( Appendix C, Table 3 ). Defining Sustainability The majority of , which supports Hypothesis 6. Three hundred forty eight (57%) strongly agree d , 192 (32%) somewhat

PAGE 25

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 25 agree d , and 67 (11%) disagreed or felt n eutral that they fully understoo d the term Five hundred sixty one (92%) respondents felt that sustainability efforts should focus on environmental conservation and stewardship supporting Hypothesis 7 . However, m ost respondents also th ought sustainability efforts should focus on social consciousness and equity ( n = 451, 74%) and economic responsibility ( n = 401, 66%). All three pilla rs were selected by 341 (55%) respondents . Only three (<1%) respondents did not select at least one of the three pillars. To answer Question 8, the 469 responses to the open ended were coded by hand for common themes. Only t hemes that occurred in at least 10% of responses were included in this project. Much like Owens and Legere (2015), this project did not find a single theme that occurred more than 26% of the time in definitions of sustainability Unlike the hypothesis to Question 8, the most common theme was . The top three themes were thinking long term ( n = 121, 26%), maintaining a resource ( n = 115, 25%), and reducing harm ( n = 80, 17%). The other t hemes and their frequencies can be found in Appendix C, Table 4. Performing Sustainable Behaviors Hypothesis 9 is partially supported with s tudents recycl ing (n = 561, 92%) , turn ing the lights off when not in use ( n = 591, 9 7 %), and us ing a reusable water bottles (n = 576, 95%) at least half of the time , and students composting (n = 370, 60%) either never or only sometimes. Students chose lower emissions transportation more than hypothesized (Question 9) with 68 % (n = 311) of students choosi ng lower emissions transportation at least half of the time. A breakdown of the frequencies of each behavior can be found in Appendix C, Table 5 . As hypothesized, most r espondents did indicate that they are willing to adopt more sustainable behaviors (Ques tion 10). Students strongly or somewhat agreed that they would be willing to

PAGE 26

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 26 adop t more sustainable behaviors ( n = 584 , 96% ) . The 467 responses provided in regards to what motivates students to act sustainably were coded for themes to answer Question 11 . This capstone project focus ed on the four themes that appeared in at least 10% of responses. Hypothesis 11 was rejected as s tudents most often stated fear or concern for negative environmental impacts (n = 160, 34%) as their motivation to act sustainably i nstead of a desire to help the planet. The negative environmental impacts that student s mentioned included climate change, pollution, and species extinction. Wanting a future ( n = 126, 27%), wanting to help the planet, nature, or the environment ( n = 105, 23%), and wanting to do the right/moral/ethical thing ( n = 54, 12%) were the next most common motivators for students. Differences b etween Demographic Groups Hypothesis 12 was supported as t based on sch ool, level of education, years spent o n campus, full time status, and field of study. The statistical outputs for each comparison are in Appendix D , and the statistical ly significan t results are discussed in this section . ANOVA was used to compare responses based on school, level of education, and field of study; a t test was used to look at the effect of fulltime status; and, a regression was used to look at the effect of years spent on campus. Only t he top three themes f School. MSU respondents were more aware of ASCP and individual sustainability programs than CCD and UCD respondents. CCD students were less environmentally concerned tha n both MSU and UCD students . Only the importance of educational workshops and conferences differed significantly by school. CCD respondents chose educational workshops most often, and MSU respondents chose sustainability conferences and fairs most often. Using long term thinking and mai ntaining a resource

PAGE 27

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 27 differ by school. MSU students most often expressed long term thinking while CCD students expressed maintaining a resource more often. The frequency with which students recycled and used reusable water bottles were the only two behaviors that differed between schools. In both cases, UCD students performed the behavior most often and CCD students least often. Willingness to perform more sustainable behavior also differed along a similar pattern with UCD students being the most willing and CCD students the least willing. The only student motivation that differed by school was wantin g to help the planet . MSU students mentioned this theme most often out of the t hree school s . All other variables did not differ based on school. Level of education. ASCP awareness and individual program awareness differed based on level of education with undergraduate students being most aware . Like school, the selection of educational workshops and conferences were the only programs that differ ed significantly in importance . Undergraduate students chose both educational workshops and sustainability conferences and fairs most often. Recycling, u sing reusable water bottles , and the willingness to perform more sustainable behaviors differed as well. Undergraduates performed both behaviors the least and were least willing to perform more behaviors. None of the other variables differed by level of ed ucation. Years on campus. There were only a few statistically significant differences as the number of years on campus increased. Students that had spent more years on campus were more aware of ASCP and its program s, placed more importance on sustainabilit y conferenc es and fairs Full time status. Full time students were more aware of ASCP and its programs than part time students. Full time students also more often chose water efficiency and secure bike parking as a part of their top three most important programs. Full time students reported that they

