Comparative Assessment of Finnish University Campus Transformation Using New European Bauhaus–Inspired Sustainability Indicators

Abstract

University campuses are key testbeds for circular and climate-resilient transformation. This study evaluates how redevelopment strategies at eight Finnish campuses align with long-term environmental and social goals using indicators derived from the New European Bauhaus (NEB) framework. A mapping and qualitative synthesis of 97 peer-reviewed publications (2015–2024) was combined with a comparative analysis of sustainability strategies, carbon-neutrality roadmaps, and campus development strategies (2010–2024). Indicators were formulated based on campus-specific challenges and NEB core values—sustainability, inclusion, and esthetics—and operationalized across five areas: blue-green infrastructure, low-emission mobility, student housing, carbon reduction and renewables, and cultural heritage/community integration. Results show strong commitments to energy efficiency, mobility, and biodiversity. However, socio-spatial dimensions—student housing, participatory inclusion, and place identity—are weak or externalized. Reporting practices are uneven, and metrics are not standardized, limiting comparability across institutions. We argue that SDG-based monitoring should be complemented by NEB’s place-sensitive criteria to bridge strategy–implementation gaps and to future-proof campus redevelopment. An illustrative conceptual case for Helsinki’s Viikki campus demonstrates how the indicators can be integrated into design scenarios. Policy recommendations highlight how integrating NEB’s place-sensitive criteria with ESG/SDG frameworks can strengthen the strategic and spatial coherence of campus transformations.

1. Introduction

1.1. Research Context: Circular Campus Redevelopment in Finland as a Model for Climate-Responsive Knowledge Cities

In the context of climate change, rapid urbanization, and pressure on natural resources, university campuses are increasingly recognized as living laboratories for circular and inclusive transformation [1] and as active agents in capacity building for sustainable development in their surrounding communities [2]. As complex socio-spatial environments, they advance sustainable architecture, mobility, and resource management [3,4]. Circular strategies based on reduction, reuse, and recycling are now integral to decarbonization, supported by energy optimization, modular construction, and spatial adaptation [5,6,7,8]. Empirical studies confirm that retrofitting low-performing buildings and integrating them into carbon-neutral campus plans significantly reduce emissions [9], while renewable microgrids and electric mobility enhance energy flexibility [10]. Modular systems, promoted in Finnish low-carbon strategies, highlight the importance of design for disassembly, user acceptance, and flexibility [11].

Finland is among the global frontrunners in climate policy, targeting nationwide carbon neutrality by 2035—well ahead of the EU’s 2050 objective [12,13]. The built environment is a key emitter, addressed by the new Building Act (2025), which mandates carbon footprint thresholds, life-cycle-based design, and climate impact assessments for all new construction, including educational facilities [11,14]. These measures build on earlier frameworks for carbon-neutral construction that emphasize reuse, recycling, and design for disassembly. Higher education institutions align with these ambitions: many aim for institutional carbon neutrality by 2030 and already monitor annual footprints, though standardization and resources remain challenges [1,15]. Transparency and multi-stakeholder collaboration—including municipalities, businesses, and civil society—support implementation [16,17].

Despite this strong policy framework, the shortage of affordable and accessible student housing remains a pressing issue in Finland, particularly in metropolitan areas such as Helsinki, reflecting broader European housing affordability challenges [18,19,20]. Housing instability and inadequate living conditions negatively affect student well-being, academic performance, and social inclusion. Recent European research highlights that shortages of affordable and sustainable student housing lead to problems with health, comfort, and learning conditions, demonstrating the need for clear quality indicators [21]. The Housing First model, central to Finland’s homelessness strategy, illustrates how stable accommodation can foster inclusion and resilience [22,23]. Beyond students, flexible and well-equipped housing is also needed for doctoral researchers, visiting scholars, and freelancers, who often require short-term or transitional accommodation close to university facilities. Recent qualitative research with international graduate researchers in Australia highlights how housing affordability, instability, and sub-standard conditions undermine inclusion and well-being [24,25]. Student and researcher accommodation has further been recognized at the international policy level as a sustainability issue in campus planning, directly influencing inclusivity and accessibility [21,26]. Thus, housing should be seen as a core element of resilient and inclusive campus ecosystems, rather than a peripheral issue.

At the same time, spatial and functional quality shape campus sustainability beyond emissions and housing. Walkability and rationality of campus layouts are increasingly emphasized as drivers of accessibility, user experience, and inclusivity [3,27]. These dimensions connect directly to the esthetic and social values promoted by the New European Bauhaus (NEB).

Finnish campuses, often conceptualized as “knowledge cities,” combine education, research, and societal engagement, while pioneering sustainability and climate strategies. Their achievements are evidenced by high performance in international rankings such as UI GreenMetric and THE Impact Rankings, membership in the Nordic Sustainable Campus Network [16], and institutional commitments to carbon neutrality by 2030 [1,15]. Beyond the Finnish context, the idea of the campus as a “knowledge city” has been widely discussed in global urban research, emphasizing innovation-driven, knowledge-intensive, and socially embedded spatial development [28]. Through cooperation and innovation, they contribute to the UN Sustainable Development Goals [29] and the Paris Agreement [30].

While SDG frameworks provide essential reporting structures, their abstract and quantitative focus often neglects context-specific spatial and socio-cultural challenges. The NEB initiative offers a complementary perspective, highlighting sustainability, esthetics, and inclusion. This study situates campus transformation within post-SDG debates [31], asking how Finnish universities integrate spatial, social, and cultural dimensions—such as housing, walkability, and identity—into long-term sustainability agendas. By applying NEB-inspired indicators, the research assesses the extent to which Finnish campuses can serve as scalable models for climate-responsive, socially inclusive, and esthetically sensitive redevelopment.

1.2. Research Aim and Hypothesis

This study aims to assess the sustainability strategies of selected Finnish university campuses in terms of their alignment with the New European Bauhaus (NEB) principles and their capacity to “future-proof” campus environments in response to environmental, social, and urban challenges. The analysis focuses on the spatial dimension of institutional action—campus infrastructure, planning, and resource management—rather than on broader educational or leadership aspects of higher education institutions (HEIs).

While the SDG and ESG frameworks provide essential structures for measuring institutional sustainability, they primarily emphasize quantitative indicators and global benchmarks. The New European Bauhaus (NEB) expands this perspective by introducing qualitative, place-based, and cultural dimensions—linking sustainability with inclusion and esthetics. This conceptual integration enables a more holistic assessment of university campuses as socio-spatial environments, not merely as carbon or energy systems. By situating the NEB alongside the SDG/ESG frameworks, this study bridges global reporting metrics with local, human-centered design values relevant to campus transformation.

NEB complements SDG/ESG by making three underrepresented dimensions analytically visible: (i) the place and experiential quality of space (esthetics, identity) that KPI dashboards tend to underweight; (ii) inclusiveness and co-creation treated as performance dimensions rather than process add-ons; and (iii) the design-to-implementation link that helps diagnose strategy–delivery gaps. This is why we employ a NEB-inspired, place-sensitive indicator set in the comparative evaluation that follows.

Specifically, the research investigates how circular and climate strategies implemented by Finnish universities contribute to the transformation of academic spaces into resilient, inclusive, and esthetically meaningful ecosystems. The selection of case campuses was based on data availability and institutional engagement in sustainability initiatives, as elaborated in the methodological section.

Drawing on the literature review and identified research gaps, the study hypothesizes that although Finnish universities increasingly adopt circular and climate resilience strategies, the social and cultural dimensions of campus development—such as user participation, housing, and local identity—remain underrepresented. Previous studies highlight that the implementation of SDGs in higher education often relies on quantitative indicators and global benchmarks, leading to fragmented or technocratic approaches that underrepresent local socio-spatial contexts [1]. Similar concerns have been raised at the global scale, where the SDG Index and dashboards emphasize aggregated rankings based on quantitative measures, with limited attention to qualitative and contextual dimensions [31]. The NEB framework offers a complementary perspective by explicitly incorporating sustainability, inclusion, and esthetics, thereby addressing dimensions that are less visible in SDG reporting [32].

The study also emphasizes the need to balance global climate objectives with local community needs, including affordable housing, social integration, and place-based identity. Campuses are highly globalized spaces attracting international students and researchers, yet they also function as local communities with distinct histories and socio-spatial needs. Sustainable transformation must therefore reconcile innovation with the preservation of cultural identity while addressing wider urban and social challenges.

Accordingly, the research addresses the following questions:

• To what extent do the sustainability strategies of Finnish university campuses align with the spatial and cultural criteria of the NEB Compass?
• How effective are the implemented circular and climate strategies in responding to future urban, environmental, and social challenges?
• What gaps exist in the implementation of SDG and NEB frameworks, and what recommendations can be made for advancing the spatial transformation of academic campuses?

This analysis will provide insights into how Finnish HEIs integrate NEB values into their sustainability strategies and identify pathways toward more resilient and holistic campus development.

In summary, this study addresses the following overarching research question: To what extent do Finnish university campuses integrate sustainability strategies that align with both SDG/ESG frameworks and the qualitative, place-based values of the New European Bauhaus (NEB)?

The objectives are threefold:

• to map and synthesize existing campus sustainability strategies;
• to operationalize NEB-inspired indicators for comparative evaluation;
• to assess the strengths, weaknesses, and gaps across eight Finnish campuses.

This approach allows for a multidimensional understanding of how universities translate global sustainability goals into locally grounded and socially inclusive campus transformations.

1.3. Literature Review

1.3.1. Challenges and Future-Proofing Needs of Finnish University Campuses

Finnish academic campuses face a set of interlinked practical challenges that shape their ability to remain sustainable, resilient, and socially inclusive. These challenges emerge from both academic literature and policy reports and provide the empirical context for evaluating campus transformation strategies. While partly overlapping with the research areas, they should be understood primarily as operational issues confronted by campuses. Rather than categories of scholarly debate. Six domains are particularly critical:

• Climate resilience and ecosystem integration—Finnish campuses must adapt to changing climate conditions through blue-green infrastructure, water management systems, and integration of ecosystem services into planning [16,33].
• Low-emission mobility and connectivity—Pedestrianization, cycling infrastructure, shared mobility, and electrified transport are increasingly necessary to reduce carbon footprints and ensure inclusive access [34,35].
• Housing shortages, affordability, and internationalization—Growing inflows of international students increase demand for affordable housing, particularly in metropolitan areas. Rising rental costs and limited availability exacerbate social exclusion risks [18,26,36]. These pressures highlight the importance of campus-area housing policies as part of sustainability strategies.
• Aging infrastructure, energy efficiency, and digital transition—Many Finnish campuses must retrofit or redevelop older buildings with poor energy performance, while simultaneously investing in renewable energy systems, hybrid learning technologies, and campus-wide digital infrastructure. These needs create significant financial and technical barriers to decarbonization [21,37]. Such challenges highlight the importance of systematic, information-based campus management to support long-term decision-making [38].
• Heritage and campus identity—Transformation processes in historical institutions must balance modern functionality with cultural and architectural values, linking regeneration to broader narratives of identity and place [39,40].

These interconnected challenges highlight the need for holistic, future-proofing strategies that integrate environmental, social, and cultural dimensions. This goes beyond purely quantitative performance indicators such as those emphasized in standard ESG reporting. While SDG frameworks provide global sustainability targets, they often overlook the contextual realities of campus transformation, including governance, identity, and user-driven change [41,42]. Empirical studies in higher education show that universities tend to operationalise sustainability mainly through reporting structures and surveys, leaving broader cultural and contextual aspects underexplored [43]. The New European Bauhaus (NEB) offers a qualitative, place-based lens. It helps campus redevelopment reconcile global climate objectives with local community needs. In this sense, the NEB framework complements SDG/ESG tools by making analytically visible the place- and experience-based qualities of campus space (esthetics, identity) and by treating inclusiveness and co-creation as performance dimensions rather than process add-ons. It also helps diagnose strategy–implementation gaps that KPI-driven monitoring often overlooks.

1.3.2. Dominant Research Trends in Sustainable Campus Development

The bibliometric and critical review revealed that the literature on sustainable campus development clusters into two dominant areas (Figure 1): (1) technical–spatial strategies such as energy efficiency, retrofitting, blue-green infrastructure, and circular resource management, and (2) institutional approaches emphasizing governance, SDG reporting, and sustainability rankings, often operationalized through assessment tools and indicator frameworks [41,42]. International studies further highlight knowledge transfer and benchmarking across universities as a critical driver of campus [44], while also stressing that the effectiveness of sustainability strategies depends on the active role of campus managers in implementing innovation [38,45]. While both areas demonstrate growing sophistication, which often aligns with quantitative ESG and SDG metrics, they systematically overlook socio-spatial and cultural dimensions such as user participation, place identity, and esthetics. However, although some research explicitly investigates campus sustainability literacy and cultural dimensions [43], these perspectives remain marginal compared to technical and managerial approaches.

To systematize these findings, the literature was synthesized into six interrelated research areas with their dominant trends and persisting gaps (

Table 1. Key Research Areas in the Literature on Sustainable Campus Development (2015–2024): Trends and Gaps in Relation to Circular Strategies, Climate Adaptation, and NEB Principles. Source: Authors’ study based on critical v.

No	Research Area	Dominant Trends	Identified Gaps	Key References
1	Sustainable campus management: sustainability strategies and circular economy	Integration of circular economy and sustainability strategies in campus management and reporting	Lack of research on the impact of sustainability strategies on campus identity and cultural context	[2,38,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53]
2	Climate adaptation of academic campuses	Strategies for carbon footprint reduction, implementation of blue-green infrastructure, and campus carbon neutrality	Lack of long-term evaluations of adaptation effectiveness	[7,54,55,56]
3	New European Bauhaus (NEB)	Integration of NEB principles into smart city planning and academic campus design	Lack of studies on the practical implementation of NEB in university sustainability strategies and SDG deployment	[32,57,58]
4	Finnish University Campuses	Finland recognized as a leader in carbon neutrality and sustainable development strategies	Lack of research focused on Nordic universities in relation to the circular economy and NEB adaptation	[11,33,34,59,60]
5	Place identity and cultural heritage	Integration of historical and cultural values into campus regeneration strategies; development of regenerative heritage concepts; preservation of traditional architecture and place-based cultural identity	Limited studies on campus identity; insufficient analysis of NEB values implementation in historical and socio-cultural contexts	[61,62,63,64,65]
6	Social participation and inclusiveness	University campuses as co-created spaces involving users; application of “Living Labs” models	Limited research on the actual engagement of academic communities in transformation processes	[33,43,47,66,67,68,69]

). This overview complements the practical challenges outlined in Section 1.3.1 by highlighting how academic scholarship reflects—but does not fully capture—the multifaceted realities of campus transformation.

