EVOLVING AND IMPLEMENTING AN ACTION RESEARCH

FRAMEWORK FOR “GREEN CAMPUS” STRATEGIES AT

EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE
TO WATER-FOOD-ENERGY NEXUS AND SUSTAINABILITY

Thesis submitted to
Pondicherry University for the award of the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in Ecology and Environmental Sciences

By
NANDHIVARMAN MUTHU

Research Supervisor
Dr. G. POYYAMOLI

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

SCHOOL OF LIFE SCIENCES
PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY
PUDUCHERRY – 605 014, INDIA

March - 2017
i
 DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
SCHOOL OF LIFE SCIENCES, PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY,
KALAPET, PUDUCHERRY – 605014, INDIA

Dr. G. POYYAMOLI, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

CERTIFICATE

I hereby certify that the thesis entitled ‘Evolving and implementing an action research
framework for “Green Campus” strategies at educational institutions with special
reference to water-food-energy nexus and sustainability’ submitted by Mr. Nandhivarman
Muthu, Research Scholar, Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, School of Life
Sciences, Pondicherry University, Kalapet, Puducherry – 605 014, India, for the award of the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Ecology and Environmental Sciences of Pondicherry
University, incorporated the results of original investigation and is a record of original research
work done by him during the period of study under my supervision in the Department of
Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Pondicherry University, Puducherry – 605 014.

I, further, certify that the thesis has not formed the basis for award to the candidate of
any degree, diploma, associateship, fellowship or other similar titles and that the thesis
represents independent work on the part of the candidate.

Date : Dr. G. POYYAMOLI

Place: Puducherry Research Supervisor

ii
 DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
SCHOOL OF LIFE SCIENCES, PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY,
KALAPET, PUDUCHERRY - 605014, INDIA

NANDHIVARMAN MUTHU
Doctoral Candidate

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the research work of this dissertation entitled ‘Evolving and
implementing an action research framework for “Green Campus” strategies at
educational institutions with special reference to water-food-energy nexus and
sustainability’ has been originally carried out by me in the Department of Ecology and
Environmental Sciences, School of Life Sciences, Pondicherry University, Kalapet, Puducherry
– 605 014, India. It has not been submitted either in full or in part for the award of any degree or
diploma to any other institution or University.

Date : Nandhivarman Muthu

Place: Puducherry Doctoral Candidate

iii
TO MY EL-SHADDAI…

iv
I. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to extend my heartfelt thanks and appreciation to my research supervisor

Dr. G. Poyyamoli, who has introduced me to this exciting field of ‘Green Campus’ and to my
doctoral committee members Dr. S. Jayakumar and Dr. R. Arun Prasath. Their constant advices,
encouragement, and support have enabled me to complete this work with utmost satisfaction.
Their valuable suggestions/inputs and ideas have greatly helped me throughout the period of this
study. Dr. G. Poyyamoli who is also the coordinator for the Pondicherry University Renewable
Energy and Sustainability Cell (PURE&SC) has been a source of inspiration and information
related to campus sustainability. I am also grateful for his expert advice and encouragement
throughout the period of my study.

I sincerely thank the Pondicherry University the then Vice Chancellor - J.A.K. Tareen,
for initiating thesis related green campus project by providing official permission for setting up
of biogas plant, initiating solar campus project, and for giving financial assistance for
International Green Campus Summit, 2013. I am also grateful to the Vice Chancellor –
Dr. Chandra Krishnamurthy, for inaugurating the ‘green campus initiative at JNV’ the core
outreach activity of the thesis. I am also thankful to the Vice Chancellor (i/c) – Dr. Anisa B.
Khan, for her cooperation and support. I would like to thank Dr. K. Jyothi Dayanandan, the then
Director Sports (i/c) for granting us the permission to implement the components of green
campus initiative adjacent to the hostels and sports ground. I am very much thankful and
grateful to the former Deputy Registrar, Shri. G. Nallathambi and Prof. N. Parthasarathy, H.O.D,
DE&ES, for their encouragement and support for my research, followed by Associate Professors
Dr. Guna Singh and Dr. Ramalingam of P.G. Center, for their constant encouragement while
pursuing my PhD.