PAGE 28

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 28 . Full time students more often used a reusable water bottl e and chose lower emissions transportation, but they recycled less often than part time students. F inally, f ull time students were more willing to adopt more sustainable behaviors. There were no significant differences in the other variables. Field of study. While awareness of individual programs did not differ significantly base d on field of study , knowledge of ASCP itself did vary by field of study with natural sciences students having the highest awareness and education students having the l owest. Both environmental concern and the importance of sustainability on campus varied based on field of study. In both cases, natural sciences students most agreed with the statements. Education students were the least environmentally concerned, and stud ents in the formal sciences (mathematics and computer sciences) expressed the least importance for continuing to make the Auraria Campus more sustainable. The selection of recy cling, renewable energy , water bot tle filling stations , and sustainability co nferences and fairs as being in the top three most important programs differed between fields of study with formal sciences students , health sciences students, and natural sciences students , respectively, choosing them the most . The leve l of understanding of sustainability also d iffered based on field of study. Architecture and design students indicated the highest level of understanding while education students indicated the lowest understanding. There were no significant differences in which sustainability pillars were selected or which themes were expressed in the sustainability definitions. How oft en students recycled , chose lower emiss ions transportation , and used reu sable water bottles did differ. Natural sciences students recycled a nd used reusable water bottles the most while formal sciences students most often chose lower emission transportation. Willingness to perform more sustainable beha viors differed, with c ommunications students being

PAGE 29

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 29 the most willing and education students be ing the least willing. Whether students were motivated to act sustainably by the future differed based on field of study category indicated this theme two thirds of the time, and communications students indicated it more than half of the time. Discussion and Recommendations Although awareness of ASCP was low, 95% of students were aware of at least one of This shows that students know that environmentally sustainable practices are being implemented, but may not be connecting the practices to the name of the organization. Additionally, the differences in awareness based on demographic factors showed that the students that were more exposed to campus or sustainability education were more aware of ASCP and its programs . To increase awareness, ASCP could use marketing to link the organization name to its projects . campaign to help link ASCP to the progress that the Auraria Campus is making on sustainability (C. Herr, p ersonal communication, October 16, 2018). waste diversion project could also be a great opportunity for ASCP to continue to market itself and increase student awareness of the organization. ASCP could use campus and school welcoming events to specifically promote the program to first year students that are less likely to have heard of sustainability programs on campus. Most students at the Auraria Campus are concerned with environmental issu es and think that it is important that the Auraria Campus become more sustainable. Natural sciences students were the most concerned with environmental issues and sustainability on campus. However, natural sciences programs likely are pursued by students w ho were already concerned about environmental sustainability, so this difference may not be linked with ASCP and its programs.

PAGE 30

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 30 Even so, t h e support for Hypotheses 3 and 4 shows that ASCP has student support in its mission to address environmental issues on campus. The most important sustainability efforts of r ecycling and renewable energy also confirm that ASCP is already heading in the right direction as it recently approved a solar project on top of the library and is working on a campus wide waste divers ion project (C. Herr, personal communication, October 16, 2018). The relationships between sustainability importance and demographic factors is not c onsistent enough to choose a single group that should receive more attention in marketing campaigns . The i mportance of educational workshops and conferences and fairs did differ between multip le groups, so those events could be specifically marketed towards the groups that reported that they were most important. Educational workshops might find an attendance b oost if marketed towards CCD and undergraduate students, and sustainability conferences and fairs could also gain more attendees if marketed towards MSU, undergraduate, and natural sciences students. Students at the Auraria Campus strongly or somewhat agr ee that they understand reported that all three pillars of sustainability , however, there were many themes definitions of sustainability , and these themes varied between different demographic groups . This shows that the ASCP needs to be mindful that although necessarily share the sa me definition of the term. According to Owens and Legere (2015) this can be a challenge when trying to bring a large number of students together on a single project. Educational efforts and clear marketing could be used to ensure that all students correctl y understand a continuing or