The systematization presented in Table 1 confirms the dual structure of existing research: strong emphasis on technical–spatial solutions and managerial frameworks, with emerging but underdeveloped perspectives on identity, participation, and cultural integration. While dominant trends highlight measurable outcomes such as carbon neutrality, energy efficiency, and governance, the identified gaps point to a lack of attention to user experience, local heritage, and socio-spatial inclusion. In particular, the marginal integration of NEB principles, as well as limited studies on Finnish campuses as comparative testbeds, underscores the need for more holistic approaches that reconcile global sustainability agendas with place-based values and community needs.

1.3.3. Integration of NEB Principles in Campus Development Literature

The New European Bauhaus (NEB), launched within the European Green Deal, advances a holistic vision of sustainability that combines three values: sustainability, inclusiveness, and esthetics/quality of experience [70,71]. By design, NEB complements SDG/ESG by surfacing qualitative, place-sensitive socio-spatial, participatory, and esthetic dimensions that metric-driven reporting tends to underrepresent. While SDGs provide universal, metric-driven targets and ESG emphasizes accountability for environmental/governance performance, NEB adds a qualitative, cultural, and fundamentally place-based lens to transformation, explicitly addressing experiential quality, participation, and design/heritage considerations often absent from KPI frameworks. Specifically, NEB’s values demand:

• Sustainability: Moving beyond quantitative carbon accounting toward processes that prioritize circularity, regeneration, and the systemic integration of blue-green infrastructure.
• Inclusiveness: Shifting from broad social impact metrics to concrete processes of co-creation, social integration, and ensuring accessibility and cultural diversity are reflected in the built environment.
• esthetics and Quality of Experience: Emphasizing that functional design must harmonize with cultural heritage, reinforce place identity, and deliver a high quality of life—dimensions often overlooked by purely technical assessments. In this study, esthetics are therefore understood in the NEB sense—as a holistic quality integrating environmental performance, cultural continuity, and sensory experience of place.

While NEB has gained considerable traction in urban planning and architectural discourse, its application to university campuses remains marginal. Most NEB-related research addresses urban-scale projects, cultural hubs, and pilot initiatives [57], whereas campuses are rarely conceptualized as strategic testbeds. Documented exceptions include the University of Turin’s “NEB for a Circular Economy” pilot, which created a co-designed campus garden to foster circularity and participation [32]. Although this case demonstrates NEB’s potential to enhance inclusivity, it remained project-specific and disconnected from broader governance or planning frameworks. Similarly, studies highlighting NEB’s transversality—linking arts, science, and ecological retrofitting—underscore its interdisciplinary relevance [57]. Related work also points to digital tools (e.g., BIM) that help link technological innovation with cultural and artistic values, yet such insights are seldom integrated into institutional sustainability agendas.

A major limitation in the literature is the reduction of the NEB to esthetic or small-scale design tools, rather than a strategic framework aligning with SDGs, national carbon-neutrality plans, or campus climate strategies [70,71]. This disconnect is particularly visible in the academic context, where governance, participatory planning, and socio-cultural dimensions are rarely assessed through NEB values.

In Finland, research on campuses has primarily focused on energy performance, retrofitting, and carbon neutrality [11,33,34]. Comparative assessments of place identity, cultural continuity, and socio-spatial inclusion—key NEB elements—are largely absent. This is especially relevant in Finland, where many university campuses are relatively young and internationally oriented, raising questions about how NEB values can reconcile global competitiveness with local identity and cultural continuity [59]. Thus, despite Finland’s international leadership in climate policy, its university campuses remain underrepresented in NEB-oriented discourse.

In sum, NEB integration into campus development literature remains nascent and fragmented. There is a need for more policy-linked, interdisciplinary research examining how campuses can function as NEB laboratories of ecological, social, and cultural innovation. This study addresses this gap by developing NEB-inspired indicators (Section 2.4), moving beyond project-based interpretations toward long-term institutional transformation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample Selection and Data Sources

The selection of case campuses followed a multi-stage process and a purposeful, non-probabilistic sampling approach designed to ensure both international relevance and local specificity. This process aimed to identify institutions with sufficient and transparent documentation to enable a comparative, document-based assessment.

The initial pool included all Finnish universities and universities of applied sciences that appeared in major sustainability rankings in 2024. These comprised The Times Higher Education (THE) Impact Rankings [72], the UI GreenMetric World University Rankings [73], and the SDGsUniversities.org database [74]. Each of these sources evaluates sustainability differently: THE focuses on SDG implementation in education and research; UI GreenMetric emphasizes infrastructure and energy; and SDGsUniversities.org tracks engagement with specific SDGs. Together, these frameworks provided a broad overview of Finnish higher education institutions’ sustainability visibility and performance. Finnish universities consistently demonstrate strong results across these rankings. For example, LUT University and the University of Helsinki are positioned among the global top 200 in THE Impact Rankings, the University of Eastern Finland is placed within the global top 50 of UI GreenMetric, and Häme University of Applied Sciences is ranked among the top 20 worldwide in the same framework. SDGsUniversities.org further highlighted the wide engagement of Finnish institutions with goals directly relevant to the built environment, including SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and SDG 13 (Climate Action). These results confirm Finland’s prominent standing in the global landscape of sustainable higher education.

The mapping confirmed the extensive engagement of Finnish higher education institutions in advancing sustainability objectives, and to enable a comparable and verifiable assessment of their strategies, the study focused on the transparency and accessibility of campus-related strategic documentation, drawing exclusively on publicly available (open-access) materials in English. Institutions were included in the analysis if they had published Sustainability Reports, Carbon Reports, or structured strategies for climate adaptation and spatial transformation.

Exclusion criteria were applied to maintain transparency of evidence. The public availability of such documentation enabled a rigorous and evidence-based comparison of campus-level sustainability strategies. Universities that did not provide these materials in open access or made them available solely in Finnish were excluded. Aspects beyond the spatial scope—such as education for sustainable development (ESD) or awareness-raising campaigns—were also excluded.

Consequently, the final sample comprised eight universities: University of Helsinki, Aalto University, Tampere University, University of Oulu, University of Jyväskylä, LUT University, University of Turku, and University of Eastern Finland. Each of these institutions provides at least one of the identified types of documentation, ensuring sufficient transparency and comparability for analytical purposes. Universities such as Häme University of Applied Sciences and Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences—despite their strong sustainability performance—were excluded due to incomplete reporting or limited accessibility of strategic materials in English. This introduces an inherent availability bias toward better-documented institutions, which should be considered when interpreting the results.

Among the selected institutions, the Viikki Campus of the University of Helsinki serves as both an empirical reference and an illustrative example of how sustainability strategies are translated into spatial transformation. Hosting one of Finland’s largest solar power installations, Viikki has been developed as an ecological district integrating renewable energy, ecological infrastructure, and carbon-neutral design principles. These measures form part of the University of Helsinki’s roadmap towards institutional carbon neutrality by 2030, aligning with Finland’s national target of carbon neutrality by 2035 [75,76,77].

The final sample, therefore, ensures that the analysis captures institutions recognized as sustainability leaders while providing sufficient data for systematic, document-based examination of campus transformation processes. The results should thus be interpreted as analytical rather than statistical generalization, offering conceptual insights into institutional approaches to sustainable campus redevelopment rather than exhaustive national coverage.

2.2. Methodology

This study adopted a multiple case study approach, following Yin’s methodological framework for in-depth, context-sensitive analysis of complex systems in real-life settings [78]. The case study method was selected to explore how Finnish university campuses develop and implement sustainability strategies that align with the principles of the New European Bauhaus (NEB). This approach enabled a qualitative assessment of spatial transformation processes, institutional goals, and documented implementation pathways within distinct campus environments.

The choice of case study methodology was motivated by the need to capture the contextual and systemic complexity of sustainable campus development in Finland, which could not be adequately addressed through models focusing solely on policy implementation or generalized sustainability assessment. Earlier frameworks from public policy implementation [79] and sustainability assessment [80] provided a useful analytical structure but lacked the contextual and spatial resolution needed to examine campus-level adaptation in relation to the NEB. More recent reviews of assessment tools [41,81] have advanced benchmarking approaches, yet they still pay limited attention to context-specific challenges and the need for a more holistic perspective on campus transformation. This methodological framework directly responds to the gaps identified in the literature review (Section 1.3), particularly the limited integration of socio-cultural and esthetic dimensions into existing campus sustainability assessments.

Instead, Yin’s case study model was used to structure the inquiry in a way that incorporated multiple sources of evidence—including Sustainability Reports, Carbon Reports, climate and spatial development roadmaps, institutional strategies, and selected publicly available datasets. The aim was to identify how universities conceptualize and operationalize sustainability transitions through campus design and infrastructure planning.

The study followed a multi-stage design, detailed in subsequent subsections. First, Finnish universities were selected based on their performance in international sustainability rankings and availability of strategic spatial documentation (Section 2.1). Then, a bibliometric and literature review was conducted to determine dominant research trends and methodological gaps (Section 1.3.2 and Section 2.3). Finally, qualitative document analysis was applied to assess how selected universities integrate circular economy principles, climate adaptation strategies, and NEB-relevant values into their campus development plans. Figure 2 presents the methodological framework developed for this study, showing how ESG-based assessment structures were integrated with New European Bauhaus principles to guide the comparative evaluation of Finnish university campuses.

2.3. Bibliometric Mapping and Literature Review Procedure

The literature review was conducted using the Scopus database (Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands), applying a combination of keywords related to circular economy, climate adaptation of academic campuses, and the implementation of New European Bauhaus (NEB) principles. The search covered peer-reviewed publications from 2015 to 2024 with a minimum of 10 citations, resulting in the selection of 313 articles that met the established criteria.

However, given the relative novelty and limited representation of NEB-related approaches in campus development research, applying a strict citation threshold would have excluded several thematically significant and recent contributions. To ensure comprehensive coverage, a complementary set of publications with fewer citations but high thematic relevance was therefore added to the dataset. This approach balanced methodological rigor with the need to include emerging perspectives, while maintaining a focus on peer-reviewed sources.

To identify key thematic areas and structure the literature analysis, a keyword co-occurrence analysis was carried out using VOSviewer software (version 1.6.19; Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands) [82]. This method enabled the mapping of thematic clusters and the visualization of conceptual links between core research topics. The bibliometric network created through VOSviewer allowed for a systematic overview of the literature based on thematic convergence.

Subsequently, a subset of 97 articles most relevant to the research scope—focusing on circular and climate strategies in the context of NEB—was selected for qualitative synthesis. These publications were critically analyzed to identify dominant approaches and research trends in sustainable campus development. This mapping process not only structured the dominant research trends but also confirmed the marginal position of NEB-related approaches in campus literature, reinforcing the rationale for the NEB-inspired framework developed in this study.

To enhance methodological transparency, the 97 selected publications were subjected to a structured qualitative categorization process. Each article was reviewed and thematically coded according to its primary analytical focus (e.g., management and governance, technical–spatial strategies, socio-spatial inclusion, and cultural or NEB-related dimensions). Coding was performed manually based on abstracts, keywords, and methodological sections, allowing the identification of both dominant themes and underrepresented perspectives. The synthesis proceeded in three stages: (1) identification of thematic clusters derived from the bibliometric co-occurrence network; (2) qualitative interpretation of each cluster to extract prevailing research orientations and conceptual linkages; and (3) consolidation of six integrated research areas, as presented in Table 1. This combined bibliometric–qualitative approach ensured both systematic coverage of the field and interpretive depth, bridging quantitative mapping with critical content analysis.

The final stage of the review focused on identifying research gaps and future directions, with particular attention to the coherence of sustainability strategies with NEB principles—especially regarding social inclusiveness, esthetics, and the role of campuses as integrative community spaces. The review also assessed the extent to which long-term impacts of implemented strategies have been examined, particularly in relation to the environmental and social resilience of academic environments. The keyword co-occurrence analysis revealed two dominant thematic clusters in campus-related sustainability research; these clusters, along with the detailed thematic synthesis, are presented in Section 1.3.2.

2.4. Defining Evaluation Indicators

In evaluating sustainable development strategies of Finnish academic campuses, this study adopted the principles of the New European Bauhaus (NEB) initiative as a normative framework. As part of the European Green Deal, NEB expands beyond traditional SDG frameworks by emphasizing not only environmental sustainability but also esthetics and inclusivity. These principles offer a more holistic and place-sensitive perspective on campus transformation, acknowledging local environmental and cultural contexts.

The selection of evaluation indicators was based on two key pillars: (1) the identification of pressing challenges facing Finnish academic campuses, as presented in the literature review (see Section 1.3.1); and (2) the core NEB values as outlined in official policy documents. These include sustainability (promoting climate neutrality, environmental regeneration, and efficient resource use, including circular economy strategies and blue-green infrastructure systems), inclusivity (designing campuses that are accessible, socially integrated, and culturally diverse, with sensitivity to local needs and communities), and esthetics and quality of experience (harmonizing functionality and modernity with cultural heritage while enhancing quality of life on academic campuses).

Earlier analytical reviews of sustainability assessment tools in higher education identified recurring dimensions such as management, academia, environment, engagement, and innovation, thus providing a holistic foundation for campus evaluation [41]. While this synthesis offered an important point of departure, subsequent studies have highlighted additional cultural and participatory aspects [43,81]. Building on these insights, the present study extends the scope by embedding the New European Bauhaus principles of sustainability, inclusiveness, and esthetics, and by aligning indicators with infrastructural, social, and environmental challenges that, while grounded in the Finnish campus context, reflect broader European and global trends in higher education.

The defined indicators were also aligned with the concept of future-proofing, understood as the campus’s capacity to adapt to future climate, urban, and societal challenges. The methodological approach combined a review of academic literature, strategic planning documents, and key NEB publications. These included:

• New European Bauhaus Compass [70]
• New European Bauhaus Progress Report [71]
• New European Bauhaus Investment Guidelines [83]
• New European Bauhaus Toolbox [84]

In addition, the study drew upon scientific literature sourced from the Scopus database (2015–2024), international organizational reports, and relevant press publications. Based on this cross-analysis, a set of five integrated indicators was developed, addressing spatial, environmental, and social dimensions of campus transformation. Each indicator was mapped to the corresponding NEB values, as presented in

Table 2. Indicators for Sustainable Campus Development in Finland—NEB Alignment and Future-Proofing Dimensions. Source: Authors’ study.

