A Study of Sustainability Concepts for Developing Green Universities in Thailand

Abstract

Developing universities to become green and sustainable universities is important. This is in line with the world’s sustainable development guidelines. In developing a university towards being green and sustainable, different sustainability assessment criteria have been used, including the UI GreenMetric, GRI, STARS, AUN, THE’S Impact Ranking, and AISHE. Each criterion is designed in a broad-spectrum manner that is not specific. Therefore, this research aims to develop sustainable and green university assessment indicators that suit the national context in Thailand, both in terms of the size and location of universities. Based on the criteria from the UI GreenMetric, there are six categories, totaling 51 indicators. Thus, this study aims to analyze the weaknesses and strengths of each indicator using a questionnaire distributed by the Sustainable University Network of Thailand to all 36 universities and to organize a meeting with sustainability experts (focus group) in each area. To obtain appropriate indicators and to prioritize each indicator, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and weighted arithmetic mean (WAM) method were used to develop an index of sustainability assessment criteria (GU SI) suitable for the Thai context. The results of this study show that the newly developed GU SI comprises seven aspects, including a total of 27 indicators. These are criteria that can be used to assess the sustainability of small, medium, and large universities. They are not complex, are straightforward to use, and more importantly reflect the Thai context. By applying these new sustainability assessment criteria, it was found that the universities sampled in this study yielded significantly high scores. This study is limited by its application of sustainability assessments to only universities in Thailand. Though there are different contexts across different Thai universities, the proposed indicators can still be used to evaluate the sustainability of universities in Thailand.

1. Introduction

At present, natural resources in the environment are decreasing in quantity. The cause is that human use of natural resources has increased beyond the recovery capability of the ecosystem. A study of the environmental performance of universities, Patiphan, K. (2020) [1] found that universities are organizations that play an important role in producing graduates. To progress towards a green society and cultivate energy efficiently, environmental awareness is, therefore, important in creating a positive environmental attitude, which is in line with the sustainable development goals of the UI GreenMetric. Phrut, S. (2012) [2] found that during the past decade, there has been serious environmental degradation. This is one of the main obstacles to sustainable development. As development in the past has increased environmental destruction and created social problems, especially in terms of differences or inequalities in society, the 12th National Economic and Social Development Plan, B.E. 2017–2021, was formulated, which embraces the philosophy of sufficiency economy for national development By preparing the country to move towards balance and sustainability, there are limitations to development that need to be considered in many areas in Thailand. One of these limitations is related to natural resources and the environment.

Due to rapid deterioration, development must be carried out under the principle of environmental friendliness and in line with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The 12th National Economic and Social Development Plan aims to preserve, restore, and utilize natural resources sustainably and fairly. The SDG related to the environment is Goal 3: create good environmental quality, reduce pollution, and reduce impacts on people’s health and the ecosystem. This goal emphasizes the management of solid waste and hazardous waste, restoring the quality of water sources, and solving air quality problems to create good environmental quality for citizens and communities. Piyamat, S. and Somthip, D. (2009) [3] stated that developing a university to be a sustainable and green university is becoming an important issue of operations that is of widespread concern today. Many universities have adopted this concept to reduce environmental problems believing that higher education leads to the creation of capable and responsible people and that knowledge is what will make a person better or satisfy the needs and curiosity of those who will become adults.

More than 300 universities from all over the world are now committed to the Higher Education Sustainability Initiative (HESI), which promotes sustainable development activities in partnership with various UN actors [4]. Therefore, universities not only consider the quality of education, but also aim to gain a competitive advantage by creating a campus environment that is “environmentally friendly to students as well. It should be noted that investments in sustainability also have the potential to create additional benefits for universities in terms of significant cost reductions over the long term.

Many institutions, such as the institution that launches the UI GreenMetric, publish sustainability reports for universities. The UI Green Metric’s aim is to rank universities across the world for activities related to green campuses and sustainability [5]. The evaluation criteria of this ranking system have been updated every year since its inception and release. This has motivated universities to adopt sustainability practices in their management. Moreover, the UI GreenMetric dataset itself has been the subject of various research studies [6]. In a previous study, the influence of national environmental guidelines on the relationship between being a green university and academic performance was also found. This study used university rankings from four well-known academic ranking systems: the Academic Ranking of World Universities (AR-WU), the QS World University Rankings (QS), the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE), and the National Taiwan University Rankings (NTU).