PAGE 31

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 31 Auraria Campus students already perform sustainability efforts including recycling, turning of lights that are not in use, and using a reusable water bottle. Students are also willing to adopt more sustainable behaviors. This means students are open to changing their behavior for programs ASCP may want to start , and since students already frequently recycle, turn off lights, and use reusable water bottles, ASC P s efforts can place more focus on more difficult sustainability efforts such as composting and alternative transportation . Finally, there were some interesting trends regarding students in the field of education. Education students had the lowest awaren ess of ASCP, the least environmental concern, the lowest understanding of sustainability, and the least willing ness to perform more sustainable behaviors. While more research would be needed to understand why this is the case, this is not ideal as the stud ents in the school of education may become teachers who then educate future generations. ASCP could consider outreach based on academic programs to help tie the importance of sustainability to the academic interests of different groups. For education stude nts, this may entail ASCP having a presence at their welcoming events. The framing of marketing materials at those events , or otherwise shared with education students , could focus on how sustainability is specifically important for teachers to understand. Sustainability is an ongoing concept that needs to be passed from generation to generation, and teachers will play a key role in making sure future generations underst and sustainability and its importance. Limitations Even though this project yielded many interesting findings, it is important to remember its limitation s , especially its limitations in being able to generalize the findings to the entire Auraria Campus stu dent population.

PAGE 32

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 32 First, UCD students, specifically UCD graduate students, were over represented . This could be for a couple reasons. The capstone student was a UCD student so name and email recognition could have played a role. T he survey was also shared by nearly every UCD department via an all student email list which was not the case at MSU and CCD even though all departments were contacted . Plus, a ccording to a marketing contact at Auraria Campus , graduate students tend to reply more than undergraduate students (E. Marsh, personal communication, October 10, 2018). Second, students that already care about sustainability were probably more likely to take the time to complete a survey about sustainability, which means students that care less about environ mental sustainability may have been under represented. However, this project did exceed the response rates of a similar published research stud y and is still important in the larger context of the campus (Emanuel & Adams, 2011) . Finally, the statistical tests and sample size were a limitation. Even with over 600 responses, some groups such as alumni were small, which makes them difficult to compare to other groups. Many of the groups also did not have an ideal distribution that meets the a ssumption of equal variances for the statistical tests that were performed. Considerations for Future Studies This capstone project could be expanded upon in a few ways. With more time, it may have been possible to establish a relationship with some key o utreach contacts at all three institutions to streamline the outreach process. All of the schools, departments, and academic programs have email blasts and newsletters that are shared on different timelines, not all of which fit within the timeline of this project, so more time could have allowed for the survey to be shared in additional ways. This could have included it being shared in alumni emails to increase

PAGE 33

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 33 the number of alumni in the study. T hese approaches may have increased the response rate overall perhaps allowing the sample to be more representative of the whole student population and allowing for a better comparison between groups. Additional statistical tests and surveys may be beneficial to ASCP. The comparisons between groups did not control for any variable s and only two variables were compared at a time. Evaluating several variables together may yield new or different results. For example, it could be interesting to control the comparisons between groups concern f or the environment as the students that are most concerned may be more inclined to seek out ways to be involved in sustainability on campus. More advanced tests may also be able to address the limitations of unequal variances. Overtime, t he survey could be reused after ASCP has changed or added programs to gauge whether student perspectives are changing as a result. ASCP is about to invest in more solar energy on campus and start a large waste diversion project, so this survey could be repeated once those p rojects are completed to understand their effect. Conclusion This capstone study provides a baseline of student perceptions on sustainability at the Auraria Campus in Denver, Colorado. While awareness of ASCP was low, students were aware of its programs, were environmentally concerned, reported that sustainability on campus was important, regularly perform ed environmentally susta inable behaviors such as recycling, turning off lights, and using reusable water bottles , and were willing to perform more sustainable knowledge gaps, and based on th is project, ASCP could also pursue some targeted educational effort s . Regardless of what programs ASCP decides to pursue in the future, this information can serve as a starting point to inform those programs.

PAGE 34

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 34 References Alshuwaikhat, H. M. and Abubakar, I . (2008). An integrated approach to achieving campus sustainability: Assessment of the current campus environmental management practices. Journal of Cleaner Production , 16, 1777 1785. Auraria Higher Education Center. (2018). Retrieved from: https://www.ahec.edu/ Ben Eli, M. (2018). Sustainability: Definition and five core principles, a systems perspective. Sustainability Science . 13(5), 1337 1343. Campbell Arvai, C. (2015). Food related environmental beliefs and behaviors among university und ergraduates: A mixed methods study. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education , 16(3), 279 295. Campus sustainability. (2018). Auraria Higher Education Center . Retrieved from: https://www.ahec.edu/campus info/campus sustainability . Community College of Denver . Retrieved from: www.ccd.edu . Accessed 2 Nov. 2018. perceptions from green and non green universities. Journal of Cleaner Produc tion , 181, 473 482. Driza, P. and Park N. (2014). Occupant satisfaction in LEED certified higher education buildings. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment , 3(3), 223 236. inability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education , 12(1), 79 92. Fact Sheet. (2017). University of Colorado Denver . Retrieved from: http://www.ucdenver.edu/ about/WhoWeAre/Documents/CUDenver_facts.pdf