Challenges and Future-Proofing Needs of Finnish University Campuses	NEB Principles	Indicator	Description
Rising climate-related risks necessitate resilient water management, flood prevention, and blue-green infrastructure	Sustainability	Blue-Green Infrastructure for Climate Resilience	Integration of natural ecosystems into campus design to support climate adaptation, biodiversity, and water resource management.
Need for improved connectivity and low-emission transport	Sustainability, Esthetics	Low-Emission Mobility	Campus-wide promotion of active mobility, bicycle infrastructure, and shared electric transport to reduce emissions and improve accessibility.
Rising demand for affordable and sustainable student housing amid housing crises and energy inefficiency	Sustainability, Inclusivity	Sustainable Student Housing	Provision of energy-efficient, affordable, and socially inclusive student accommodations aligned with circular principles.
Need for decarbonization and resilient energy systems through renewables, smart grids, and energy upgrades	Sustainability, Esthetics	Carbon Footprint Reduction and Renewable Energy Integration	Adoption of renewable energy and carbon-reduction technologies, including energy-efficient buildings and smart infrastructure.
Balancing internationalization with local identity, heritage protection, and civic engagement	Esthetics, Inclusivity	Cultural Heritage and Community Integration	Integrating local cultural heritage with inclusive campus planning and regional engagement to foster place-based identity and resilience.

. The indicators were derived from challenges identified in the literature review (see Section 1.3.1) and aligned with NEB policy documents [70,71,83,84]. In this conduct, they operationalize the challenges outlined in Section 1.3.1 and are mapped against the NEB principles, providing a framework for comparative analysis.

Figure 3 visualizes the indicator–NEB–SDG mapping introduced above and serves as a reference for the comparative analysis that follows.

2.5. Comparative Evaluation Procedure

To operationalize the framework defined in Section 2.4, a comparative evaluation procedure was developed to assess the extent and depth of campus-level sustainability implementation. The comparative assessment was conducted at the campus level across the five NEB-aligned indicators defined in Section 2.4. Sources comprised Sustainable Campus Strategies (SCS)—including institutional strategies, roadmaps, and action plans—and Sustainable Campus Actions (SCA), referring to measures reported in sustainability or carbon reports and official websites, as established in Section 2.1 and Section 3.1.2. The temporal focus was 2023–2024, while earlier documents (2010–2022) were reviewed to trace continuity (see Figure 4). Detailed reports along with their sources are provided in Appendix A,

Table A1. Comprehensive overview of all documents (2010–2024) on sustainability reporting, monitoring, and action planning in the Finnish higher education institutions included in this study. Source: Authors’ compilation based on institutional reports.

Year	University	Document
2010	LUT University	Embracing Sustainability in Society [125]
2014	LUT University	Report on Sustainability 2014 [128]
	Aalto University	Aalto University Annual Report 2014 [129]
2015	Aalto University	Sustainable Campus Charter Report of Aalto University 2015 ISCN-GULF [130]
2016	LUT University	Report on Sustainability 2016–2018 [131]
	Aalto University	Sustainable Campus Charter Report of Aalto University 2016 ISCN-GULF [132]
2017	LUT University	Report on Sustainability 2016–2018 [131]
	Aalto University	Sustainable Campus Charter Report of Aalto University 2017 ISCN-GULF [133]
2018	LUT University	Report on Sustainability 2016–2018 [131]
	Aalto University	Sustainability Report of Aalto University 2018 ISCN-GULF [134]
2019	LUT University	Report on Sustainability 2019 [135]
	Aalto University	Sustainability Report of Aalto University 2019 ISCN-GULF report [136]
	University of Helsinki	Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science (HELSUS). Annual Report 2019 [137]
	Tampere University	Tampere Universities Carbon Footprint 2019: Carbon Calculation Report [138]
	University of Turku	Carbon Footprint for 2019 [139]
	University of Oulu	The Carbon Footprint of the University of Oulu in 2019—Calculation report [140]
	University of Jyväskylä	Sustainability for JYU: Jyväskylän yliopiston ilmasto-ja luontohaitat [141]
	University of Eastern Finland	Carbon Neutral UEF 2025: Report on the 2019 carbon footprint [142]
2020	LUT University	Report on Sustainability 2020 [143]
	Aalto University	Sustainable development at Aalto University in 2020 [144]
	Tampere University	Tampere Universities: Roadmap to sustainable development 2020–2030. Steps to promoting sustainability and responsibility [145]
	University of Turku	Carbon Footprint for 2020 [139]
	University of Jyväskylä	Sustainability for JYU: Jyväskylän yliopiston ilmasto-ja luontohaitat 2020 [146]
	University of Eastern Finland	Sustainable development at the University of Eastern Finland in 2020 [147]
2021	LUT University	Report on Sustainability 2021 [148]
		Climate Action Plan 2025–2030 [99]
	Aalto University	Aalto University Sustainability Report 2021 [149]
	University of Turku	Sustainable Mobility Development at the University of Turku 2021 [93]
		Carbon Footprint for 2021 [139]
	University of Oulu	Carbon footprint of the University of Oulu [150]
		Action Plan on Sustainability and Responsibility [151]
	University of Jyväskylä	Sustainability Report 2021 [152]
2022	LUT University	Report on Sustainability 2022 [153]
	Aalto University	Aalto University Sustainability Report 2022 [154]
	University of Helsinki	Sustainability and responsibility plan 2022–2024. From ambition to action [155]
	Tampere University	Tampere University–Carbon Footprint of Tampere Universities Community 2022 [156]
	University of Turku	Sustainable campus life. Action Plan 2022–2025 [157]
		Carbon Footprint for 2022 [139]
	University of Jyväskylä	Sustainability report 2022 [158]
		Roadmap to planetary well-being. Environmental Program of the University of Jyväskylä [159]
	University of Eastern Finland	Action Program for Sustainable Development and Responsibility 2022–2025 [88]
2023	LUT University	Report on Sustainability 2023 [86]
	Aalto University	Aalto University in 2023 [96]
		Carbon Roadmap 2023–2030 [94]
		Carbon footprint calculation 2023 [115]
	University of Helsinki	Carbon-Neutral University of Helsinki by 2030. Roadmap [100]
	Tampere University	Tampere Universities Carbon Footprint Calculation Report 2023 [114]
	University of Turku	Carbon Footprint for 2023 [139]
	University of Oulu	Sustainability Report 2023 [97]
		Carbon Footprint Report 2023 [160]
		Carbon Neutrality Roadmap University of Oulu 2023–2030 [161]
	University of Jyväskylä	Sustainability report 2023 [158]
	University of Eastern Finland	Sustainable Development Goals in the University of Eastern Finland in 2023 [98]
2024	LUT University	LUT University’s sustainable development action plan 2024–2025 [162] Sustainability Report 2024 [163]
	Aalto University	Carbon Footprint Calculation for 2024 [164] Key figures of 2024 and annual reports [165]
	University of Helsinki	Sustainability Highlights: Sustainability and Responsibility at the University of Helsinki in 2024 [166] Striving for Sustainable Well-being—The University of Helsinki as a Beacon of Hope and Progress: University of Helsinki Sustainability and Responsibility Plan 2025–2028 [167] Carbon Footprint in 2024 [168]
	Tampere University	Sustainability and Responsibility Report of Tampere University 2024 [169] Actions and Initiatives for Advancing Sustainable Development [170]
	University of Turku	University of Turku carbon footprint for 2024 [139] Turun yliopiston hiilija luontojalanjälki (The Carbon and Biodiversity Footprint of the University of Turku) [171]
	University of Jyväskylä	Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Planetary Well-Being [172]
	University of Eastern Finland	Carbon Neutral UEF 2025: Summary of Carbon Footprint 2019–2024 [173]

.

For each campus–indicator pair, the evidence contained in SCS and SCA documents was analyzed qualitatively according to a concise codebook specifying observable evidence types such as strategic targets, budgets, pilot implementation, and monitoring mechanisms. Evidence was coded as strong, partial, limited, or not reported, and subsequently mapped onto a three-level qualitative scale used in the summary matrix: High (strong, comprehensive and/or implemented measures with monitoring), Medium (partial or planned actions without full implementation or monitoring), Low (limited references or generic declarations), and NR (no evidence). The indicators were equally weighted, and no composite numeric index was calculated. The overall label assigned to each campus (e.g., Strong, Good, Balanced, Mix) reflects the distribution of High/Medium/Low scores and the robustness of available evidence.

Where a domain was structurally outsourced—for instance, student housing managed by independent foundations—actions by these actors were recorded as contextual SCA but did not influence the SCS score unless they were explicitly integrated into the university’s official strategy. This rule preserved institutional comparability while acknowledging ecosystem-level contributions (see Section 3.2.3). Lack of publicly available evidence resulted in an “NR” score, with methodological implications discussed in the Limitations section. To ensure consistency, two co-authors independently cross-checked the extraction tables and reconciled discrepancies through consensus based on the codebook rules. Appendix B indicates whether evidence for each indicator was drawn from SCS or SCA sources. The detailed coding rules and representative examples of evidence types for each qualitative level (High/Medium/Low/Not Reported evidence) and overall assessment (Strong, Good, Balanced, Mix) are provided in Appendix B,

Table A2. Qualitative Scoring Rubric and Evidence Examples.

Qualitative Level	Definition/Coding Criteria	Illustrative Examples
High (H)	Strong, comprehensive, and implemented measures with clear monitoring mechanisms, quantitative targets, and evidence of follow-up or revision. Actions or strategies are explicitly institutionalized and integrated into long-term campus frameworks.	SCS: Climate neutrality roadmap with defined target year and carbon accounting methodology; biodiversity plan with quantified goals and monitoring schedule. SCA: Operational solar installations or geothermal systems; published annual carbon footprint data; functioning biodiversity monitoring programs.
Medium (M)	Partial or planned actions; limited implementation or monitoring. Policies are defined but lack measurable outcomes or institutional anchoring. Evidence of intent exists but is not yet systemic.	SCS: Sustainability plan mentioning renewable energy or mobility goals without indicators or deadlines. SCA: Pilot projects (e.g., trial bike-sharing, rain gardens) without follow-up reporting; isolated student or faculty initiatives not reflected in university policy.
Low (L)	Generic or declarative references to sustainability; minimal institutional engagement. No specific actions, metrics, or monitoring.	SCS: Broad statements such as “the university supports sustainable mobility” or “values cultural heritage” without supporting measures. SCA: Occasional events without continuity or documentation of impact.
No Reported Evidence (NR)	No publicly available data or documentation found. Topic not mentioned in strategic or operational materials.	SCS: Absence of the topic in strategy, roadmap, or policy documents. SCA: No reference in sustainability reports, websites, or institutional publications (2020–2024).

and

Table A3. Overall Assessment Criteria and Definition.

Qualitative Level	Coding Guidance	Qualitative Definition
STRONG (S)	Minimum three indicators rated High (H) and no indicator rated NR	The university implements comprehensive and institutionally embedded sustainability strategies (SCS and SCA) across at least three indicators. Actions are coherent, cross-sectoral, and supported by long-term frameworks and continuous innovation.
Good (G)	Majority of indicators rated Medium (M), with at least one rated High. No more than one rated Low/NR	SCS and SCA are in place across most indicators, including at least one area of high performance. Implementation is consistent but partly at the pilot or developmental stage, with limited reporting or institutional integration in some areas.
Balanced (B)	Combination of Medium (M) and Low (L) ratings, possibly one or two High (H), but not predominant	The university demonstrates mixed progress, with a few well-developed areas and several at moderate or early stages. Policies and initiatives vary in scope, depth, and maturity across indicators.
Mix (MIX)	Large discrepancies across indicators (e.g., presence of both High/Medium and NR/Low), indicating inconsistency or gaps in evidence	Institutional efforts are highly uneven. One or two areas show advanced development, while others lack clear actions or evidence. The overall approach appears fragmented and lacks a coherent strategic direction.

, which also serve as the coding legend used throughout the study.

Finally, the sustainability strategies of Finnish universities were evaluated using the five NEB-aligned indicators (see Section 2.4) and the qualitative scoring method described above. Each indicator was linked to relevant SDGs and NEB principles (Figure 3), ensuring comparability and consistency across institutions.

2.6. Strategy Assessment and Gap Mapping: Finnish Campus Sustainability Plans and a Conceptual NEB-Based Case

The next stage of the study involved a detailed assessment of sustainable development strategies adopted by Finnish academic campuses. The analysis focused on publicly available documents issued by the largest universities in Finland, especially those that have demonstrated the highest levels of SDG (Sustainable Development Goal) implementation. These materials included sustainability policies, climate neutrality roadmaps, and circular economy action plans. Most documents were retrieved from university websites and open-access institutional repositories and are considered official sources of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) engagement.

Each university typically articulates its sustainability ambitions through clearly defined strategic goals, annual progress reports, and detailed implementation plans. The analysis included the most recent documents available at the time of the study, ranging from 2010 to 2024, with a primary focus on those published in 2023–2024. Differences in publication years reflect institutional reporting cycles rather than inconsistency. It is important to note that while the general SDG goals remain aligned across universities, the structure, scope, and emphasis of each institution’s strategy vary, depending on their specific challenges and priorities. These include, for example, different degrees of focus on climate neutrality, energy efficiency, biodiversity protection, or social inclusion.

A complete list of the analyzed documents, including source information and thematic scope, is provided in Appendix A, Table A1. This enables transparent cross-case comparison of institutional strategies, highlighting both similarities and divergences. Additional materials—such as press articles, institutional reports, and expert interviews—were also included to contextualize and triangulate findings.

In the next step, the strategies of Finnish campuses were assessed against the set of evaluation indicators previously developed in Section 2.4. To clarify the analytical framework, the five indicators were mapped onto selected UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and New European Bauhaus (NEB) principles. This mapping ensured that the chosen indicators not only addressed the most pressing challenges of Finnish campuses but also reflected broader international and European agendas. Figure 3 visualizes the mapping of the five evaluation indicators to the relevant UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and New European Bauhaus (NEB) principles, providing a conceptual link between global and place-based sustainability frameworks.