The current research study is an empirical study on how a university’s sustainability practices are affected by its UI GreenMetric (GM) score. This research study is the first attempt to link GM rankings with academic rankings. The findings are expected to help fill an existing research gap by providing valuable insights into the promotion of green university policies. The UI GreenMetric sub-dimensions are also important in explaining the results and academic standings of universities. The results of further analysis indicate that the environmental performance of the country in which a university is located moderates the relationship between university sustainability and academic performance. Thus, this study marks the first attempt in illustrating the relationship between the UI GreenMetric, a well-known academic ranking system, and academic scores. The results of this study also support the idea that sustainability can be considered another dimension when evaluating university success and should be included in the evaluation criteria for a more systematic ranking system. According to Lukman et al. (2009) [7,8,9], this century is widely accepted as the Asian era. With Asia becoming a global hub for both production and consumption [10,11], the consumption trends in Asia are rapidly shifting towards material wealth. This is driven by a combination of increasing urbanization and the rapid transition from low- to middle-income populations [12,13]

There are three distinct and interconnected environmental challenges: climate change, loss of biodiversity, and emissions. These environmental challenges are also known as the triple planetary crises, which pose a significant threat to human well-being, economic and social systems, and long-term global sustainability. Therefore, urgent and coordinated global actions are needed [14,15]. Actions to mitigate climate change-related environmental impacts are needed. Such impacts are expected to cause cumulative damages of approximately USD 8 trillion by 2050, reduce the global gross domestic product (GDP) by 3%, and disproportionately affect poor regions [16]. Asia is also trying to deal with these three different environmental crises, which pose a unique challenge to the continent [17]. On the other hand, Asia’s economic growth shows a positive trajectory. With its GDP growth estimated at 5.8% in 2021 [18,19], this highlights the importance of Asian member states.

This study aims to explore the concept of being a sustainable and green university in the context of Thai universities. The results will benefit Thai universities and society in supporting sustainable national development. This study comprised a survey study in which a group of 36 universities in Thailand answered a questionnaire about sustainability, and focus groups were held with sustainability experts to derive appropriate indicators using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and weighted arithmetic mean (WAM). A weighted sustainability assessment was used to develop an index of new sustainability assessment criteria (GU SI), which includes seven areas: (1) location and infrastructure, (2) energy and climate change, (3) water management, (4) waste management, (5) transportation, (6) education, and (7) indoor air quality. There are 27 indicators in total, which are indicators used to assess the sustainability of small, medium, and large universities in the Thai context.

2. Materials and Methods

This study aims to explore the concept of being a green university following existing domestic and international guidelines; examine the criteria and indicators for being a sustainable university; review some examples of green universities in Thailand and other countries; analyze the gaps and constraints in the current context of Thai universities; and propose recommendations to develop appropriate guidelines for building green universities in Thailand. The process is described in detail below.

2.1. Selection and Quantification of Basic Sustainability Indicators

The Sustainable University Assessment System is a system that compares the results of environmental management in U.K. higher education institutions to support sustainable development. Most criteria systems come in the form of ratings of different ranking factors that have been developed for universities in different regions or continents. Details of the indicators used to rank sustainable universities are discussed in the following paragraphs.

For the People & Planet University League, which was formed by a campaign of student groups coming together to protect the environment, their criteria rank the policies and practices of U.K. universities in terms of sustainability and evaluate the planning, policies, management, and practices of university offices based on a network of 13 factors and criteria [20].

The International Sustainable Campus Network (ISCN) is a global platform that supports leading universities in the exchange of information, ideas, and best practices for sustainable university operations and the integration of sustainability in research. The ISCN has three goals in balance: social goals, economic goals, and environmental goals.

The U.S. Green Building Criteria Council (USGBC) introduced their Sustainable Universities Criteria in 2018 under their roadmap to a green campus, in which universities should be higher education communities that are constantly improving energy efficiency, conserving resources, enhancing the quality of the environment by educating for sustainability, and creating healthy living and learning environments. By using the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)’s green building certification framework to develop green universities and a sustainability plan for universities, the USGBC proposes six approaches for experience and learning in sustainability.