PAGE 35

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 35 Heeren, A. J., Singh, A. S., Zwickle, A., Koontz, T. M., Slagle, K. M., and McCreelry, A. C. (2016). Is sustainability knowledge half the battle?: An examination of sustainability knowledge, attitudes, norms, and efficacy to understand sustainable behavior s. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education . 17(5), 613 632. Herr, C. (2018). Auraria Sustainable Campus Program: 2008 2028 [PowerPoint slides]. Hoddinott, S. N. and Bass, M. J. (1986). The Dillman total design survey method: A sure fi re way to get high survey return rates. Canadian Family Physician , 32, 2366 2386. Hopkins, E. A. (2016). Barriers to adoption of campus green building policies. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment , 5(4), 340 351. Horhota, M., Asman, J., Stratton, J. P., and Halfacre, A. C. (2014). Identifying behavioral barriers to campus sustainability: A multi method approach. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education , 15(3), 343 358. Lambert, M. and Cushing, K. K. (2017). How low can you go? Understanding ecological footprint reduction in university students, faculty, and staff. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 18(7), 1142 1156. Lertpratchya, A. P., Besley, J. C., Zwickle, A., Takahas hi, B., and Whitley, C. T. (2017). Assessing the role of college as a sustainability communication channel. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education , 18(7), 1060 1075. Metropolitan State University of Denver . Retrieved from: www.msudenver.edu . Accessed 2 Nov. 2018. 2017/2018 Survey Results . (2018). Auraria Sustainable Campus Program . Unpublished data.

PAGE 36

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 36 Olson, L., Arvai, J., and Thorp, L. (2011). Mental models research to inform community outreach for a campus recycling program. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education , 12(4), 322 337. Owens, K. A. and Legere, S. (2015). What do we say when we talk about sustainability?: Analyzing faculty, staff and student definitions of sustainability at one American university. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education , 16(3), 367 384. Perrault, E. K. and Clark, S. K. (2018). Sustain ability attitudes and behavioral motivations of college students: Testing the extended parallel process model. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education , 19(1). 32 47. Sustainability primer. (2015). E nvironmental P rotection A gency . Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015 05/documents/ sustainability_primer_v7.pdf Sustainable development. (2018). General Assembly of the United Nations: President of the 65 th Session . Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/en/ga/pre sident/65/issues/sustdev.shtml Vedachalam, S. and Mancl, K. M. (2010). Water resources and wastewater reuse: Perceptions of students at The Ohio State University campus. Ohio Journal of Science , 110(5), 104 113. Whitley, C. T., Takahashi, B., Swickle, A., Besley, J. C., and Lertpratchya, A. P . (2018). Sustainability behaviors among college students: An application of the VBN theory. Environmental Education Research , 24(2), 245 262. Wilson, J. P. (2015). The triple bottom line: Undertaking an economic, social, and environmental retail sustainability strategy. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management , 43(4/5), 432 447.

PAGE 37

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 37 Appendix A Auraria Campus Sustainability Survey Please note that the survey will be created and distributed via Qualtrics, so this figure represents the content and order of the questions, not the formatting. Thank you for choosing to complete this brief survey about sustainability on the Auraria Camp us! Your responses are greatly appreciated. The purpose of this study is to gain information on how students at the Auraria Campus understand sustainability. The information provided in the survey will inform how sustainability efforts are implemented at the Auraria Campus and will be used for a confidential including your email address if you choose to provide it. All students from the Community College of Denver, Metropolitan State University of Denver, and the University of Colorado Denver who have attended or are currently attending classes at the Auraria are invited to participate. Participation is voluntary and can be stopped at any time. The survey consists of 9 questions followed by 6 questions about your academic experience. Thank you for your participation! 1. Please indicate your level of awareness of the Auraria Sustainable Campus Program before taking this survey. a. I was not aware that the Auraria Campus had a Sustaina bility Program. b. I was aware that the Auraria Campus had a Sustainability Program, but I was unsure of what it does. c. I was aware that the Auraria Campus had a Sustainability Program, and I was aware of its projects and programs, 2. Which of the following susta inability efforts are most important to you? Select up to three. a. Recycling b. Composting c. Solar or other renewable energy d. Energy Efficient Lighting e. Efficient Toilets, Urinals or Sinks f. Water Bottle Filling Stations g. Secure Bike Parking h. B Cycle or dockless bike share i. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations j. Educational Workshops k. Sustainability Conferences/Fairs l. Community Garden m. Other (optional open ended response)