These indicators are grounded in the NEB Compass framework and the most pressing future-proofing challenges identified in the academic literature (see Section 1.3.1). Specific institutional actions were mapped to the five indicators, enabling an evaluation of how closely each strategy aligns with the core NEB principles and key transformation needs. This comparative mapping revealed both areas of alignment and critical gaps requiring further attention. The results are presented in tabular form to highlight the degree of strategic fit and guide the subsequent case-based analysis.

The final stage of this methodological sequence, preceding the formulation of results and recommendations, involved the examination of an award-winning conceptual design project for a campus redevelopment in Helsinki. This project was selected as a proof of concept, following the approach proposed by Blomkvist and Hallin [85], and was used to illustrate how the NEB values and future-proofing principles can be integrated into academic campus transformation, specifically addressing the gaps identified in the analysis of Finnish strategies. Unlike the assessed institutional strategies, this project is not intended as a benchmark or comparative empirical case. Rather, it serves as a visionary model for the implementation of sustainability, inclusivity, and esthetics in a holistic design framework.

The analysis focuses on how the project addresses key challenges identified in the literature and aligns with the previously defined indicators. This design-oriented perspective enhances the applicability of the research by demonstrating the potential for integrating NEB principles into real-world campus redevelopment processes. While conceptual in nature, the project highlights transferable strategies that may inform future planning and investment decisions.

3. Results

This section presents the results of the study. First, an overview of institutional strategies and reporting practices of Finnish universities is provided, followed by a comparative analysis structured around the five evaluation indicators defined in Section 2.4. Finally, cross-cutting gaps are identified, and an illustrative conceptual case is introduced to demonstrate the integration of New European Bauhaus (NEB) principles into campus transformation.

3.1. Institutional Strategies and Scope of Analysis

3.1.1. Monitoring and Planning of Sustainable Development

Finnish universities regularly issue documents dedicated to the monitoring and planning of sustainable development. These take the form of sustainability reports, climate roadmaps, action plans, and thematic strategies addressing different aspects of campus transformation. The documents typically cover carbon footprint reporting, progress tracking, and the introduction of new initiatives that support both global and local climate objectives. In this conduct, they contribute not only to meeting European obligations but also to fulfilling national and municipal sustainability targets.

Such documents constitute an essential tool for reporting institutional progress and identifying areas requiring further action. They provide a systematic overview of implemented and non-implemented measures on campuses, while also highlighting barriers and benefits of transformation processes. The strategic orientation of these reports and plans underscores the universities’ commitment to long-term climate neutrality and sustainable campus development.

A key element of Finnish practice is the involvement of academic and local communities in decision-making. Universities commonly employ consultations, surveys, and workshops to engage stakeholders in defining priorities and evaluating progress. This participatory approach enhances the effectiveness of implemented measures by ensuring that they reflect real needs and the specificities of local contexts. Aalto University, for instance, explicitly reports on the role of stakeholder engagement in shaping its strategic goals and sustainability roadmap.

In summary, the regular publication of sustainability reports and roadmaps, combined with community engagement, enables Finnish universities to systematically plan and monitor their progress. These practices position them as exemplary institutions in advancing climate neutrality and sustainability goals, demonstrating the potential of well-structured strategies to transform campuses into model environments aligned with global sustainability efforts.

3.1.2. Selection of the Area of Analysis

Finnish universities have gradually institutionalized sustainability reporting and monitoring since the early 2010s. The first systematic reports were introduced by LUT University in 2010, followed by Aalto University in 2014. A major turning point occurred in 2019, when all universities included in this study published dedicated documents addressing sustainability, carbon reduction, and climate strategies. Since then, the scope of reporting has broadened considerably, with institutions issuing annual sustainability reports, carbon footprint assessments, and long-term action plans.

As illustrated in Figure 4, the number of published documents reached its highest level in 2023–2024. This peak reflects both the consolidation of annual reporting cycles and the introduction of new long-term carbon neutrality roadmaps extending to 2030. While the temporal peak coincides with the launch of the New European Bauhaus (NEB) Compass, the relationship should be understood as interpretative rather than causal: the NEB framework provides an additional lens for assessing campus strategies alongside broader European policy agendas. Accordingly, 2023 was selected as the focal year of this study. Earlier reports (2010–2022) were reviewed to trace continuity and change, but the comparative analysis of strategies and actions concentrates on the most recent documents. The evidence also indicates that reporting practices have gradually broadened beyond carbon efficiency toward themes such as biodiversity, well-being, and inclusion—signaling a convergence with NEB principles of sustainability, esthetics, and participation.

For the purpose of this research, three categories of material were distinguished:

• Sustainable Campus Strategies (SCS)—official strategic documents, climate roadmaps, and action plans issued by universities;
• Sustainable Campus Actions (SCA)—specific initiatives described in institutional reports (SCR) as well as actions published on university websites and in supplementary sources.

Both SCS and SCA were analyzed for each of the five evaluation indicators defined in Section 2.4. This enabled the descriptive mapping of strategic goals, institutional commitments, and implemented measures across Finnish campuses.

3.2. Comparative Results by Indicator

The comparative analysis of Finnish campus strategies was structured around the five evaluation indicators defined in Section 2.4 and mapped to the SDGs and NEB principles (Figure 3). For each indicator, relevant Sustainable Campus Strategies (SCS) and Sustainable Campus Actions (SCA) were identified, drawing primarily on documents published in 2023–2024, complemented by earlier materials when necessary to trace continuity and institutional learning.

We report findings by indicator, using a common structure: (i) SCS (strategies), (ii) SCA (actions), and (iii) a brief “Summary and NEB alignment” interpreting strengths, gaps, and alignment with the NEB Compass. The comparative results presented below are based on the qualitative scoring described in Section 2.5 and detailed in Appendix B (Table A2 and Table A3). Methodological details are provided in Appendix B (Table A2 and Table A3), while per-indicator campus results appear in

Table A4. Sustainable Campus Strategies (SCS) and Sustainable Campus Actions (SCA) addressing Blue-Green Infrastructure in selected Finnish universities, based on 2023 institutional and external documents. Source: Authors’ compilation.

Blue-Green Infrastructure
University	SCS	SCA
		SCR	Other
University of Helsinki	Advancing ecological sustainability and preventing nature loss [89] (p. 8) [155] (p. 37)	Meadow in the Natural History Museum courtyard [89] (p. 57)	No data
		Two new meadows at Viikki Campus [89] (p. 57)
Aalto University	Lower impact on nature, more space for biodiversity [94] (pp. 2, 16)	Improved campus outdoor areas [91] (p. 7)	The Well-being Route 2023 on the Otaniemi campus promotes mental and physical wellness through a dedicated path [92]
		Well-being route opened in spring 2023 for mental health day [91] (p. 18)
Tampere University	No data	No data	Enhanced public access to green spaces [174]
University of Turku	For future development: outdoor gym at Turku Campus [93] (p. 10)	No data	Nature 2100 Fund (2021)—supports biodiversity and forest restoration [175]
			Biodiversity footprint reporting and metrics development (2022) [139]
University of Oulu	No data	No data	No data
University of Jyväskylä	No data	Biodiversity footprint reporting and metrics (2019–2023) [90] (pp. 6–9)	New meadow to support biodiversity [176]
		Annual biodiversity improvements on campus [90] (p. 14)	More deadwood added for insect habitats [177]
		Updated campus green area policy [90] (p. 14)
		More deadwood added to support biodiversity [90] (p. 14)
		Ecological compensation through nature-based actions [90] (p. 23)
		Public encouraged to record bird songs and observations [90] (p. 23)
LUT University	Biodiversity considered in procurement and campus planning [86] (p. 6)	No data	Biodiversity will be supported by preserving natural elements and converting grass areas into flower meadows for pollinators [87]
	Nature-friendly elements preserved in maintenance [87]
	Grass areas converted to flower meadows for pollinators [87]
University of Eastern Finland	Campuses aim to support urban biodiversity with diverse species [88] (p. 9)	No data	No data
	Grasslands transformed into meadows [88] (p. 14)
	Paved areas replaced with permeable surfaces [88] (p. 14)
	Monocultures replaced by diverse stormwater and butterfly gardens [88] (p. 14)
	Nesting boxes, insect hotels, and deadwood added [88] (p. 14)

,

Table A5. Sustainable Campus Strategies (SCS) and Sustainable Campus Actions (SCA) addressing Low-Emission Mobility in selected Finnish universities, based on 2023 institutional and external documents. Source: Authors’ compilation.

Low-Emission Mobility
University	SCS	SCA
		SCR	Other
University of Helsinki	Promoting remote and hybrid work [100] (p. 9)	Hybrid work guidelines to cut commuting and optimize space; remote tools used for recruitment [89] (p. 62)	No data
	Over half of commutes are by car—current status [100] (p. 9)	Over 206,000 km cycled in bike-a-thons [89] (p. 7)
	Goal: minimize emissions from commuting [100] (p. 5)
Aalto University	Promote sustainable commuting [94] (p. 12)	Ongoing: Accessible walking campus [94] (p. 12)	Campus bikes for staff, HSL city bikes, and two bike service points [95]
	Ongoing: Sustainable mobility action plan [94] (p. 12)	Ongoing: Bicycle-friendly infrastructure [94] (p. 12)	Investment in showers, changing rooms, and bike storage [95]
	Aalto leads in sustainable mobility with easy access to cycling and walking paths [94] (p. 19)	Light Rail Line 15 launched [96] (p. 20)
		Most of the Aalto community commutes by public transport [94] (p. 19)
Tampere University	No data	No data	No data
University of Turku	The University promotes sustainable commuting (cycling, public transport) and collaborates with Turku to improve campus accessibility and bike use [157] (p. 5)	Bicycle-friendly routes (2023–2024) [93] (p. 4)	No data
		Merged staff parking zones (2023) [93] (p. 7)
	The campus encourages walking, offers more bikes for staff, and supports shared commuting options like car-pooling [157] (p. 5)	Added signage on Turku campus (2023) [93] (p. 8)
University of Oulu	We are improving campus access via public transport, cycling, and walking, with bike facilities and reduced car usage by renting [157]	Enhanced bicycle parking on campus [97] (p. 15)	No data
	The 2025 action plan includes car charging stations, bike storage, and e-bike subsidies [140,161] (p. 15)
University of Jyväskylä	No data	Improve facilities for online meetings [90] (p. 13)	No data
LUT University	Reducing emissions from LUT-owned vehicles [99] (p. 5)	No data	Major sources of indirect emissions: staff/student commuting, business travel, and campus food services (28.9%) [178]
	Solutions to lower commuting carbon footprint (e.g., remote workdays, sustainable mobility, rental bikes at Lappeenranta, potential pick-up site in Lahti, bike parking, and improved facilities) [99] (pp. 11–12)
University of Eastern Finland	Students and staff encouraged to use low-carbon transport [88] (p. 9)	The University of Eastern Finland built a new lockable bike shelter on the Kuopio campus [98] (p. 21)	Students and staff are encouraged to use low-carbon transport to campus [179]
	Shared campus bicycles for staff (ongoing) [88] (p. 19)
	Improved cycling conditions (more racks, covered parking, better facilities) and city bikes available [88] (p. 19)
	Sufficient charging stations for electric cars; support for biogas car stations [88] (p. 19)
	Enhanced remote meeting facilities [88] (p. 20)
	Low-emission options for rental cars considered [88] (p. 21)
	University cars replaced with low-emission vehicles as leases expire [88] (p. 19)

,

Table A6. Sustainable Campus Strategies (SCS) and Sustainable Campus Actions (SCA) addressing Sustainable Student Housing in selected Finnish universities, based on 2023 institutional and external documents. Source: Authors’ compilation.

Sustainable Student Housing
University	SCS	SCA
		SCR	Other
University of Helsinki	No data	Installation of solar and geothermal systems in research accommodation buildings in Tvärminne and Hyytiälä [100] (p. 10)	HOAS—Foundation for Student Housing in the Helsinki Region [102] Average rent kept at €14.60/m2 (below Helsinki average) Received social financing from Kuntarahoitus for seven projects. Carbon footprint reduced by almost 28% compared to 2022. Introduced seven waste bins in new housing units. Added versatile common areas in properties [109]
Aalto University	No data	No data	HOAS—Foundation for Student Housing in the Helsinki Region [102] Average rent kept at €14.60/m2 (below Helsinki average) Received social financing from Kuntarahoitus for seven projects. Carbon footprint reduced by almost 28% compared to 2022. Introduced seven waste bins in new housing units. Added versatile common areas in properties [109]
Tampere University	No data	No data	TOAS—The Tampere Student Housing Foundation [103] Provided ~25% of student housing below market rents. Developed and maintained functional, appropriately sized, and affordable apartments. Promoted sustainable development in line with UN SDGs (clean energy, sustainable cities, responsible consumption, climate action, partnerships) Invested in long-term, sustainable growth of housing stock. Actively involved staff and stakeholders in sustainability initiatives [110]
University of Turku	No data	No data	TYS—Student Village Foundation of Turku [104] Reduced carbon footprint to 2963 tonnes in 2023 (~23% less than 2022, ~29% less than 2020). Increased energy efficiency and use of renewable energy (solar panels in Nummenranta and Block 5 of Student Village). No new construction or major renovations in 2023, contributing to emission reduction. Maintained a high occupancy rate (97.8%) and an average tenancy of 2 years 4 months. Monitored tenant satisfaction monthly and received high ratings for service, apartment quality, and communication [112]
University of Oulu	No data	No data	PSOAS—Student Housing Foundation of Northern Finland [105]
University of Jyväskylä	No data	No data	KOAS, Jyväskylä—Central Finland Student Housing Foundation [106] Affordable housing, community engagement, support for international students, non-profit operations, below-market rents, high occupancy, energy-efficient maintenance, renewable energy, green district heating, solar power, lifecycle assessments, carbon neutrality by 2030, waste and energy reduction programs [111]
LUT University	No data	No data	Student Housing Foundation for the Region of Lappeenranta LOAS [107]
University of Eastern Finland	No data	No data	Student Housing Company Joensuun Elli [108]

,

Table A7. Sustainable Campus Strategies (SCS) and Sustainable Campus Actions (SCA) addressing Carbon Footprint Reduction and Renewable Energy in selected Finnish universities, based on 2023 institutional and external documents. Source: Authors’ compilation.