The UI GreenMetric World University Rankings,conducted by the University of Indonesia, Indonesia is based on the concept that leading universities produce the next generation of leaders that will have to take on social responsibility for the environment. The UI GreenMetric results contribute to social awareness of development in various fields, along with environmental sustainability, and help change people’s lifestyles to participate in conserving energy and natural resources in a valuable way based on the Three Es principle (environment, economy, and equity). Ranking is also voluntary. Universities wishing to be ranked must first submit relevant information to the University of Indonesia for evaluation. The UI GreenMetric is divided into six main categories,location and infrastructure, energy and climate change, waste management, water management, transportation, and education, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. UI GreenMetric score ratings.

Items	Criteria	Percentage of All Scores
1	Setting and infrastructure	15%
2	Energy and climate change	21%
3	Waste management	18%
4	Water management	10%
5	Transportation	18%
6	Education	18%
Total		100%

Source: UI GreenMetricWorld University Rankings, 2017.

The Sustainable University Network of Thailand also has their own criteria for a sustainable university. It mainly aims to create a balance of basic elements across three dimensions, namely the economic dimension, the environmental dimension (ecology), and the social dimension (social).

Among the different ranking systems, the UI GreenMetric ranking system is a prime example of a tool for university rankings that focuses on sustainability and is a rating system that can be used as a guide for universities to achieve sustainability. Additionally, Ronnachai and Hollmann (2016) [4] suggest that universities should use the criteria set out in the UI GreenMetric World University Rankings to achieve better sustainability and improve quality of life. More than 619 universities were included in the UI GreenMetric’s global rankings in 2017.

Table 1 illustrates the percentage of each category in the UI GreenMetric rankings of green universities, in which the “setting and infrastructure” category includes indicators such as the ratio of open space to total campus area. The ratio of open space to total campus area is used for planting trees, and according to a university’s budget for sustainability efforts, other areas on the campus could also be used as water absorption areas or forested campus areas. The “energy and climate change” category includes indicators such as the use of energy-saving equipment in proportion to the total electricity consumption per population, the implementation of smart building projects, and the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The “waste management” category includes waste management projects, such as waste recycling, toxic waste management, and wastewater treatment. There are also indicators regarding reduction in the use of paper and plastic on campus.

For the “water management” category, there are indicators such as the reuse of wastewater and the use of treated water. The indicators in the “transportation” category consist of reducing private parking spaces, launching transportation initiatives to reduce the number of personal vehicles on campus and promote the use of bicycles, and enacting pedestrian policies on campus. The “education” category includes indicators such as the proportion of sustainability courses to all courses/modules, sustainability activities, the existence of sustainability websites, and the ratio of sustainability research funding to total research funding.

The UI GreenMetric university ranking system aims at ranking world universities for their activities related to achieving a green campus and sustainability. This ranking system was introduced by the University of Indonesia (UI) in 2010. Its evaluations are based on annual survey data collected from universities all over the world. The rankings are published every December on its own website, relying on data provided by universities between May and October. The sub-dimensions, their weights, and the indicators used within the scope of each sub-dimension (extracted from the UI GreenMetric website) are provided in Table 2. A score in each of the given sub-dimensions is published together with a weighted average score calculated based on the given weights. Scores of each sub-dimension are calculated based on numerical records obtained from a survey, which mainly includes counts of things or responses on a scale, It should be noted that education and research (ED) scores refer to efforts in raising awareness on sustainability, such as having sustainability courses in the curricula or publishing research on sustainability or the environment.

Table 2. UI GreenMetric sub-dimensions.

