From our analysis of the open-ended survey question, three major themes emerged. First, respondents expressed skepticism regarding the university’s efforts. Second, they perceived inadequate attention to social and economic dimensions of sustainability. Third, students wished for greater support to make sustainable everyday life decisions easier. Details of these themes are below.
3.2.2. Perceived Initiative Failures
There are three recurring sustainability initiatives that respondents often perceived as failed attempts. Respondents used these failures as justifications for why they did not seem to trust the administration’s abilities to implement sustainability into practice in the future. Commonly referenced was the ban on plastic water bottles on campus. Respondents believed the ban did not go far enough in its action, banning only single-use water bottles while still allowing other drinks (soda, juice, etc.) coming in plastic bottles to be sold in campus stores. One respondent said, “Plastic soda bottles in vending machines, but no water in vending machines can encourage students to drink more sugary drinks.” Others targeted the 2011 smoking ban as the cause of cigarette butt pollution across campus. In their eyes, these initiatives have failed to truly promote sustainable practice on campus, instead creating more litter with the smoking ban and unhealthy drink choices with the water bottle ban.
Another commonly referenced perceived failure in sustainability was the “Eco-Machine” (an artificial ecosystem designed to remediate effluent) located in the home of the university’s school of environmental science [
40]. Some respondents felt that in their eyes, the way the benefits of this machine are portrayed on campus tours and in promotional materials is exaggerated and at times untrue; according to some, the Eco-Machine is currently not in operation and does not treat the wastewater of the building it is housed within as respondents say tours suggest. Respondents were adamant in talking about how the Eco-Machine no longer works but is still actively promoted as a symbol of the sustainability of the university.
Respondents often referenced the university’s investment of fossil fuels and the perceived secrecy of how UVM’s endowment is being spent. Of the 81 responses mentioning student skepticism, 27 respondents explicitly mentioned divestment from fossil fuels as an issue of importance to them. In these responses, there was a high level of distrust for the administration because of this; as one student put it, “as long as we have any money to or from big oil and UVM, we’re not being sustainable.” Another respondent felt it was the universities duty to show students where their tuition money is going—“I have little understanding of what the university invests in and would prefer that to be not only easily accessed but should be advertised”.
3.2.3. Dimension Imbalance
Out of the 151 open-ended comments that respondents made, 39 were regarding an imbalance in the way sustainability is discussed and put into action on campus. Overwhelmingly, students felt environmental sustainability overshadowed the equally important aspects of social and economic sustainability.
Eighteen respondents specifically mentioned lack of emphasis on social sustainability/social justice. None of the respondents that brought up this concept felt the university system had social and environmental sustainability in balance on campus and in the classroom. Respondents felt social sustainability is “often overlooked by both staff and students.” This respondent went on to say, “It’s easy to be conscientious about the environment, but harder when it comes to race, diversity, social equity, etc. The nature of these topics can often be harder to discuss and implement but are arguably more important.” Other respondents were more critical in their assessment of lacking social sustainability, claiming the university purposely overlooks issues of racial justice and sexual assault on campus. Overall, respondents felt the university would be a better place if there were more diversity and more recognition of social sustainability from the administration.
Twenty-one respondents felt the university was failing to bring economic sustainability in balance. Most of the students addressed this imbalance through the inherently unsustainable cost of tuition at the UVM. The affordability issue for many respondents was critical; as one respondent put it, “It’s hard to consider UVM “economically sustainable” as an out-of-state student with a tuition cost of $55,000.” One respondent, who felt their sustainability course properly outlined economic sustainability, wished other students had the opportunity to understand sustainability in the way they had been taught it. This was the only respondent to respond that they were pleased with their education regarding the topic of economic sustainability.
Out of the 151 open-ended comments that respondents made, 63 responses emphasized having the sustainable choice be the easiest choice for students in their day-to day lives. We were able to categorize comments relating to the larger theme into relating to the following sub-categories: sustainable education, student engagement, and green infrastructure.