Carbon Footprint Reduction and Renewable Energy
University	SCS	SCA
		SCR	Other
University of Helsinki	10% energy from own renewables [100] (p. 7)	2.5% own renewable energy [89] (p. 7)
	Purchased electricity and district heating are carbon neutral [113] (pp. 28–29)	100% purchased electricity is carbon neutral [89] (p. 8)
	Energy use −15% (vs 2019) [113] (p. 26)	Carbon footprint 2019–2021; neutrality roadmap 2030 [89] (p. 50)
	Phase-out of fossil heating fuels [113] (p. 31)	Solar and geothermal at Tvärminne, Hyytiälä [89] (p. 52)
		Energy efficiency saved 45 MWh [89] (p. 52)
	Circular economy practices in place [155] (p. 37)	Electricity −1.8%, total energy −0.5% (vs. 2022) [89] (p. 52)
		Ruskeasuo demolition: 90% material recycling target [89] (p. 56)
	Improved carbon footprint; neutrality by 2030 [155] (p. 34–36)	New Kumpula campus supports circularity and neutrality [89] (p. 56)
	Research stations shifting from oil to geothermal; district heating solutions explored; new sites assessed for geothermal potential [113] (p. 15)	Timber-framed building at Hyytiälä Forestry Station [89] (p. 56)
Aalto University	Carbon neutral by 2030; 50% GHG reduction [94] (p. 2)	Finland’s and district heating emission factors fell in 2023, lowering energy-related emissions [115] (p. 11)	No data
	Campus as a carbon-neutral living lab by 2030 [94] (p. 2)	Espoo properties have used emission-free district heating via Fortum Ecoheat since 2022 [115] (p. 17)
	−25% emissions in new builds, −15% in renovations (vs. Business as Usual) [94] (p. 12)	Overall GHG emissions decreased due to improved calculations and reduction measures [115] (p. 30)
	20% lower energy use, zero energy emissions [94] (p. 12)	Key savings came from standardized indoor temperatures, optimized ventilation, and enhanced heat recovery [91] (p. 18)
	Efficient space use, sustainable campus, low-carbon construction [94] (p. 12)	Energy-related CO2 emissions dropped 23% to 3299 tCO2-eq in 2023 [91](p. 18)
	Focus on clean energy, green procurement, and reduced consumption [94] (p. 12)
Tampere University	Tampere Universities target carbon neutrality by 2030 [180]	Electricity and mostly district heating are carbon neutral [114] (p. 5)
	Campuses are energy- and resource-efficient, supported by sustainable maintenance [180]
	Emission reductions are part of daily operations [145] (p. 8)
University of Turku	New SYK buildings are BREEAM-certified; emissions offset with Gold Standard credits [157] (p. 4)	No data	Total 2023 emissions: 8600 tCO2-eq; business travel, air traffic, and research made up 85%+ [139]
	University of Turku targets carbon neutrality by 2025, tracking and reducing emissions since 2019 [139]
University of Oulu	Goal: 50% carbon reduction from 2019 by 2025, monitored annually [181]	Carbon footprint down 33.6% from 2019 (19,072 tCO2-eq) [97] (p. 13)	No data
	Everyday Action Plan promotes environmental responsibility and well-being [181]	Linnanmaa campus district heating use fell 18.9% since 2019 [97] (p. 14)
	Supports UN SDGs 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 17 [181]	Electricity is renewable and emission-free; SYK Oy offsets emissions [97] (p. 14)
University of Jyväskylä	No data	Ylistö campus renovation planned with CO2 and biodiversity in mind [90] (p. 12)	No data
		SYK and JYU cut energy use; SYK uses wood-based ALVA district heating [90] (p. 12)
LUT University	Heating optimized based on occupancy, supporting remote work [99] (p. 7)	2023 carbon footprint reported with improved calculations [86] (pp. 27–37)	No data
	Electricity use reduced; Lappeenranta campus runs on carbon-neutral power, Lahti campus encouraged to do the same [99] (pp. 8–9)	Lappeenranta campus fully on renewable energy; 4% from solar panels [86] (p. 30)
		Lighting, ventilation, and facility use optimized to save energy [86] (p. 26)
University of Eastern Finland	UEF aims for full carbon neutrality (scope 1–3) through avoidance, reduction, and compensation [88] (p. 9) [179]	Campus heating uses 100% renewable district heating [98] (p. 16)	No data
	Campuses are modern, energy-efficient, and space-optimized [88] (p. 9) [179]	UEF carbon footprint down 16% since 2019 [98] (p. 26)
	Electricity is 100% renewable; solar use is growing [88] (p. 12)
	Heat and electricity are reduced via efficient solutions and management [88] (p. 12)
	Facilities optimized with multifunctional workspaces [88] (p. 12)
	Construction and renovation follow sustainable principles [88] (p. 12)

and

Table A8. Sustainable Campus Strategies (SCS) and Sustainable Campus Actions (SCA) addressing Preservation of Cultural Heritage Amidst the Forces of Globalization in selected Finnish universities, based on 2023 institutional and external documents. Source: Authors’ compilation.

Preservation of Cultural Heritage Amidst the Forces of Globalization
University	SCS	SCA
		SCR	Other
University of Helsinki	Planned integration of energy-efficient solutions in buildings of cultural and historical value [100] (p.19)	Renovation of historic Main Building, applying energy-efficient and renewable technologies [113] (p. 19)	The SveaSus educational project on cultural heritage (Suomenlinna—UNESCO) as a learning environment for sustainable development. [117]
Aalto University	No data	Continuation of the development of the Otaniemi campus; modernization of buildings K3 (Design Factory, Aalto Ventures Program, Startup Sauna) and K4 (laboratories), construction of the Otaparkki parking facility, and new buildings: Kide (Technology Research Center) and Marsio (Arts and Media Education) [91] (p. 34)	Ongoing: the INT-ACT research and educational project, focusing on tangible and intangible cultural heritage as a tool for education and social dialog [118]
Tampere University	Planned recognition of the history and heritage of university buildings as an element of campus development [116] (p. 4)	No data	No data
University of Turku	No data	No data	No data
University of Oulu	No data		Ongoing: renovation of the Alvar Aalto silo and its transformation into a Research Center, the project combines the preservation of modernist architecture with advanced digital documentation technologies and public education [119]
University of Jyväskylä	No data	The Seminaarinmäki campus has been awarded the European Heritage Label. The University’s membership in the Alvar Aalto Routes network highlights its commitment to the preservation of modernist architectural heritage [89] (p. 4)	No data
LUT University	No data	No data	No data
University of Eastern Finland	No data	No data	No data

. The evaluation explicitly considers how the observed measures align with the NEB principles of sustainability, inclusivity, and esthetics, thereby situating Finnish practices within both global and European frameworks.

3.2.1. Blue-Green Infrastructure

Blue-green infrastructure (BGI) constitutes an important element of adaptive strategies implemented by Finnish universities, which increasingly view their campuses as living laboratories for nature-based solutions and climate adaptation. Reported initiatives encompass both investments in greenery and blue infrastructure as well as programs for monitoring institutional environmental impacts (Figure 5). Detailed results are presented in Appendix B, Table A4.

Across the analyzed sample, most universities include Sustainable Campus Strategies (SCS) focused on biodiversity enhancement, the development of green areas, and actions preventing the degradation of natural systems. Biodiversity emerges as the most prominent theme, appearing in four out of eight SCS and in four out of eight SCA. At LUT University, strategies include integrating biodiversity into procurement procedures [86] (p. 6) and converting lawns into flowering meadows [87]. The University of Eastern Finland introduces rain gardens and butterfly meadows [88] (p. 14), applies permeable surfaces [88] (p. 14), and installs fauna-supporting structures such as nesting boxes and insect hotels [88] (p. 14).

Examples of Sustainable Campus Actions (SCA) further illustrate this trend. At the University of Helsinki, biodiversity initiatives include establishing meadows in the courtyard of the Natural History Museum and on the Viikki Campus [89] (pp. 8, 57). At the University of Jyväskylä, “deadwood gardens” were created to support insect habitats [90] (p. 14). Aalto University emphasizes the revitalization of outdoor areas [91] (p. 7) and the creation of well-being routes that combine ecological enhancement with student health promotion [92]. In Jyväskylä, the academic community is actively engaged in monitoring biodiversity, for instance by recording bird songs [90] (p. 23).

Turku University’s strategies include the development of outdoor gyms [93] (p. 10), while both Turku and Jyväskylä are advancing the use of the Biodiversity Footprint indicator [90] (pp. 6–9; X9), which could become an important tool for urban and campus-scale planning. None of the other universities currently applies this metric.

Nevertheless, not all universities report on BGI measures in their SCS or SCRs. Two institutions—Tampere and Oulu—lack relevant data (Appendix B, Table A4). Moreover, discrepancies were observed between comprehensive SCS (e.g., at LUT and the University of Eastern Finland) and their underrepresentation in SCRs. In some cases, action descriptions are limited, which hinders cross-institutional comparability (e.g., between Aalto and Jyväskylä).

Summary and NEB Alignment

The findings indicate that biodiversity and nature-based solutions play a growing role in strengthening climate resilience on Finnish campuses. Within the NEB Compass, these practices strongly address the sustainable dimension by supporting local ecosystems and climate adaptation. The esthetic dimension is visible in interventions such as well-being routes, revitalized outdoor spaces, and outdoor gyms, which enhance the experiential and visual qualities of campuses. The together dimension is reflected in participatory practices, such as involving the university community in biodiversity monitoring. Overall, BGI demonstrates rising significance, but its integration into long-term strategies remains uneven, with a lack of monitoring mechanisms, standardized metrics, and dedicated resources across the sector.

3.2.2. Low-Emission Mobility

The analysis of SCS and SCA demonstrates that Finnish universities increasingly recognize low-emission mobility as a core element of their climate strategies. Reported measures combine the development of active mobility infrastructure with solutions designed to reduce transport demand (Figure 6). Detailed results are provided in Appendix B, Table A5.

Most universities explicitly prioritize sustainable and low-emission mobility as a strategic goal. A central focus of SCS is the promotion of accessible alternatives such as cycling, walking, car-sharing, and public transport. Aalto University highlights these measures through the development of a walking-friendly campus [94] (p. 12), investments in supportive facilities including repair stations, showers, and lockers [95], and the launch of Light Rail Line 15, which significantly improved campus accessibility [96] (p. 20). Similar actions are observed at the University of Oulu [97] (p. 15), the University of Turku [93] (p. 4), and the University of Eastern Finland [98] (p. 21).

Another key strategy is the promotion of remote and hybrid work, which directly reduces commuting-related emissions. This approach is emphasized at the University of Helsinki, Aalto University, the University of Jyväskylä, LUT University, and the University of Eastern Finland (Appendix B, Table A5). Reported actions include optimizing campus space use and encouraging cycling in Helsinki [89] (p. 62), as well as reducing business travel through digital solutions in Eastern Finland [88] (p. 20).

Certain institutions also introduce urban design elements that combine functional and educational roles. The University of Turku has implemented visually marked low-emission and emission-free vehicle zones as well as color-coded mobility routes [93] (pp. 7–8). These interventions enhance navigability, reinforce the visibility of sustainability goals, and contribute to the esthetic character of the campus.

In summary, Finnish universities’ mobility strategies cluster around four domains:

• promoting cycling and walking;
• supporting public transport;
• reducing the need for travel through remote/hybrid work and online meetings;
• replacing campus fleet and private vehicles with low- or zero-emission alternatives.

Summary and NEB Alignment

The findings show that mobility-related emissions remain one of the largest contributors to campus carbon footprints, as emphasized in the SCS of LUT University [99]. Within the NEB Compass, the sustainable dimension is strongly represented by systemic promotion of public transport, active mobility, and hybrid work. The beautiful dimension is visible in innovative urban design features such as color-coded routes and emission-free zones, but these are present in only two of the eight universities. The together dimension is advanced through the provision of diverse and flexible transport options and remote working opportunities, which improve inclusivity for the academic community. However, none of the reviewed strategies explicitly addresses accessibility of mobility solutions for people with special needs, revealing a notable gap. Furthermore, several universities—including Tampere, Jyväskylä, and LUT—report limited or no data, indicating incomplete coverage across all NEB dimensions.

3.2.3. Sustainable Student Housing

Sustainable student housing represents a crucial dimension of academic environments, linking social, environmental, and economic aspects in line with NEB principles and SDG 11.1. In the analyzed sample, student housing is almost completely absent from institutional Sustainable Campus Strategies (SCS). Where mentioned (e.g., at the University of Helsinki), energy measures refer to research or academic buildings without explicit coverage of dormitories [100] (p. 10). The majority of strategic documents address energy efficiency or spatial use in general terms, without clarifying whether these measures apply to dormitories. Likewise, social aspects such as integration, community participation, or co-management of student housing are largely missing. This indicates a systemic marginalization of housing within universities’ sustainability agendas (Figure 7; Appendix B, Table A6).

In practice, the responsibility for student housing is outsourced to independent housing foundations, such as the Helsinki Student Housing Foundation (HOAS), Tampere Student Housing Foundation (TOAS), Turku Student Village Foundation (TYS), Central Finland Student Housing Foundation (KOAS), Oulu Student Housing Foundation (PSOAS), Lappeenranta Student Housing Foundation (LOAS), and Joensuun Elli, which accommodate a large share of students while formally operating outside university structures [101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108]. Available reports—particularly from foundations associated with Helsinki, Aalto, Tampere, Turku, and Jyväskylä—highlight recurring themes: maintaining rents below market levels (HOAS, Aalto, TOAS, KOAS) [109,110,111], securing social financing (e.g., seven HOAS projects funded by Kuntarahoitus) [109], and systematically reducing emissions. For instance, TYS reported a 23% reduction in its carbon footprint compared to 2022 and 29% compared to 2020 [112], while HOAS reported a 28% reduction relative to 2022 [109]. Technical interventions include solar panel installations (TYS—Nummenranta and Student Village Block 5 [112]; KOAS [111]) and renewable district heating (KOAS [111]).

Social measures appear in the form of shared community spaces supporting integration and education (HOAS, KOAS [109,111]), tenant satisfaction monitoring (TYS [112]), and targeted support for international students (KOAS [111]). Long-term goals include achieving carbon neutrality by 2030 (KOAS [111]) and ensuring sustainable housing stock through functional, affordable, and well-designed units (TOAS [110]).