	Factors	Weights (%)	Indicators
1	Setting and Infrastructure (SI)	15	The ratio of open space area to total area; area on campus covered in forest; area on campus covered in planted vegetation; area on campus for water absorbance; total open space area divided by total campus population; and university budget for sustainable efforts.
2	Energy and Climate Change (EC)	21	Usage of energy-efficient appliances; smart building implementation; number of renewable energy sources on campus; total electricity usage divided by total campus population (kWh per person); the ratio of renewable energy produced to total energy usage; elements of green building implementation as reflected in all construction and renovation policies; greenhouse gas emission reduction programs; and the ratio of total carbon footprint divided by total campus population.
3	Waste Management (WS)	18	Recycling program for university waste; program to reduce the use of paper and plastic on campus; organic waste treatment; inorganic waste treatment; toxic waste treatment; and sewage disposal.
4	Water Management (WR)	10	Water conservation program implementation; water recycling program implementation; use of water-efficient appliances (water tap, toilet flush, etc.); and treated water consumption.
5	Transportation (TR)	18	Total number of vehicles (cars and motorcycles) divided by total campus population; shuttle services; zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) policy on campus; ratio of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) to total campus population; ratio of parking area to total campus area; transportation programs designed to limit or decrease parking area on campus in the last three years (from 2015 to 2017); number of transportation initiatives to decrease private vehicles on campus; and pedestrian path policies on campus.
6	Education and Research (ED)	18	The ratio of sustainability courses to total number of courses/modules; the ratio of sustainability research funding to total research funding; number of scholarly publications on environment and sustainability; number of scholarly events related to environment and sustainability; number of student organizations related to environment and sustainability; existence of a university-run sustainability website; and existence of published sustainability reports.

The number of universities included in the UI GreenMetric rankings increases every year with the inclusion of new universities from different parts of the world. To date, the UI GreenMetric rankings include 617 universities from 80 different countries. The leading country is the United States of America, with 61 universities in the rankings as of 2017. The global distribution of universities in different regions based on the number of universities in the UI GreenMetric rankings is shown in Figure 1. The majority of the universities are located in Europe, East Asia, and North America.

Figure 1. Global distribution of universities in different regions in the UI GreenMetric rankings.

Since the selected basic sustainability indicators (BSIs) have different dimensions, it is necessary to quantify them as non-dimensional variables using an indicator value scale with scores of 1, 2, and 3 [21,22]. A qualitative value is assessed to obtain a quantitative value in the scoring of each indicator, and when the indicator values are in the same unit, normalization is not required. Here, the scoring criteria are determined using the following scale:

3.

Strong/excellent/maximum;

2.

Good/satisfactory/medium;

1.

Weak/unsatisfactory/minimum.

2.2. Determination of Indicators and Aspect Weights

In this study, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) methodology was used to obtain the indicator weights, and a case study was performed to illustrate the application of the suggested GU SI [21,23,24]. The AHP method developed by Saaty [24] involves the following steps:

(1)

Data for the individual comparison matrices are collected from a questionnaire survey. The questionnaire survey is designed to produce individual comparison matrices by relevant experts in the field, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Pairwise comparison of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP).

Criteria	A	B	C	D
A	1	X12	X13	X14
B	1/X12	1	X23	X24
C	1/X13	1/X23	1	X34
D	1/X14	1/X24	1/X34	1

(2)

After constructing a pairwise comparison matrix, weights can be calculated using the maximum eigenvalue vector method (MEVM) [21,25]. To validate the reliability of the AHP model, a consistency index is used to measure the comparison matrix. To calculate the consistency index (CI), the deviation from consistency is calculated as follows [21,25]:

$$CI=\frac{\lambda max-n}{n-1}$$

(1)

where λmax − n is the maximum eigenvalue of the comparison matrix. There are n rows and n columns in a comparison matrix.

(3)

The random index (RI) is identified to evaluate consistency. The RI is calculated following Saaty [25].

(4)

The consistency ratio (CR) is calculated.

The CR is calculated by using Equation (2). According to Saaty, a CR of less than 0.1 is acceptable [25].

$$\mathrm{C}\mathrm{R}=\frac{\mathrm{C}\mathrm{I}}{\mathrm{R}\mathrm{I}}$$

(2)

In the pairwise comparison, A, B, C, and D represent the indicators, and X12, X13, and X14 are compared to the values of the pairs of AB, AC, and AD, respectively. These values are obtained from a basic range of absolute numbers to capture human perceptions regarding qualitative and quantitative attributes. In this study, the questionnaire was designed using the nine-point method, as recommended by Saaty [24], and conformed to the pairwise comparison requirement of the AHP method based on the final list of indicators [4,23]. The values were also calculated based on the nine-point method, as recommended by Saaty [25].

2.3. Green University Sustainability Index Construction

To establish a sustainability index and obtain the final numerical results [21], the weighted arithmetic mean (WAM) method was used to aggregate the indicators into indices. A linear agglomeration function was used, and its expression is presented in Equation (3):

$$Q\left(q;w\right)=\sum _{i=1}^m{w}_i{q}_i$$

(3)

where q_i is the value of metric i and w_i is the weight of metric i.