As previously mentioned, UVM students, as of the Fall of 2015 are required to take a course specifically relating to sustainability. Students can fulfill this requirement by completing one of 50 classes tagged with the Sustainability designation [
50]. Within the surveyed sample, respondents had mixed feelings on the focus of the sustainability requirement. A total of 4/13 of respondents who brought up their sustainability education were grateful for the academic focus on sustainability; the other respondents felt that the current system does not focus adequately on sustainability. One respondent said “Why are sustainability requirement classes barely even about sustainability? There should be specific classes on sustainability.” Some respondents felt that their education was not applied—some could only understand sustainability from an academic perspective or they wished that their courses were more connected to their university and local communities. As one respondent suggested, the university should, “teach or advertise to students what they can do on an individual level to help UVM be more sustainable,” in order to put theory and concept into actual practice.
Ten student respondents felt that either there were not sufficient opportunities to engage with sustainability on campus in a meaningful way or that if these opportunities did exist, they were not publicized in an effective way. Out of this lack of engagement came a lack of student knowledge specifically of the status and success of campus sustainability initiatives. One respondent recognized their lack of knowledge, saying “these questions made me realize I don’t know very much about UVM’s sustainability practices.” Another summed up the situation by saying:
“UVM clearly has a lot invested in being sustainable but it seems to me like there is a lack of student knowledge on campus sustainability efforts and even less student involvement within those efforts. I just think with sustainability being so important here, there shouldn’t be a disconnect with the students who play a large part in making UVM sustainable.”
These respondents felt that the lack of engagement opportunity was to the detriment of both the individuals and the system as a whole. Three respondents specifically cited off-campus students as a demographic left out of the sustainability initiatives of the university.
One of the most visible sustainability initiatives on campus has been the push for more green infrastructure. This has taken the form of natural gas and electric buses, LEED-certified buildings, solar panels, widespread compost bins, and even a new bike share program. These pieces of infrastructure were referenced by 21 open-ended respondents. With regards to a new science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) laboratory finished in 2017, one respondent said, “The University talks of sustainability, yet the STEM complex does not have a single solar panel or related technology.” The lack of solar and other renewable energy sources was common among these respondents. Others questioned the tradeoff between new energy-efficient green building projects and the effects/costs of replacing/renovating older, less sustainable buildings.
Another critically important and ever-present aspect of student life on-campus is the process of waste sorting. Despite efforts to cut down on food waste, several respondents felt food and packaging waste were some of the least sustainable activities taking place on campus. To curb this, one respondent suggested more educational opportunities to learn about personal food waste in dining halls. One respondent asked for a fully-compostable food packaging system that can be discarded in locations throughout campus, not just where food is sold. That same respondent said the reusable packaging program, Eco-Ware, was not working well enough to offset other single-use packaging across campus. Respondents were split in their blame of systematic unsustainable food choices; some blamed the university, others blamed the food service provider Sodexo, but none of the respondents placed most of the blame on students themselves.
Some respondents brought up the harmful waste produced by the campus-wide smoking ban. Respondents demanded receptacles for cigarette butts on-campus despite the smoking ban, allowing smokers to dispose of butts as opposed to the current practice of littering. They felt the waste being disposed of improperly outweighed the positive aspects of the ban.
Green transportation options were also brought up frequently. Two respondents felt that the current bus system was flawed in usability and green energy usage. One respondent wished there were a greater incentive for carpooling on campus, potentially in the form of partnerships with local carpooling companies. Others wished for more bicycle infrastructure. As on respondent put it, “A possible way to make improve sustainability at UVM could be to increase student bike storage. This would encourage more students to use bikes as transport, lowering the college’s carbon footprint.” Some asked for a bike share program, which, since the collection of this survey data, has been implemented on campus.
There were a few notable differences in qualitative responses by college of affiliation. Higher percentages of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Arts and Sciences and Nursing students advocate for divestment from fossil fuels than their respective percentages in the sample. Education students disproportionately advocated for transparency. Agriculture and Life Sciences students were more likely to mention initiative failures; Arts and Sciences were more likely to mention waste disposal as an issue.