However, for the University of Oulu, LUT University, and the University of Eastern Finland, no reports were identified, making it impossible to assess housing-related sustainability practices. The absence of systematic coverage across institutions limits comparability and indicates a lack of structured integration of student housing into higher education sustainability reporting.

Summary and NEB Alignment

The findings confirm that universities have largely outsourced responsibility for student housing to independent foundations. While these organizations actively implement sustainability measures—such as emission reductions, renewable energy, and affordable rents—universities’ own strategies remain fragmentary. Within the NEB Compass, the sustainable dimension is strongly addressed through foundations’ efforts in energy efficiency, renewables, and circular practices. The beautiful dimension appears only marginally, in isolated cases of community-oriented spaces or urban design interventions. The together dimension is advanced by keeping rents affordable, supporting international students, and fostering integration, but no initiatives explicitly address the needs of students requiring special support. Overall, student housing remains a critical blind spot in Finnish universities’ sustainability agendas, with responsibility shifted to external actors. This pattern reflects a structural governance gap: by outsourcing housing to independent foundations, universities effectively externalize social and spatial responsibilities from their institutional sustainability frameworks. As a result, inclusion, affordability, and community integration—core NEB ‘Together’ values—are treated as peripheral rather than strategic priorities. The institutional fragmentation and lack of dedicated funding mechanisms perpetuate the marginalization of housing in long-term campus planning.

3.2.4. Carbon Footprint Reduction and Renewable Energy

The analysis of SCS and SCA shows that Finnish universities have adopted comprehensive strategies to reduce their carbon footprints and accelerate the transition to renewable energy. For all institutions examined—except the University of Jyväskylä—relevant measures were identified in SCS, while SCA evidence was available for all universities. In some cases, additional sources provided further details, particularly for Aalto University and LUT University (Figure 8). Detailed results are presented in Appendix B, Table A7.

All analyzed universities conduct carbon footprint calculations, and several (e.g., Aalto University, the University of Helsinki, and the University of Oulu) have recently introduced updated climate neutrality roadmaps and action plans (Appendix A, Table A1). The most frequently reported SCS priorities include:

• increasing the share of renewable energy (4/8 universities—Helsinki, Aalto, Tampere, Eastern Finland),
• ensuring carbon-neutral electricity and district heating (3/8—Helsinki, LUT, Eastern Finland),
• reducing emissions through renovation and sustainable construction, including reuse of materials, recycling, adaptability, modularity, and space optimization (4/8—Helsinki, Aalto, Turku, Eastern Finland),
• setting carbon neutrality targets for 2025–2030 (5/8—Helsinki, Aalto, Tampere, Turku, Oulu).

Concrete examples reinforce these findings. The University of Helsinki highlights the expansion of geothermal and solar installations in research stations [113] (p. 27), increased its share of renewable energy [89] (p. 7), and switched to 100% carbon-neutral electricity [89] (p. 8). Similar progress was recorded at Aalto University, where emissions from energy use decreased by 23% in 2023 [91] (p. 18), with the growing contribution of solar (1%) and geoenergy (5%) [94] (p. 18). The university also implemented building efficiency measures such as ventilation optimization and enhanced heat recovery [91] (p. 18). Similar renewable energy or carbon-neutral electricity initiatives were reported at Tampere [114] (p. 5), Oulu [97] (p. 14), LUT [86] (p. 30), and Eastern Finland [98] (p. 16). Locally specific solutions also emerge, such as wood-based heating at the University of Jyväskylä [90] (p. 12).

Sustainable construction is another significant SCA area. In Helsinki, timber-framed buildings and demolition projects with >90% material reuse were highlighted [89] (p. 56). Aalto emphasized space optimization in response to a growing academic community [94] (p. 16), while Jyväskylä adopted eco-focused renovation [90] (p. 12). Notably, the remaining five universities made little reference to construction or architecture in this context, leaving a critical gap.

All universities reported a reduction in their carbon footprints compared to baseline years, most frequently in 2019 (Appendix B, Table A7). Methodological improvements in footprint calculations were noted at Aalto [115] (p. 30) and LUT [86] (pp. 27–37). However, the absence of standardized metrics across institutions hampers comparability and weakens the ability to synthesize results at the national level.

Summary and NEB Alignment

Within the NEB Compass, the sustainable dimension is strongly represented by systemic increases in renewable energy, adoption of carbon-neutral electricity and heating, and integration of circular practices in construction. The beautiful dimension is less developed, though selected projects (e.g., timber-framed buildings, high-quality architectural solutions) demonstrate how emission reduction can align with esthetic and functional value. The together dimension is evident in the collaborative nature of sustainability reporting and long-term neutrality targets, but student and community engagement in energy-related decision-making remains largely invisible. Overall, universities show consistent progress on sustainability, while esthetic and inclusive aspects remain underrepresented.

3.2.5. Preservation of Cultural Heritage Amidst Globalization

The analysis of SCS and SCA indicates that cultural heritage issues are addressed only fragmentarily within Finnish universities. Explicit SCS references were found only at the University of Helsinki and Tampere University, while most concrete initiatives appear in SCA. For several institutions (Turku, LUT, and the University of Eastern Finland), no relevant data were identified (Figure 9). Detailed results are presented in Appendix B, Table A8.

The findings show a diversity of approaches. Only Helsinki and Tampere make direct references to heritage in SCS. At Tampere, this is limited to a general statement on integrating historical narratives into campus development [116], whereas Helsinki aligns with the national Energy Efficiency Agreement for the Property Sector (2017–2025), combining heritage protection with advanced energy standards. Notable projects include the renovation of the Main Building (1832) and the Viikki Info Center with timber structures and renewable technologies, aimed at reducing carbon emissions [100,113].

Additional examples emerge in SCA and supplementary documents. Helsinki implements the SveaSus project, which applies a phenomenological approach to heritage education (Suomenlinna—UNESCO) [117]. Aalto engages in the INT-ACT initiative, employing XR technologies to preserve tangible and intangible heritage while strengthening societal dialog [118]. Aalto also emphasizes maintaining architectural heritage in Otaniemi campus development [91]. Jyväskylä highlights its Seminaarinmäki campus, awarded the European Heritage Label, and participates in the Alvar Aalto Routes network, focusing on modernist heritage [89]. Similarly, the University of Oulu supports the renovation of Alvar Aalto’s silo into a Research Center, combining industrial heritage preservation, digital documentation, and education, with completion planned for 2026 [119].

In contrast, the absence of heritage-related content in the SCS and SCA of Turku, LUT, and Eastern Finland suggests that cultural heritage remains a low strategic priority.

Overall, heritage-related activity appears dispersed, relying on isolated renovation or educational projects rather than coherent institutional strategies. Social participation mechanisms are rare, and the material focus on building modernization is often disconnected from broader socio-cultural contexts.

Within the NEB Compass, sustainability is addressed through heritage renovations integrating energy efficiency (Helsinki); esthetics is represented in projects highlighting modernist and historical architecture (Aalto, Jyväskylä, Oulu); and inclusion emerges in educational and community-based initiatives (SveaSus, INT-ACT). However, all three dimensions remain marginal, underscoring the limited scope and intensity of heritage engagement in campus sustainability agendas. This underrepresentation can be traced to the predominance of a technocratic planning culture within Finnish universities, where quantitative environmental KPIs—such as carbon and energy performance—dominate strategic agendas. Qualitative, place-based dimensions of sustainability, including heritage, identity, and esthetics, are thus institutionally undervalued and often relegated to project-based or symbolic initiatives. This imbalance highlights the need to broaden national and institutional reporting frameworks to capture the cultural and experiential dimensions central to the NEB approach.

3.3. Synthesis of Cross-Indicator Findings

To synthesize the comparative findings across all five indicators, a cross-campus summary matrix (

Table 3. Cross-Campus Summary Matrix: Performance of Finnish Universities across Five NEB-Aligned Indicators. Source: Authors’ elaboration based on qualitative evaluation of SCS and SCA, 2020–2024; equal weighting applied across all indicators.

Evaluation Table						Overall
University	Blue-Green Infrastructure	Low-Emission Mobility	Sustainable Student Housing	Carbon Footprint Reduction and Renewable Energy	Preservation of Cultural Heritage Amidst the Forces of Globalization
University of Helsinki	H	H	M	H	H	S
Aalto University	H	H	L	H	H	S
Tampere University	L	NR	L	M	L	MIX
University of Turku	M	H	L	M	NR	B
University of Oulu	NR	M	L	H	L	MIX
University of Jyväskylä	H	L	L	M	L	B
LUT University	M	M	L	H	NR	B
University of Eastern Finland	M	H	L	H	NR	B

Note: NR = no public evidence; L = limited/generic references; M = partial/planned actions; H = comprehensive and implemented with monitoring. Overall ratings: MIX (marked inconsistency, score 0–7), B (Balanced, 8–9), G (Good, 10–12), S (Strong, 13–15; ≥3 H).

) was developed, consolidating campus-level performance across blue-green infrastructure, low-emission mobility, sustainable student housing, carbon footprint reduction, renewable energy, and cultural heritage preservation. The qualitative scores (High/Medium/Low/NR) follow the evaluation procedure described in Section 2.5 and the rubric and categories defined in Appendix B (Table A2 and Table A3); detailed per-indicator evidence is provided in Appendix B (Table A4, Table A5, Table A6, Table A7 and Table A8).

This matrix provides a concise visual synthesis of strengths and gaps across the eight analyzed universities and establishes a minimum set of comparable indicators for cross-case comparison.

Based on the H/M/L/NR scores reported in Table 3 (equal weighting; see Section 2.5 and Appendix B, Table A2 and Table A3),

Table 4. Key Strengths and Key Weaknesses by University (derived from Table 3 scores).

University	Key Strength	Key Weakness
University of Helsinki	Blue-Green Infrastructure	Sustainable Student Housing
	Low-Emission Mobility
	Carbon Footprint Reduction and Renewable Energy
	Preservation of Cultural Heritage Amidst the Forces of Globalization
Aalto University	Blue-Green Infrastructure	Sustainable Student Housing
	Low-Emission Mobility
	Carbon Footprint Reduction and Renewable Energy
	Preservation of Cultural Heritage Amidst the Forces of Globalization
Tampere University	Carbon Footprint Reduction and Renewable Energy	Low-Emission Mobility
		Blue-Green Infrastructure
		Sustainable Student Housing
		Preservation of Cultural Heritage Amidst the Forces of Globalization
University of Turku	Low-Emission Mobility	Preservation of Cultural Heritage Amidst the Forces of Globalization
		Sustainable Student Housing
University of Oulu	Carbon Footprint Reduction and Renewable Energy	Blue-Green Infrastructure
		Sustainable Student Housing
		Preservation of Cultural Heritage Amidst the Forces of Globalization
University of Jyväskylä	Blue-Green Infrastructure	Low-Emission Mobility
		Sustainable Student Housing
		Preservation of Cultural Heritage Amidst the Forces of Globalization
LUT University	Carbon Footprint Reduction and Renewable Energy	Preservation of Cultural Heritage Amidst the Forces of Globalization
		Sustainable Student Housing
University of Eastern Finland	Low-Emission Mobility	Preservation of Cultural Heritage Amidst the Forces of Globalization
	Carbon Footprint Reduction and Renewable Energy	Sustainable Student Housing

summarizes each university’s Key Strength(s) and Key Weakness(es).

The conducted comparative analysis of Finnish university strategies reveals a significant polarization in strategic coherence and the level of implementation of sustainability actions. The results indicate the presence of clear leaders and highlight systematic gaps in the integration of values promoted by the New European Bauhaus (NEB).

Carbon Footprint Reduction and Renewable Energy emerge as the most robust and consistently developed strategic areas, receiving high ratings and being cited as a key strength by nearly all assessed institutions. This consensus confirms the sector’s leading role in climate mitigation efforts. Performance across Low-Emission Mobility and Blue-Green Infrastructure is more heterogeneous. While these areas function as key strengths for some institutions (e.g., Helsinki, Aalto, Jyväskylä, Turku, Eastern Finland), they simultaneously appear as weaknesses or medium-level implementation areas for others (e.g., Tampere, Oulu).

The evaluation simultaneously highlights structural deficits, particularly in the socio-spatial and cultural dimensions promoted by the NEB framework. Sustainable Student Housing represents the greatest systemic challenge; this domain receives low ratings (L) most frequently and is consistently identified as a weakness by almost all assessed universities. This marginalization suggests that student accommodation is often externalized or treated as a fragmented social infrastructure rather than an integral component of a holistic sustainability strategy. Similarly, Preservation of Cultural Heritage Amidst the Forces of Globalization is comprehensively implemented only in a few leading institutions (Helsinki, Aalto). For the majority of the sample, this dimension shows low levels of development or an absence of public data (NR), reflecting the marginalization of the NEB’s esthetic and cultural pillar in favor of quantifiable environmental metrics.

In the overall classification, clear leaders emerge: the University of Helsinki and Aalto University are classified as Strong (S), achieving the highest ratings (H) across all indicators. The remaining institutions (Turku, Oulu, Jyväskylä, Tampere, LUT, Eastern Finland) fall into the Balanced (B) or Marked Inconsistency (MIX) categories. Their profiles are characterized by a dominance of low ratings (L) or missing data (NR), demonstrating a fragmented approach that struggles to integrate environmental ambition with the socio-spatial and cultural requirements of sustainable campus transformation.

The attribution of Key Strengths and Key Weaknesses (Table 4) for each university was based on the following rules derived from the comparative assessment:

• Key Strength: Assigned where an indicator received a High (H) rating or where it represented the highest score achieved by the university across the entire set of indicators.
• Key Weakness: Assigned where an indicator received a Low (L) rating or No Public Evidence (NR) rating, or represented the lowest overall score achieved by the university within the assessment framework.

The disaggregated analysis of strengths and weaknesses across the eight Finnish university campuses reveals a pronounced structural asymmetry in the implementation of the New European Bauhaus (NEB) indicators. The data consistently demonstrates that Carbon Footprint Reduction and Renewable Energy are the most robust and universally addressed domains, being highlighted as a key strength by seven of the eight assessed institutions and not featuring as a weakness for any. This confirms the sector’s prioritized commitment to measurable environmental metrics and climate mitigation goals. In contrast, performance across Low-Emission Mobility and Blue-Green Infrastructure is highly variable and heterogeneous, with each indicator simultaneously categorized as a key strength in several institutions (three to four cases) and a weakness in others (two cases). This wide divergence suggests an uneven technical and financial capacity across the Finnish higher education landscape to integrate complex urban and infrastructure projects, leading to a polarized distribution of these specific competencies.