PAGE 38

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 38 n. None of the above 3. To your knowledge, which of the following sustainability effor ts are being implemented on the Auraria Campus? Select all that apply. a. Recycling b. Composting c. Solar or other renewable energy d. Energy Efficient Lighting e. Efficient Toilets, Urinals or Sinks f. Water Bottle Filling Stations g. Secure Bike Parking h. B Cycle or dockless bike share i. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations j. Educational Workshops k. Sustainability Conferences/Fairs l. Community Garden m. Other (optional open ended response) n. None. I am not aware that any of these are being implemented. 4. Sustainability efforts should focus on: Check all that apply. a. Environmental conservation and stewardship b. Social consciousness and equity c. Economic responsibility d. None of the above 5. How often do you do the following: (Always, Most of the time, About half the time, Sometimes, Never) a. Use a reusable water bottle. b. Choose transportation with lower emissions (walking, biking, riding the bus). c. Turn off the lights when they are not in use. d. Recycle e. Compost How much d o you agree or disagree with the following statements? (Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Strongly Disagree) 6. I am concerned about environmental issues. 7. It is important that the Auraria Campus continue to become more sustainable (i.e. reducing our carbon footprint, conserving water, bike friendly, etc.). 8. I would be willing to adopt more sustainable behaviors into my everyday life (recycling, composting, biking, turning lights off, using a reusable water bottle, etc.). 9. Please respond to the following with one or more sentences : 10. What does sustainability mean to you? 11. What, if anything, motivates you to act sustainably? 12. Is there anything else you would like to tell us that is related to the Auraria Sustainabl e Campus Program ?

PAGE 39

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 39 Now we need some information about you to help us understand how different groups think about sustainability at Auraria Campus: 1. Which Auraria Campus school do/did you attend? a. Community College of Denver b. Metropolitan State University of Denver c. University of Colorado Denver 2. Are you currently an undergraduate student, student, PhD student, or alumni? a. Undergraduate student b. student c. PhD student d. Alumni i. Follow up: In what year did you graduate? 1. Dropdown of years, last option is 2003 or prior 3. How many years have you been, or were you, a student on the Auraria Campus ? a. Drop down of 1 through 6+ 4. Are , or were, you a full time or part time student? a. Full time b. Part time 5. What is your intended or competed field of study? a. (Open ended text box) 6. Email Address: 7. a. Yes b. No

PAGE 40

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 40 Appendix B Measurement Table Research Question Variable Measure Level of Measurement Survey Question Dependent Variables 1 ASCP Awareness Level of awareness of ASCP Ordinal 1 2 Sustainability Effort Awarenes s Awareness that a sustainability effort is being implemented at the Auraria Campus Nominal 3 3 Environmental Concern Level of concern for environmental issues Ordinal 6 4 Importance of Campus Sustainability Level of importance of increasing Auraria Campus sustainability Ordinal 7 5 Sustainability Effort Importance Whether or not a sustainability effort is three based on importance Nominal 2 6 Understanding of Sustainab ility Level of understanding Ordinal 9 7 Three Pillars Do students think sustainability should focus on the environment, social, or economic pillars of sustainability Nominal 4 8 Meaning of Sustainability What does sustainability mean to the student Nominal 10 9 Sustainable Behavior Frequency of performing certain sustainable behaviors Ordinal 5 a e 10 Willingness to Adopt New Behavior Willingness of the student to adopt new sustainable behaviors Ordinal 8 11 Motivation What motivates a student to act sustainably Nominal 11

PAGE 41

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 41 Research Question Variable Measure Level of Measurement Survey Question Independent Variables 12 School The school that the student attends or attended Nominal 1 12 Level of Education education Ordinal 2 12 Years on Campus The number of years the student has attended classes on campus Ordinal 3 12 Full/Part time Status The full or part time status of a student Nominal 4 12 Field of Study The intended or completed field of study of the student Nominal 5

PAGE 42

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 42 Appendix C Table 1 Respondent Frequency by Institution and Degree Status Undergraduate Master's PhD Alumni Total Community College of Denver 56 0 0 4 60 Metropolitan State University of Denver 171 9 1 8 189 University of Colorado Denver 65 241 34 18 358 607 Figure 1

PAGE 43

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 43 Table 2 Frequency and Percent of Student Awareness of ASCP Programs Program Frequency Percent of Total Recycling 534 89% Water Bottle Filling Stations 442 73% Secure Bike Parking 256 43% Water Efficiency 226 38% Energy Efficien t Lighting 195 32% B Cycle / Dockless Bikes 183 30% Composting 176 29% Renewable Energy 144 24% Community Garden 118 20% Educational Workshops 117 19% Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 102 17% Sustainability Conferences and Fairs 96 16% Not Aware of Any Programs 29 5% Total Number of Students 602 100% Figure 2 : Total number of ASCP programs of which students are aware