A hierarchical model for the proposed GU SI is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 shows the aspects of setting and infrastructure (SI1), energy and climate change (SI2), waste management (SI3), water management (SI4), transportation (SI5), education (SI6), and indoor air quality (SI7). These aspects are represented by their respective general and basic indicators, i.e., general (GI_1,1…GI_1,m) and basic (B¹_1,1… B¹_m,n) indicators for setting and infrastructure; general (GI_2,1…GI_2,m) and basic (B²_1,1… B²_m,n) indicators for energy and climate change; general (GI_3,1…GI_3,m) and basic (B³_1,1… B³_m,n) indicators for waste management; general (GI_4,1…GI_4,m) and basic (B⁴_1,1… B⁴_m,n) indicators for water management; general (GI_5,1…GI_5,m) and basic (B⁵_1,1… B⁵_m,n) indicators for transportation; general (GI_6,1…GI_6,m) and basic (B⁶_1,1… B⁶_m,n) indicators for education; and lastly, general (GI_7,1…GI_7,m) and basic (B⁷_1,1… B⁷_m,n) indicators for indoor air quality [23].

Figure 2. A hierarchical scheme for the proposed GU SI.

For each university (A), the value of the GU SI is calculated by combining the baseline sustainability indicators and the general sustainability indicators for each aspect according to Equations (2)–(4):

$$({\mathrm{GUSI}}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{m}}{)}_{\mathrm{A}}=f[{{\mathrm{WB}}^{\mathrm{i}}}_{1,1} \mathrm{x} {\left({{\mathrm{BSI}}^{\mathrm{i}}}_{1,1}\right)}_{\mathrm{A}},\dots \dots ,{{\mathrm{WB}}^{\mathrm{i}}}_{1,\mathrm{n}} \mathrm{x} {\left({{\mathrm{BSI}}^{\mathrm{i}}}_{\mathrm{m},\mathrm{n}}\right)}_{\mathrm{A}}]$$

(4)

where:

• (GUSI_i,m)_A is the value of the general indicator m according to the GU SI’s sustainability aspect i for University A.
• (BSIⁱ_m,n) _A is the value of the basic indicator n that corresponds to the general indicator m and is associated with the GU SI’s sustainability aspect i for University A.
• WBⁱ_m,n is the weight of the basic indicator n for the general indicator m, which is associated with the GU SI’s sustainability aspect i.

$$({\mathrm{SI}}_{\mathrm{i}}{)}_{\mathrm{A}}=f[{\mathrm{WG}}_{\mathrm{i},1} \mathrm{x} {\left({\mathrm{GUSI}}_{1,1}\right)}_{\mathrm{A}},\dots \dots ,{\mathrm{WG}}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{m}} \mathrm{x} {\left({\mathrm{GUSI}}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{m}}\right)}_{\mathrm{A}}]$$

(5)

where:

• (SI_i)_A is the value of the GU SI’s sustainability aspect i for University A.
• (GI_i,m)A is the value of the general indicator m that corresponds to the GU SI’s sustainability aspect i for University A
• WG_i,m is the weight of the basic indicator m, which corresponds to the GU SI’s sustainability ity aspect i.

$$({\mathrm{SI}}_{\mathrm{GUSI}}{)}_{\mathrm{A}}={\sum }_{\mathrm{i}=1}^4{\mathrm{W}}_{\mathrm{i}}{\left(\mathrm{S}{\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{i}}\right)}_{\mathrm{A}}$$

(6)

where:

• (SI_GUSI)_A is the value of the GU SI for University A, assuming a value between 1 (less sustainable) and 3 (extremely sustainable); (SI_i)A is the value of the quality of each GU SI‘s sustainability aspect for University A; and Wi is the weight of each considered aspect.

3. Results

The determination of the study outcomes and the development of a framework in accordance with the process described in Section 2 are detailed below.

3.1. Selection and Quantification of Basic Sustainability Indicators

The collection and quantification of basic sustainability indicators follow the procedures mentioned in the previous section. A review of the process by eight specialists from public agencies, educational institutions, professional associations, and the industrial sector who had direct experience with the UI GreenMetric World University Rankings was made possible by holding a focus group to select 27 indicators for assessing the GU SI, as detailed in Table 4.