This assessment reveals two critical systemic challenges related to the NEB’s socio-spatial and cultural pillars. Sustainable Student Housing emerges as the greatest structural deficit, identified as a key weakness in seven out of eight cases, and never once indicated as a strength. This finding underscores a critical failure to holistically integrate the NEB pillar of Inclusiveness into spatial strategies, likely due to the externalization of housing responsibilities (i.e., outsourcing to external student housing foundations). Similarly, the Preservation of Cultural Heritage Amidst the Forces of Globalization is frequently underdeveloped, noted as a weakness in five institutions and explicitly highlighted as a strength only in the two sector leaders (Helsinki and Aalto).

In conclusion, while the primary strategic strength lies in Carbon Footprint Reduction and Renewable Energy, the most pressing challenge remains Sustainable Student Housing, highlighting a critical area for immediate strategic reform to achieve truly comprehensive, NEB-aligned campus transformation. The patterns in Table 3 suggest that systemic externalization of student housing and a predominantly technocratic reporting culture contribute to the persistent neglect of socio-spatial and cultural dimensions. These institutional drivers help to explain the divergence between strong performance on energy/carbon and weaker attention to inclusion and heritage. We return to these mechanisms in Section 4 (Discussion) when outlining policy-oriented recommendations.

3.4. Summary of Indicators-Based Results

As summarized in Table 3 and Table 4, this subsection synthesizes cross-indicator results to identify overarching patterns and gaps across Finnish university strategies.

The cross-indicator analysis confirms that Finnish universities have progressively institutionalized sustainability into their campus strategies. Since the early 2010s, institutions have developed a growing portfolio of sustainability reports, climate roadmaps, and action plans, culminating in a peak of activity in 2023. While this temporal peak coincided with the launch of the New European Bauhaus (NEB) Compass, the connection is interpretative rather than causal: the Compass provides a useful framework for aligning campus strategies with European policy agendas. These documents not only establish monitoring mechanisms but also position campuses as testbeds for implementing innovative climate and spatial solutions.

Across the five evaluation indicators, several clear patterns emerge. Low-emission mobility, carbon footprint reduction, and nature-based/blue-green infrastructure are the most systematically addressed domains, supported by measurable targets such as carbon neutrality by 2025–2030 and tangible investments in renewable energy, public transport, and biodiversity measures. These initiatives reflect strong alignment with the sustainability dimension of the NEB Compass and demonstrate universities’ capacity to contribute to national and European climate goals.

By contrast, sustainable student housing and cultural heritage preservation remain weakly integrated and treated as peripheral compared to energy, mobility, and biodiversity. In housing, responsibility is largely outsourced to independent student foundations, while institutional strategies remain fragmentary or silent. In heritage, activities are dispersed, often limited to isolated renovation projects or pilot initiatives without consistent frameworks. These gaps point to structural limitations in addressing the so-called ‘together’ and esthetic dimensions of the NEB Compass.

A recurring challenge across indicators is the lack of standardized metrics and systematic evaluation mechanisms. For example, biodiversity footprint calculations are piloted only at selected universities, while methodologies for carbon footprint measurement remain inconsistent. This limits comparability across institutions and undermines sector-wide learning. Another cross-cutting issue is the fragmented treatment of inclusivity: while some participatory practices (e.g., biodiversity monitoring, remote work policies, heritage education) are evident, they are rarely institutionalized or explicitly extended to students and staff with special needs.

Viewed through the NEB Compass, the sustainability dimension is consistently and robustly embedded, particularly in energy, mobility, and biodiversity initiatives. The esthetic dimension appears selectively, through landscape revitalization, architectural quality in construction projects, and cultural heritage initiatives, but remains underdeveloped at most universities. The together dimension is visible in participatory approaches and affordable housing policies of student foundations, yet these efforts are uneven and often external to university strategies.

Overall, the results highlight both the transformative potential of Finnish universities in advancing sustainability and the need for stronger integration of inclusivity and esthetics to align fully with the holistic vision of the New European Bauhaus. To move beyond SDG-driven frameworks, Finnish campuses must embed inclusivity and esthetics alongside sustainability, ensuring that climate neutrality efforts translate into resilient, future-proof, and socially meaningful campus environments.

3.5. Synergies and Tensions Between NEB and SDG/ESG Frameworks

While the NEB framework and the SDG/ESG agendas share common goals of sustainability, inclusion, and resilience, they differ in their conceptual focus and operational logic. The SDGs and ESG standards emphasize global comparability through quantifiable indicators, while the New European Bauhaus (NEB) foregrounds qualitative, place-sensitive, and esthetic dimensions of transformation. The NEB Compass promotes a holistic understanding of sustainability, linking environmental performance with spatial quality, social inclusion, and local identity.

In practice, these frameworks are often complementary. The NEB principle of sustainability directly reinforces SDGs 7, 11, 12, and 13 and aligns with ESG/ESRS environmental disclosures (E1–E5). The together dimension supports SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and the social standards of ESRS (S1–S4), which emphasize stakeholder engagement and double materiality. The beautiful dimension contributes to SDG 11.4 (Cultural and Natural Heritage) and indirectly informs ESG social and governance criteria related to livability, cultural value, and design quality.

However, tensions emerge from differences in scope and methodology. First, NEB indicators are qualitative, relying on interpretive assessment of design, spatial experience, and community value, while ESG/SDG systems prioritize quantifiable, verifiable metrics. Second, reporting boundaries diverge: ESG and ESRS frameworks focus on the reporting entity, whereas many campus sustainability initiatives—especially student housing and mobility—depend on external partners. Third, time horizons differ: ESG disclosures are annual, while architectural and spatial transformations unfold over decades. Finally, the esthetic and experiential dimension of sustainability—central to NEB—remains largely unmeasured within ESG or SDG reporting.

These tensions suggest that the NEB can serve as a qualitative complement to existing frameworks, enriching their capacity to address spatial and cultural aspects of transformation. To operationalize this integration, we propose: (1) introducing proxy indicators for beauty and inclusion (e.g., spatial quality audits, accessibility metrics, user satisfaction surveys); (2) applying double materiality principles to NEB-Together themes (such as student housing, participation, and accessibility); and (3) clarifying reporting boundaries between university-led and ecosystem-led actions, following ESRS practice.

This interpretive bridge enables alignment between European and global sustainability agendas. It allows the SDG/ESG systems to remain robustly quantitative while embedding the NEB’s qualitative, place-based vision—essential for translating abstract goals into tangible, human-centered campus environments.

3.6. Illustrative Conceptual Case: Rurban Habitat Project

3.6.1. Selection of the Subject of Analysis

In the final stage of the study, an exemplary conceptual project was selected to illustrate the practical application of the theoretical assumptions and evaluation indicators defined in Section 2.4 and Section 3.1. The choice of case was motivated by the strategic gaps identified in Section 3.2, notably the limited institutional engagement with student housing, the fragmented approach to cultural heritage preservation, and the lack of integrated strategies for blue-green infrastructure. Against this background, the project was treated not as a benchmark for existing practices but as an exploratory, design-based proof of concept demonstrating a potential, integrated pathway for academic campus transformation aligned with the principles of the New European Bauhaus (NEB) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The selected case—Rurban Habitat—was co-authored by Magdalena Strauchmann and Aleksandra Tądel under the academic supervision of Dr. Eng. Arch. Elżbieta Komarzyńska-Świeściak and Dr. Eng. Arch. Marek Lamber at Wrocław University of Science and Technology. The project received first place and a special mention for design at the national stage of the contest, and second place in the international final [120]. It was independently evaluated by national and international juries, ensuring the objectivity of its selection as an illustrative conceptual case.

Importantly, the project was conceived from the outset as an academic exercise explicitly aligned with the holistic values of the NEB Compass and the SDGs. Its design process integrated sustainability, esthetics, and inclusion, while simultaneously addressing SDG targets related to climate action, affordable housing, and resilient infrastructure. This intentional embedding of the NEB framework into the design phase strengthens its role as a conceptual proof of concept, showing how theoretical principles can be operationalized in a comprehensive and practice-oriented manner.

According to the national jury, the Rurban Habitat design demonstrated a comprehensive strategy for sustainable campus development, effective integration of social functions, and high architectural and functional quality [120]. The international jury emphasized its innovative application of circular architecture principles, ecological solutions, and biodiversity protection, which positioned the project as a conceptual model for implementing the circular economy in academic environments.

For reasons of transparency, it should be noted that one of the supervisors of the project is also a co-author of this article. This does not affect the validity of its use as an illustrative conceptual case, as the project was independently evaluated and awarded at both national and international stages by external expert juries.

Thus, Rurban Habitat was considered particularly suitable as a subject of analysis in this study. Its conceptual but methodologically robust nature allows it to serve as a model scenario, demonstrating how fragmented measures observed in Finnish universities can be translated into a coherent and future-oriented design strategy. By addressing the very gaps identified in the comparative analysis, the project exemplifies how NEB principles of sustainability, inclusion, and esthetics can be holistically embedded into academic campus transformation.

3.6.2. Project Analysis

The Rurban Habitat conceptual design in Helsinki was developed in the framework of the 19th edition of the Architecture Student Contest organized by Saint-Gobain, a French company, in cooperation with the University of Helsinki and the City of Helsinki, Finland. The competition brief required multidimensional responses to the transformation of the Viikki district in Helsinki, focusing on the design of new student housing, the adaptive reuse of an existing office building for residential purposes, the creation of green public spaces, and the application of circular economy and low-carbon principles, including life-cycle assessment of buildings [121]. This scope closely aligns with the five evaluation indicators used in this study (Section 2.4), particularly in the areas of student housing, blue-green infrastructure, carbon reduction, and cultural heritage integration. It also mirrors the New European Bauhaus (NEB) emphasis on holistic transformation that is simultaneously sustainable, inclusive, and esthetically enriching.

Rurban Habitat project [122], authored by Magdalena Strauchmann and Aleksandra Tądel under the supervision of Dr. Eng. Arch. Elżbieta Komarzyńska-Świeściak and Dr. Eng. Arch. Marek Lamber at Wrocław University of Science and Technology was awarded first place and a special recognition in the national stage of the competition in Poland, and second place in the international final [120]. Importantly, the project was independently evaluated by both national and international juries, which emphasized its architectural quality, social integration, and sustainability-oriented innovation. This external validation strengthens its analytical value within the present study.

The concept proposes a holistic urban-architectural vision for the Viikki campus that integrates environmental strategies with social and cultural dimensions. The implementation of the five indicators defined in this study is summarized in

Table 5. Operationalization of NEB-aligned evaluation indicators in the conceptual project Rurban Habitat. Source: Authors’ study.

Evaluation Indicator (NEB-Aligned)	Project-Based Implementation in Rurban Habitat
Blue-Green Infrastructure for Climate Resilience	• Green roofs and façades, community gardens, and water retention systems
	• Biodiversity protection and climate adaptation strategies
	• Landscape-sensitive design minimizing ecosystem disruption
	• NEB dimensions: Sustainability + Esthetics
Low-Emission Mobility	• Reduction in car traffic through woonerfs and shared mobility hubs
	• Development of pedestrian and cycling infrastructure
	• Bicycle storage, repair workshops, and car-sharing facilities • NEB dimensions: Sustainability + Inclusivity
Sustainable Student Housing	• Energy-efficient, accessible multi-family housing
	• Modular layouts adaptable to diverse user needs, including persons with disabilities
	• Ground floors dedicated to local services and shared community spaces
	• NEB dimensions: Sustainability + Inclusivity
Carbon Footprint Reduction and Renewable Energy	• Geothermal systems, photovoltaics, and passive bioclimatic solutions
	• Reuse of construction materials and recycling of resources (water, waste heat)
	• Explicit application of life-cycle assessment (LCA) criteria in design • NEB dimensions: Sustainability + Esthetics
Cultural Heritage in Globalization	• Preservation of Finnish architectural and landscape identity
	• Integration of cultural archetypes (sauna, gardens, community facilities)
	• Adaptive reuse of existing office building and museum
	• Architectural simplicity, conservation of vistas, and tree cover
	• NEB dimensions: Esthetics + Inclusivity

and illustrated in Figure 10. These include circular approaches to construction and energy systems, modular and inclusive housing, blue-green infrastructure for climate resilience, low-emission mobility systems, and cultural references to Finnish identity. While the comparative framework focuses on five core NEB-aligned indicators defined in Section 2.4, the Rurban Habitat project also demonstrates a cross-cutting approach to sustainability monitoring and planning, which supports and integrates all five domains.

The comparative analysis of Finnish universities (Section 3.2) revealed systemic gaps: marginalization of student housing, fragmented heritage protection, and uneven blue-green and low-emission mobility strategies, with inclusivity gaps persisting across domains. Rurban Habitat directly addresses these deficits, functioning as a conceptual demonstration: it proposes modular, energy-efficient (see Section 3.2.4), and accessible residential units combined with ground-floor common functions, thereby responding to the outsourcing of housing responsibilities to external foundations (cf. Section 3.2.3). Through the reinterpretation of Finnish cultural archetypes such as saunas, community gardens, and public spaces, as well as the adaptive reuse of existing buildings, the project advances socio-cultural integration beyond isolated renovation efforts (cf. Section 3.2.5). In terms of blue-green infrastructure, the design introduces green roofs, façades, and community gardens integrated with systems for water retention and biodiversity support, filling the gap of fragmented and unmonitored campus initiatives (cf. Section 3.2.1). Finally, its woonerfs, bicycle networks, and shared mobility hubs enhance accessibility and inclusivity, counterbalancing the limited attention to vulnerable groups and co-governance mechanisms identified in Finnish campus strategies (Section 3.2.2 and Section 3.2.3).