PAGE 44

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 44 Table 3 Frequency and Percent Three Most Important Programs Program Frequency Percent of Total Recycling 437 72% Renewable Energy 335 55% Water Bottle Filling Stations 289 48% Composting 145 24% Water Efficiency 138 23% Energy Efficient Lighting 136 22% Community Garden 86 14% Educational Workshops 71 12% Secure Bike Parking 52 9% Sustainability Conferences and Fairs 32 5% B C ycle / Dockless Bike Share 13 2% Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 13 2% None of the Programs are Important 5 1% Total 607 100% Table 4 Theme Frequency Percent of Total Long term thinking 121 26% Maintaining a resource 115 25% Reducing harm 80 17% Protecting the planet 69 15% Reducing waste 66 14% Using less 65 14% Recycling / Reusing 58 12% It is ethical, logical, and responsible 56 12% Balance / Equilibrium 55 12% Improving a resource 55 12% Not depleting a resource 48 10% Total 469 100%

PAGE 45

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 45 T able 5 Frequency and Percent of Students Performing Sustainable Behaviors Recycling Composting Lights Transportation Water Bottle Always 283 47% 87 14% 345 57% 134 22% 387 64% Most of the time 207 34% 79 13% 207 34% 177 29% 159 26% About half of the time 71 12% 71 12% 39 6% 104 17% 30 5% Sometimes 42 7% 165 27% 14 2% 143 24% 25 4% Never 4 1% 205 34% 2 0% 49 8% 6 1% Total 607

PAGE 46

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 46 Appendix D Statistical Output for Resea rch Question 12: Comparison by Groups Codebook Variable Stata Label Values or Explanation ASCP Awareness ASCP Awareness 1 = Not aware of ASCP 2 = Aware of ASCP, but unsure of its projects 3 = Aware of ASCP and its projects Sustainability Effort Awareness K Total The total number of ASCP programs that the student was aware of. Environmental Concern Environmental Concern 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Somewhat disagree 3 = Neither agree not disagree 4 = Somewhat agree 5 = Strongly disagree Importance of Camp us Sustainability AC More Sustainable 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Somewhat disagree 3 = Neither agree not disagree 4 = Somewhat agree 5 = Strongly disagree Sustainability Effort Importance I Recycling I Composting I Renewables I Energy efficient lighting I Efficient toilets, etc. I Water bottle stations I Bike parking I B cycle I EV I Educational Workshops I Conferences Fairs I Garden Understanding of Sustainability UnderstandingSustainability 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Somewhat disagree 3 = Neither agree not disagree 4 = Somewhat agree 5 = Strongly disagree Three Pillars TP Environment TP Social TP Economic TP All 0 = The pillar(s) was(were) not selected 1 = The pillar(s) was(were) selected

PAGE 47

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 47 Variable Stata Label Values or Explanation Meaning of Sustainability Long term Maintaining a resource Reducing harm or damage Sustainable Behavior Reusable water bottle Lower emissions transportation Turn off the lights Recycle Compost 1 = Never 2 = Sometimes 3 = About half the time 4 = Most of the time 5 = Always Willingness to Adopt New Behavior Willingness 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Somewhat disagree 3 = Neither agree not disagree 4 = Somewhat agree 5 = Strongly disagree Motivation Negative impacts Future Wanting to help the planet 0 School School 1 = CCD 2 = MSU 3 = UCD Level of Education Level of Education 1 = Undergraduate 3 = PhD 4 = Alumni Years on Campus Years 1 = 1 2 = 2 3 = 3 4 = 4 5 = 5 6 = 6+ Full/Part time Status Full time 0 = Part time 1 = Full time Field of Study Field of Study 1 = Architecture and design 2 = Business 3 = Communications 4 = Education 5 = Engineering 6 = Formal sciences 7 = Health sciences 8 = Humanities 9 = Natural sciences 10 = Other 11 = Social sciences

PAGE 48

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 48 School ASCP Awareness. Sustainability Effort Awareness. Environmental Concern. Importance of Campus Sustainability.

PAGE 49

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 49 Sustainability Effort Importance . Recycling. Composting. Renewable Energy. Efficient Lighting. Water Efficiency. Water Bottle Filling Stations.

PAGE 50

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 50 Secure Bike Parking. B Cycle and Dockless Bikes Electric Vehicle Charging Stations . Educational Workshops. Conferences and Fairs

PAGE 51

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 51 Community Garden. Understanding of Sustainability. Three Pillars. Environmental. Social. Economic. All Three Pillars.