Table 4. Basic sustainability indicators in the proposed GU SI.

Aspect	General Indicator	Basic Indicator	Definition
1. Setting and infrastructure	Implementation and operation [26,27,28]	B11,1: proportion of open space area/population	SI1: proportion of open space per campus population
		B11,2: proportion of water absorption area	SI2: proportion of campus area used as water absorption area
		B11,3: proportion of total budget used as sustainability budget	SI3: percentage of university budget for sustainable development
2. Energy and climate change	Implementation and operation [26,27,28]	B21,1: proportion of usage of energy-saving devices	EC1: (continuous total number of No. 5 electrical equipment/total number of electrical equipment)*100
		B21,2: the ratio of total electricity consumption to campus population	EC2: electric energy used per year/population
		B21,3: proportion of renewable energy produced to energy consumption	EC3: (electric energy produced per year/total electrical energy used)*100
		B21,4: carbon footprint per capita	EC4: carbon emissions in 1 year/population
3. Waste managemen	Environmental impact [29,30,31]	B31,1: proportion of reduction in the use of paper and plastic on campus	WS1: (total paper and plastic reduction per year/total paper and plastic consumption)*100
		B31,2: proportion of the amount of waste within the university to be recycled	WS2: (amount of recycled waste per year/total amount of waste)*100
		B31,3: amount of waste per person per day	WS3: total amount of waste per day/population
4. Water management	Environmental impact [29,30,31]	B41,1: proportion of the amount of water that can be reduced by water conservation projects	WR1: (total water reduction per year/total water conservation projects per year)*100
		B41,2: proportion of wastewater reuse	WR2: (amount of wastewater recycled per year/total wastewater per year)*100
		B41,3: total water consumption per year/population	WR3: amount of water consumption within the university
5. Transportation	Environmental impact [29,30,31]	B51,1: proportion of reduction in the number of private cars on campus	TR1: (total number of private cars reduced per year/total number of private cars per year)*100.
		B51,2: proportion of electric car users on campus	TR2: (total number of electric cars per year/total number of private cars per year)*100
		B51,3: proportion of parking space to total university area	TR3: (total parking area per year/total number of private cars per year)*100.
6. Education		B61,1: the ratio of sustainability courses to all courses/curricula	ED1: (sustainability courses/all courses)*100
		B61,2: proportion of sustainability research funding to total research funding	ED2: (sustainability research grants/total research grants)*100
		B61,3: proportion of articles published on sustainability (previous 3 years)	ED3: (published articles on sustainability (in previous 3 years)/total published articles (previous 3 years))*100
		B61,4: proportion of sustainability activities (previous 3 years)	ED4: (sustainability activities (previous 3 years)/total activities (previous 3 years))*100
		B61,5: proportion of sustainability courses/total subjects	ED5: (sustainability course/all subjects)*100
7. Indoor air quality	Implementation and operation [28,32,33]	B71,1: temperature	IAQ 1: temperature measurement position of 24–26 degrees
		B71,2: relative humidity	IAQ2: relative humidity measurement position of 50–65%
		B71,3: carbon dioxide (CO2)	IAQ3: measurement location for CO2 not exceeding 1000 ppm
		B71,4: particulate matter with diameter less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5)	IAQ4: PM measurement location not exceeding 2.5 (24-hour average)
		B71,5: particulate matter with diameter less than 10 micrometers (PM10)	IAQ5: PM measurement location not exceeding 10 (average over 24 hours)
		B71,6: total volatile organic compounds (TVOCs)	IAQ6: TVOC measurement position not exceeding 1000 ppb

3.2. Determination of Indicator Weights

An AHP model was employed to assess the level of significance of the indicator weights for the GU SI’s criteria and aspects [4,22,29,33,34]. Individual comparison matrices were obtained from the questionnaires collected from 15 experts from selected UI GreenMetric world university ranking-certified universities. The analysis results are shown in Table 4 and Table 5. It can be seen that the weights of the aspects of setting and infrastructure, energy and climate change, waste management, water management, transportation, education, and indoor air quality are significant, and they are found to have a high-level impact on the GU SI at 20%, 25%, 10%, 10%, 10%, 10%, and 15%, respectively. This is followed by the aspect of setting and infrastructure at 23%, the aspect of energy and climate change at 35%, the aspect of waste management at 23%, the aspect of water management at 17%, the aspect of transportation at 11%, the aspect of education at 17%, and the aspect of indoor air quality at 17%. Considering the analytic hierarchy process results, the continuous benefit shown to be the most important is related to the aspect of energy and climate change, with a weight as high as 35%. With regard to the aspect of setting and infrastructure, commitment is the most important factor, with a weight of 23%. In terms of the commitment criteria, significant indicators are top management commitment and long-term strategic planning.