Although conceptual in nature, Rurban Habitat functions as a design-based proof of concept, exploring how sustainability, inclusivity, and esthetics can be integrated into a holistic campus transformation framework. Its analytical relevance is reinforced by the fact that it was independently evaluated by both national and international juries, which recognized its innovative use of circular principles, ecological integration, and cultural sensitivity [120]. This external validation enhances the project’s credibility as an analytical case and reinforces its alignment with the NEB Compass. While not generalizable as evidence of realized practice, the project offers exploratory insights that may inform academic and public campus transformations, indicating that long-term resilience depends on linking environmental objectives with social and cultural dimensions.

4. Discussion

4.1. Synthesis of Results and Theoretical Contribution

The comparative analysis of Finnish university campuses reveals that sustainability has become a firmly embedded strategic priority, particularly in the domains of carbon footprint reduction, low-emission mobility, and blue-green infrastructure. These findings confirm earlier studies emphasizing the role of Nordic campuses as frontrunners in climate mitigation and adaptation [34]. Universities increasingly act as testbeds for climate neutrality policies, translating national and European objectives into tangible infrastructural and spatial measures.

At the same time, the study identifies significant blind spots. Sustainable student housing remains largely outsourced to external foundations, with universities themselves providing little strategic oversight, confirming concerns about the fragmented treatment of student housing as social infrastructure [26]. Cultural heritage is similarly addressed only in isolated renovation projects rather than through holistic integration into campus transformation, reflecting wider findings on the lack of heritage-sensitive sustainability indicators [62]. These gaps echo broader critiques in the literature, where sustainability in higher education is often conceptualized through management, awareness, and reporting frameworks, or measured through technical–spatial performance models such as campus metabolism [123], with limited attention to spatial, cultural, and context-specific dimensions [41,43,81,124].

From a theoretical standpoint, the integration of NEB principles into the evaluation framework contributes to bridging two parallel discourses: ESG/SDG-oriented assessments of higher education [1,125] and architectural-urban design approaches to sustainability [40,45,58]. The analysis demonstrates that while SDG reporting captures institutional commitments at a global scale, it often overlooks the experiential, cultural, and participatory qualities of academic spaces. The NEB lens, by contrast, allows for a more holistic appraisal, aligning functional sustainability with quality of place and community engagement [70,71,83,84].

This dual perspective advances theoretical debates in campus sustainability by showing that resilience cannot be secured through environmental measures alone. Instead, long-term future-proofing requires the inseparable linkage of environmental, social, and cultural/architectural dimensions, a point reinforced not only in stable Nordic contexts but also in studies of displaced universities facing extreme disruption [126]. In this sense, the Finnish case offers valuable insights into how institutional strategies can evolve from sectoral and fragmented approaches toward integrated frameworks that reflect both European policy ambitions and local community needs.

4.2. Practical and Policy Implications

The findings show that Finnish universities advance national and European climate objectives. They also act as laboratories for sustainable urban transformation. By embedding renewable energy, active mobility, and biodiversity measures into campus development, universities support both the European Green Deal and national neutrality targets. These practices illustrate how campuses may extend their influence beyond academia, functioning as experimental districts that test and mainstream low-carbon and adaptive solutions for cities more broadly. As shown in Section 3.2, energy and mobility indicators achieved the highest performance across the assessed campuses, confirming Finland’s leadership in technical sustainability implementation.

Nevertheless, the analysis also reveals that sustainability outcomes remain uneven across institutions and domains. Persistent gaps were identified in student housing, inclusivity, and cultural heritage (Table 3 and Section 3.2.5), indicating that NEB-aligned social and esthetic dimensions are systematically underrepresented. These disparities are not accidental but stem from structural and institutional mechanisms within Finnish higher education. The outsourcing of student housing to independent foundations has produced governance silos that externalize social and spatial responsibilities from university core strategies. Similarly, the dominance of performance-based planning—driven by standardized, quantitative KPIs for carbon reduction and energy efficiency—has marginalized place-sensitive and cultural dimensions. Together, these factors illustrate a technocratic planning logic that prioritizes calculability over contextual value. In practice, this means that managerial and performance-oriented frameworks often overshadow spatial, cultural, and human-centered aspects of campus transformation.

Addressing these blind spots requires governance reforms and closer integration of campus planning with municipal and national policy frameworks, as discussed in Section 3.5. This echoes earlier findings on the decisive role of campus management and institutional leadership in driving sustainability transitions [38,45]. Specifically, universities should integrate external housing providers into their sustainability reporting frameworks to address the “externalization” gap identified in Section 3.2.3. In particular, the outsourcing of housing to foundations indicates a gap in institutional responsibility, which contrasts with the holistic ambitions of the NEB Compass and mirrors broader concerns about the treatment of student housing as fragmented social infrastructure [26].

From a policy perspective, the adoption of NEB principles could enhance the quality and inclusiveness of sustainability reporting in higher education. While SDG frameworks primarily emphasize quantitative indicators of energy, emissions, and resource efficiency, the NEB framework foregrounds qualitative dimensions such as esthetics, cultural continuity, and participatory governance [70,71]. As discussed in Section 3.5, this integration requires reconciling methodological tensions between the quantitative logic of SDG/ESG systems and the qualitative, place-based character of NEB. To ensure policy coherence and applicability, we propose a concise set of actions—directly reflecting the empirical gaps identified in Section 3.2—namely:

• Measurement and quality: introduce proxy indicators for beauty, inclusion, and accessibility or embed spatial quality audits; establish a shared national/inter-university template for biodiversity and inclusivity metrics to improve comparability and accountability.
• Governance and integration: integrate external housing providers into university sustainability reporting; embed adaptive reuse and cultural-heritage protection in campus masterplans (SDG 11.4; NEB “beautiful”); create cross-unit sustainability taskforces to integrate environmental, social, and spatial policies and monitor NEB indicator implementation.
• Collaboration and scaling: mandate inclusive mobility audits co-developed with municipalities; incentivize Living Labs/Campus Design Labs to scale modular construction, circular material reuse, and blue-green infrastructure; scale strong energy/mobility policies (Aalto, LUT, Helsinki) and leverage partnerships such as at Viikki.

Taken together, these actions operationalize the NEB–SDG/ESG alignment and translate high-level goals into measurable, inclusive campus outcomes.

4.3. Proof-of-Concept Case and Transferable Lessons

Building directly on the cross-indicator analysis (Section 3.2) and the conceptual case evaluation (Section 3.3), the inclusion of the Rurban Habitat conceptual design complements the comparative analysis by illustrating how strategic gaps in Finnish universities can be addressed through an integrated design approach. Unlike institutional strategies, which often remain fragmented across policy domains, the project operationalizes the principles of the New European Bauhaus (NEB) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) within a single conceptual framework. Its added value lies in translating abstract principles into tangible design responses that combine sustainability, inclusivity, and esthetics. This aligns with the concept of “continuous briefing,” which emphasizes the need to constantly match spatial supply and demand in evolving campus environments [46].

Importantly, the project was independently evaluated by national and international juries within the 19th Architecture Student Contest, which strengthens its credibility as an analytical illustration rather than a competition outcome and confirms its methodological robustness and innovative character [120,121]. This external validation increases its credibility as an analytical reference point. Although conceptual in nature, the design integrates key NEB-aligned strategies—modular and affordable student housing, blue-green infrastructure, adaptive reuse, and participatory public spaces—into a coherent scenario that reflects both global policy frameworks and local Finnish cultural archetypes.

The proof-of-concept method [85] applied in this study emphasizes experimentation with integrative solutions prior to large-scale implementation, aligning with design research approaches that prioritize iterative exploration over verification. In this sense, Rurban Habitat serves not as a benchmark for existing campus strategies but as an illustrative concept offering transferable insights on how universities may overcome current deficits in housing, heritage, and inclusivity. It highlights the necessity of linking environmental, social, and cultural/architectural dimensions in campus transformation, thereby aligning with broader debates on future-proofing academic environments. Recent research on Campus Living Labs further reinforces this perspective, showing that their success depends not only on spatial and technical innovations but also on organizational culture, stakeholder networks, and iterative learning processes [127].

From a policy and planning perspective, the project underscores that sustainable campus transformation requires more than ESG and SDG compliance. By embedding NEB principles at the design stage, it demonstrates how academic environments can act as laboratories of socio-ecological innovation. These insights are exploratory but transferable beyond the Finnish context, offering guidance for universities across Europe that aim to link climate neutrality with cultural identity and social resilience [40]. In this way, the case provides a bridge between empirical findings and visionary design, a theme further developed in the conclusions section.

4.4. Limitations and Transferability

This study has several methodological and empirical limitations that should be considered when interpreting its results. First, the sample of eight Finnish university campuses was selected through purposeful, non-probabilistic sampling based on the availability of open-access sustainability and carbon reports. This ensured transparency and comparability across cases but introduced an availability bias, as institutions with limited public documentation could not be included. Consequently, the study reflects the best-documented examples rather than the full national landscape. The selection also focused on materials available in English, which may have excluded Finnish-language or internal documents. The results, therefore, represent analytical rather than statistical generalization. In addition, boundary choices follow the SCS/SCA rule (Section 2.6): only actions formally integrated into university strategies (SCS) contribute to the score; contributions by ecosystem actors (e.g., independent student-housing foundations) are recorded as contextual evidence (SCA) and do not affect the SCS rating unless explicitly adopted by the university.

Second, the research relies primarily on secondary evidence—strategies, sustainability reports, and official websites—without the support of primary empirical data such as interviews, surveys, or operational datasets. While this approach enables cross-institutional comparison, it does not allow verification of the actual degree of implementation or stakeholder perception of these strategies. Accordingly, outcome validity should be interpreted as documentary rather than experiential. Future studies should incorporate mixed methods combining document analysis with interviews or participatory observation to validate real-world outcomes and user experience.

Third, data quality and temporal coverage vary considerably among institutions. Some universities report annually using SDG frameworks, whereas others provide only generic or outdated information. The analysis focused mainly on the 2023–2024 reporting cycle, complemented by earlier records (2010–2022) to trace continuity. However, more recent or ongoing initiatives may not yet be reflected in the sources, limiting temporal completeness. Heterogeneity of carbon-accounting methods and biodiversity metrics further reduces cross-case comparability, constraining any inference beyond qualitative patterns.

Fourth, the evaluation framework employed is qualitative and interpretive, capturing socio-spatial and cultural dimensions of sustainability often absent from quantitative SDG/ESG indicators. However, it does not quantify actual performance outcomes (e.g., emission reductions, energy savings, or inclusion metrics). The conceptual design project Rurban Habitat, used as a proof-of-concept, similarly provides valuable insight into the holistic integration of NEB principles but remains illustrative rather than empirical. Accordingly, the comparative results should be understood as strategic orientations and interpretive patterns, not as measurable performance scores. Equal indicator weighting was adopted for analytical clarity; alternative policy contexts may justifiably employ different weightings.

Finally, regarding transferability, the NEB–SDG interpretive lens is conceptually portable across higher-education contexts; however, direct replication of the indicator operationalization depends on (i) public access to strategy and sustainability/carbon reports, (ii) transparent documentation of governance arrangements—particularly where student housing is externalized to independent foundations—so responsibilities can be attributed, and (iii) calibration of qualitative scoring (e.g., inter-coder checks and on-site verification). Because the indicators were derived from documented campus challenges and future-proofing needs and aligned with NEB policy guidance, their use in other contexts should begin with local re-operationalization of evidence types and thresholds.

Despite these constraints, the study offers an integrated, cross-institutional perspective on campus sustainability strategies and proposes a transparent, NEB-informed rubric that can be adapted—cautiously and with locally calibrated boundaries—to different governance and market contexts.

5. Conclusions

This study examined the sustainable transformation of Finnish university campuses through the lens of the New European Bauhaus (NEB), combining indicator-based evaluation with a proof-of-concept case study. The findings demonstrate that Finnish universities have made substantial progress in areas such as carbon footprint reduction, low-emission mobility, and blue-green infrastructure, confirming their role as frontrunners in climate mitigation and adaptation. At the same time, the analysis identified persistent blind spots: student housing remains largely outsourced, cultural heritage is only fragmentarily addressed, and inclusivity is insufficiently institutionalized. These gaps weaken the ability of campuses to act as fully integrated models of climate-resilient transformation.

The theoretical contribution of this research lies in bridging ESG/SDG-oriented sustainability assessments with architectural and spatial design perspectives. By developing indicators inspired by the NEB Compass, the study provides a methodological framework that expands the evaluation of campus sustainability beyond quantitative carbon and energy metrics. It highlights the need to incorporate social, cultural, and esthetic dimensions as inseparable elements of future-proofing academic environments. The Rurban Habitat project further reinforced this framework, serving as a design-based proof of concept that illustrates how NEB principles can be holistically operationalized across housing, mobility, cultural identity, and ecological resilience.

Practically and politically, the results underscore the importance of universities as laboratories of socio-ecological innovation. Finnish campuses not only advance national climate neutrality targets but also provide transferable lessons for other European contexts. To maximize their impact, universities should move beyond sectoral sustainability measures toward integrated strategies that combine environmental performance with cultural continuity and social inclusion. Embedding NEB principles at the level of governance, planning, and reporting could strengthen the legitimacy of higher education institutions. In this conduct, universities could evolve into true ‘knowledge cities’—entities that simultaneously support local communities and contribute to European policy ambitions.

This study is not without limitations. It relied primarily on publicly available strategies and sustainability reports from 2022–2023, which may not fully capture the breadth of institutional practices or the most recent developments. Moreover, the proof-of-concept case, while methodologically robust and independently validated through an international jury, remains conceptual in nature and cannot be equated with implemented strategies. Nonetheless, triangulating diverse sources and linking qualitative indicators with design-based analysis provides a novel contribution to the literature on campus sustainability.

Future research should expand this line of inquiry in three directions. First, there is a need for standardized and comparable evaluation methodologies that integrate NEB principles with existing ESG and SDG frameworks. Second, more qualitative and participatory studies are required to capture the lived experiences of campus users and to assess the social value of sustainable transformations. Third, further investigation into cultural heritage and student housing is essential to ensure that sustainability is not reduced to technical performance but embedded in the social and cultural identity of universities. Finnish campuses, while advanced in many respects, could further strengthen their role as international exemplars by addressing these gaps and adopting more holistic and inclusive approaches.

Overall, the study confirms that academic campuses have the potential to become critical drivers of climate adaptation, circular innovation, and cultural resilience. By combining the quantitative rigor of SDG monitoring with the qualitative depth of NEB principles, universities can pioneer integrated models of sustainability that extend far beyond academia, shaping the future of European cities and societies.