PAGE 52

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 52 Meaning of Sustainability. Long term Thinking. Maintaining a Resource. Reducing Harm. Sustainable Behavior. Reusable Water Bottle.

PAGE 53

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 53 Choosing Lower Emissions Transportation. Turning Off the Lights. Recycling. Compost ing .

PAGE 54

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 54 Willingness to Adopt New Behavior. Motivation. Seeing Negative Impacts. Concern for the Future Wanting to Help the Planet.

PAGE 55

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 55 Level of Education ASCP Awareness. Sustainability Effort Awareness. Environmental Concern. Importance of Campus Sustainability.

PAGE 56

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 56 Sustainability Effort Importance Recycling. Composting. Renewable Energy. Efficient Lighting. Water Efficiency. Water Bottle Filling Stations.

PAGE 57

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 57 Secure Bike Parking. B Cycle and Dockless Bikes. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. Educational Workshops. Conferences and Fairs. Community Garden.

PAGE 58

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 58 Understanding of Sus tainability. Three Pillars. Environmental. Social. Economic. All Three Pillars. Meaning of Sustainability. Long term Thinking.

PAGE 59

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 59 Maintaining a Resource. Reducing Harm. Sustainable Behavior. Reusable Water Bottle. Choosing Lower Emissions Transportation. Turning Off the Lights. Recycling.

PAGE 60

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 60 Compost ing . Wi llingness to Adopt New Behavior. Motivation. Seeing Negative Impacts. Concern for the Future Wanting to Help the Planet.

PAGE 61

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 61 Years on Campus ASCP Awareness. Sustainability Effort Awareness. Environmental Concern. Importance of Campus Sustainability. Sustainability Effort Importance Recycling. Composting.

PAGE 62

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 62 Renewable Energy. Efficient Lighting. Water Efficiency. Water Bottle Filling Stations. Secure Bike Parking. B Cycle and Dockless Bikes.

PAGE 63

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 63 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. Educational Workshops. Conferences and Fairs. Community Garden. Understanding of Sustainability. Three Pillars. Environmental.

PAGE 64

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 64 Social. Economic. All Three Pillars. Meaning of Sustainability. Long term Thinking. Maintaining a Resource. Reducing Harm.

PAGE 65

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 65 Sustainable Behavior. Reusable Water Bottle. Choosing Lower Emissions Transportation. Turning Off the Lights. Recycling. Compost ing . Willingness to Adopt New Behavior.

PAGE 66

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 66 Motivation. Seeing Negative Impacts. Concern for the Future Wanting to Help the Planet.

PAGE 67

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 67 Fulltime Status ASCP Awareness. Sustainability Effort Awareness. Environmental Concern. Importance of Campus Sustainability. Sustainability Effort Importance Recycling. Composting.

PAGE 68

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 68 Renewable Energy. Efficient Lighting. Water Efficiency. Water Bottle Filling Stations. Secure Bike Parking. B Cycle and Dockless Bikes.

PAGE 69

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 69 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. Educational Workshops. Conferences and Fairs. Community Garden. Understanding of Sustainability. Three Pillars. Environmental.

PAGE 70

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 70 Social. Economic. All Three Pillars. Meaning of Sustainability. Long term Thinking. Maintaining a Resource. Reducing Harm.

PAGE 71

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 71 Sustainable Behavior. Reusable Water Bottle. Choosing Lower Emissions Transportation. Turning Off the Lights. Recycling. Compost ing . Willingness to Adopt New Behavior.

PAGE 72

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 72 Motivation. Seeing Negative Impacts. Concern for the Future Wanting to Help the Planet.

PAGE 73

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 73 Field of Study ASCP Awareness. Sustainability Effort Awareness. Environmental Concern. Importance of Campus Sustainability.

PAGE 74

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 74 Sustainability Effort Importance Recycling. Composting. Renewable Energy. Efficient Lighting.

PAGE 75

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 75 Water Efficiency. Water Bottle Filling Stations. Secure Bike Parking. B Cycle and Dockless Bikes.

PAGE 76

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 76 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. Educational Workshops. Conferences and Fairs. Community Garden.

PAGE 77

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 77 Understanding of Sustainability. Three Pillars. Environmental. Social. Economic.

PAGE 78

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 78 All Three Pillars. Meaning of Sustainability. Long term Thinking. Maintaining a Resource. Reducing Harm.

PAGE 79

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 79 Sustainable Behavior. Reusable Water Bottle. Choosing Lower Emissions Transportation. Turning Off the Lights. Recycling.