Table 5. Determination of the weights of the seven aspects of the GU SI via the AHP model.

Aspect	Statistics	Aspect	Statistics
AHP Model	Weight	AHP Model	Weight
W1: setting and infrastructure	0.20
W2: energy and climate change	0.20
W3: waste management	0.20
W4: water management	0.08
W5: transportation	0.10
W6: education	0.10
W7: indoor air quality	0.12
Average eigenvalue (λ)	7.17
Consistency ratio (CR)	0.03
Setting and infrastructure aspect	Weight	Energy and climate change aspect	Weight
B11,1: proportion of open space area/population	0.40	B21,1: proportion of usage of energy-saving devices	0.15
B11,2: proportion of water absorption area	0.40	B21,2: the ratio of total electricity consumption to campus population	0.15
B11,3: proportion of total budget used as sustainability budget	0.30	B21,3: proportion of renewable energy produced to energy consumption	0.35
Average eigenvalue (λ)	3.10	B21,4: carbon footprint per capita	0.35
Consistency ratio (CR)	0.05	Average eigenvalue (λ)	4.25
		Consistency ratio (CR)	0.08
Waste management aspect	Weight	Water management aspect	Weight
B31,1: proportion of reduction in the use of paper and plastic on campus	0.30	B41,1: proportion of amount of water that can be reduced by water conservation projects	030
B31,2: proportion of the amount of waste within the university to be recycled	0.30	B41,2: proportion of wastewater reuse	0.30
B31,3: amount of waste per person per day	0.40	B41,3: total water consumption per year/population	0.40
Average eigenvalue (λ)	3.59	Average eigenvalue (λ)	4.44
Consistency ratio (CR)	0.25	Consistency ratio (CR)	0.46
Transportation aspect	Weight	Education aspect	Weight
B51,1: proportion of reduction in the number of private cars on campus	0.30	B61,1:the ratio of sustainability courses to all courses/curricula	0.20
B51,2: proportion of electric car users on campus	0.30	B61,2: proportion of sustainability research funding to total research funding	0.20
B51,3: proportion of parking space to total university area	0.40	B61,3: proportion of articles published on sustainability (previous 3 years)	0.20
Average eigenvalue(λ)	5.77	B61,4: proportion of sustainability activities (previous 3 years)	0.20
Consistency ratio (CR)	0.64	B61,5: proportion of sustainability courses/total subjects	0.20
		Average Eigenvalue (λ)	5.22
		Consistency ratio (CR)	0.05
Indoor air quality aspect	Weight
B71,1: temperature	0.15
B71,2: relative humidity	0.15
B71,3: carbon dioxide (CO2)	0.15
B71,4: particulate matter with diameter less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5)	0.20
B71,5: particulate matter with diameter less than 10 micrometers (PM10)	0.20
B71,6: total volatile organic compounds (TVOCs)	0.15
Average eigenvalue (λ)	6.37
Consistency ratio (CR)	0.07

3.3. Survey and Assessment of Sustainability Indicators within a University Sample

To validate the above-mentioned framework in assessing the sustainability index of universities, a questionnaire was developed to survey staff of UI GreenMetric-certified universities on green university management. The questionnaire developed for the quantitative assessment of the basic indicators is shown in Table A1 of Appendix A. The results were obtained from workplace assessments and were calculated according to the GU SI. is shown in Table 4. The questionnaire and interview data were collected and analyzed from the end of 2017 to the beginning of 2019. The questionnaire was sent to 36 universities in Thailand that held a UI GreenMetric university ranking certification for at least one year. The assessment of qualitative score levels for each basic indicator required the evaluators’ understanding of the assessment and a sufficient amount of data to support data analysis. As a result, a great deal of time was spent on responding thoroughly to any questions about the questionnaire. The questionnaire was answered and returned by all 36 universities, resulting in a 100% response rate.

3.4. Index Construction

The assessment results for 27 sustainability indicators across 36 universities, together with the indicator weights obtained through the AHP model, were applied to evaluate the aggregate values of the sustainability indicators using the WAM method. The means of the sustainability indicators for each aspect are shown in Figure 3, and the calculation results for the aggregate values of the seven aspects in the GU SI are shown in Table A1 and Figure A1 and Figure A2 in Appendix A. The broader context of the GU SI for the 36 universities can also be more clearly seen in Figure 4.

Figure 3. The means of the basic sustainability indicators for 36 universities.

Figure 4. Score levels for the 7 aspects of the GU SI across 36 universities.

4. Discussion

This research study aimed to develop a comprehensive assessment method called the GU SI (Green University Sustainability Indicators) assessment, which consists of 7 criteria with 27 sustainability indicators. These indicators are designed to evaluate the quality, sustainability, and impact of building a green university. However, the assessment method seems to exhibit a positive bias towards universities with high energy intensity, possibly due to the impact of competition on energy management costs. The study suggests that this bias could be mitigated by implementing a certification process for the energy management system, focusing on its effectiveness rather than just energy efficiency. This would involve verifying the achieved and expected results of energy management efforts as well as ensuring continuous commitment from senior management in long-term strategic planning for energy-saving activities. The limitations of the study include potential biases from raters’ levels of understanding and knowledge as well as the weak economic situation of the universities, which may influence decision-making regarding sustainability initiatives. Additionally, the research study seems to be limited to UI Green Metric accredited universities in Thailand, and it highlights common weaknesses among these universities, such as internal economics, culture, and behavior, which could affect their sustainability efforts. Despite these limitations, the study found that all universities in the sample scored significantly high in indoor air quality, indicating a positive aspect of sustainability across the board in this regard.

5. Conclusions

Results from research can be summarized as follows: (1) The GU SI framework proposed in this study can be applied to other organizations in both the high education and service sectors through a self-assessment of the GU SI quality aspects using the BSI questionnaire, as shown in Table A1 and Figure A1 and Figure A2. A three-point scale (1, 2, and 3) is used for each BSI to evaluate the quality of the GU SI in each organization. In this regard, evaluators can predict the current sustainability potential of an organization based on the GU SI and analyze its strengths and weaknesses. Additionally, they can utilize this important information in strategic decision-making processes for further improvement and sustainability. (2) In the future, the developed index could be promoted by constructing a decision support system (DSS) to increase the impact of sustainable energy management. (3) This framework could enhance the efforts of any universities in Thailand that adopt the GU SI in maintaining sustainability. The high-quality standard of the UI Green Metric can help organizations achieve continuous energy performance improvement and return benefits to universities, interested parties, and the world. The current GU SI framework can still be applied since the standard requirements and the PDCA process remain the same. In cases in which the second edition of the GU SI has been applied for a meaningful duration and an organization decides to stop implementing the standard, it is essential to examine the main reasons for such a decision. This is because, in addition to the internal economic problems identified in this study, there may be other causes that have a significant effect on the decision-making process, and guidelines on formulating a policy to promote greener universities in Thailand in the future may be needed.

The research contributions of this study are as follows: (1) A new set of criteria is developed and can be used to evaluate sustainable and green universities in Thailand. (2) These criteria can be used for evaluating small, medium-sized, and large universities. They are not complex, are straightforward to use, and are applicable to the context of Thailand. (3) Evaluation indicators are compiled from various criteria to form the basic indicators. These indicators are not complicated to assess and have an impact on university development towards sustainability. (4) These new criteria can also actually be used to evaluate university groups.

A limitation of this study is that the use of the proposed criteria is limited to universities in Thailand only and may not generalize to other contexts.

Some suggestions for future development include the following: (1) The criteria may be used to evaluate more university groups, both public and private, in Thailand. (2) The GU SI may be presented during a meeting with leaders of universities in Thailand for consideration and use in future university evaluations. (3) The indicators of the GU SI as a green university assessment system can be used in conjunction with the carbon footprint for organization (CFO) to evaluate the carbon footprints of universities in the future.