PAGE 80

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 80 Compost ing . Willingness to Adopt New Behavior. Motivation. Seeing Negative Impacts. Concern for the Future

PAGE 81

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES OF SUSTAINABILITY 8 1 Wanting to Help the Planet.

PAGE 82

Form Name: capstone repository permission Submission Time: December 3, 2018 4:20 pm Browser: Firefox 63.0 / Windows 7 IP Address: 129.19.92.13 Unique ID: 459068569 Location: 40.087799072266, -105.37349700928 Description Area SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS ELECTRONIC CAPSTONE REPOSITORY Description Area Dear Capstone Author and Capstone Client:The Auraria Library Digital Library Program is a nonprofit center responsible for the collection and preservation of digital resources for education.The capstone project, protected by your copyright, and/or created under the supervision of the client has been identified as important to the educational mission of the University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library.The University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library respectfully requests non-exclusive rights to digitize the capstone project for Internet distribution in image and text formats for an unlimited term. Digitized versions will be made available via the Internet, for onand off-line educational use, with a statement identifying your rights as copyright holder and the terms of the grant of permissions.Please review, sign and return the follow Grant of Permissions. Please do not hesitate to call me or email your questions.Sincerely,Matthew C. MarinerAuraria LibraryDigital Collections ManagerMatthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303.556.5817 Grant of Permissions Description Area In reference to the following title(s): Author (Student Name) Lauren Deriaz Title (Capstone Project Title) Student Perspectives of Sustainability at the Auraria Campus Publication Date 12.3.2018 I am the: Client Description Area As client of the copyright holder affirm that the content submitted is identical to that which was originally supervised and that the content is suitable for publication in the Auraria Library Digital Collections.

PAGE 83

Description Area This is a non-exclusive grant of permissions for on-line and off-line use for an indefinite term. Off-line uses shall be consistent either for educational uses, with the terms of U.S. copyright legislation's "fair use" provisions or, by the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library, with the maintenance and preservation of an archival copy. Digitization allows the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library to generate imageand text-based versions as appropriate and to provide and enhance access using search software. This grant of permissions prohibits use of the digitized versions for commercial use or profit. Signature Your Name Chris Herr Date 12.3.2018 Email Address ATTENTION Description Area Grant of Permissions is provided to: Auraria Digital Library Program / Matthew C. MarinerAuraria Library1100 Lawrence | Denver, CO 80204matthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303-556-5817

PAGE 84

Form Name: capstone repository permission Submission Time: December 9, 2018 10:24 pm Browser: Chrome 70.0.3538.110 / Windows 8.1 IP Address: 75.166.47.9 Unique ID: 461334986 Location: 39.752498626709, -104.99949645996 Description Area SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS ELECTRONIC CAPSTONE REPOSITORY Description Area Dear Capstone Author and Capstone Client:The Auraria Library Digital Library Program is a nonprofit center responsible for the collection and preservation of digital resources for education.The capstone project, protected by your copyright, and/or created under the supervision of the client has been identified as important to the educational mission of the University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library.The University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library respectfully requests non-exclusive rights to digitize the capstone project for Internet distribution in image and text formats for an unlimited term. Digitized versions will be made available via the Internet, for onand off-line educational use, with a statement identifying your rights as copyright holder and the terms of the grant of permissions.Please review, sign and return the follow Grant of Permissions. Please do not hesitate to call me or email your questions.Sincerely,Matthew C. MarinerAuraria LibraryDigital Collections ManagerMatthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303.556.5817 Grant of Permissions Description Area In reference to the following title(s): Author (Student Name) Lauren Deriaz Title (Capstone Project Title) Student Perspectives of Sustainability at the Auraria Campus Publication Date December 3, 2018 I am the: Author (student) Description Area As copyright holder or licensee with the authority to grant copyright permissions for the aforementioned title(s), I hereby authorize Auraria Library and University of Colorado Denver to digitize, distribute, and archive the title(s) for nonprofit, educational purposes via the Internet or successive technologies.

PAGE 85

Description Area This is a non-exclusive grant of permissions for on-line and off-line use for an indefinite term. Off-line uses shall be consistent either for educational uses, with the terms of U.S. copyright legislation's "fair use" provisions or, by the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library, with the maintenance and preservation of an archival copy. Digitization allows the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library to generate imageand text-based versions as appropriate and to provide and enhance access using search software. This grant of permissions prohibits use of the digitized versions for commercial use or profit. Signature Your Name Lauren Deriaz Date December 9, 2018 Email Address ATTENTION Description Area Grant of Permissions is provided to: Auraria Digital Library Program / Matthew C. MarinerAuraria Library1100 Lawrence | Denver, CO 80204matthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303-556-5817