I would like to thank the former Registrar, Shri. Loganathan and Finance Officer, Shri.
K. Vijayakumaran for providing financial assistance for the International Green Campus
Summit, 2013, and I am grateful to Shri. K. Krishnasamy (IAO) for his constant support and
advice. I am also grateful to Shri. R. Manivannan and Shri. Anbu of Horticulture Department for
their close cooperation and support.

I am thankful to the Associate Professor, Dr. S. Gajalakshmi, Centre for Pollution

Control, Pondicherry University for her constant advice related with laboratory analysis and also
I am grateful to J. A. Sanjeev Kumar, Producer, Mass Media Communication and his team for
filming various activities of ours related with this study.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Shri. S. Murugaiyan, Assistant Registrar

(P&D) for data inputs, advice and encouragement. I also would like to extend my thanks to Shri.
v
M. Vallathan (Assistant Registrar Purchase), Shri. R. Sekar (Assistant Registrar), Mrs. S.
Alamelu (Assistant Registrar), Shri. L. Veerappan (VC office) and Shri. Z. Olirvel (Library) for
providing necessary data for my study.

I am grateful to Shri. Marie Stanislas Ashok and Shri. Palanivel of PU Computer Center
(Admin.) for extending their support for the proposed Sustainability Literacy Test at PU and to
Shri. G. Govindaraj and Shri. S. Ramasamy of Central Instrumentation Facility (CIF) for
providing laboratory facilities during my study. I sincerely thank Dr. Arthur James, Associate
Professor, Bharathidasan Univeristy, Trichy for providing me training on Atomic Absorption
Spectroscopy, Gas Chromatography and for providing various other laboratory facilities.

I am thankful to Shri AMM Murugappa Chettiar Research Centre (MCRC) and the team
for providing hands on training on briquetting technology, chromatogram technique and on
various other cost effective sustainable technologies. I am also thankful to the NGOs like
NARDEP, Kanyakumari and Hand in Hand, Chennai for providing me hands on training on
Bio-methanation process.

I am grateful to Shri. M. Dwarakanath, Director, Department for Science, Technology

and Environment (DST&E), Govt. of Puducherry, and to the staff of Puducherry Pollution
Control Committee and Puducherry Pollution Control Board, Puducherry in providing constant
help throughout the study and for the partial financial assistance for the International Green
Campus Summit, 2013.

I am grateful to Shri. Pankaj Kumar Jha, the then Managing Director, Renewable Energy
Agency, Puducherry, for providing instant approval for setting up of biogas plant and
recommending the solar campus project at PU.

I am also grateful to Shri. Radhakrishnan, Hydrologist and his team, Hydrology Project
II, Puducherry, for providing necessary data and inputs though out the study.

I would like to thank the Principals of Pondicherry Engineering College, Law College,
Kendriya Vidyalaya II for their consent to be the part of the proposed ‘green campus initiative
cluster’ for regional sustainability.

I am grateful to the Engineers – Shri. Ragupathy and Shri. Durairaj from Civil
Engineering Wing, for their valuable contribution towards water use inventory analysis during
the entire period of the research study and also Shri. N. Sankaramourthy, Executive Engineer
and Shri. G. Radhakrishnan, Sanitary Inspector, from CEW, for providing data and advice. I am
also thankful to Shri. V. Mourougavelou and Shri. D. Singaravelou from Electrical Wing for

vi
their extraordinary support regarding solar campus project and other renewable energy related
activities.

I extend my sincere thanks to Ms. Sai Lakshmi, the residential warden, for her kind
cooperation, help and personal interest while conducting the food waste inventory analysis and
water use inventory analysis and to all the staffs of the hostel office (boys and girls) and to the
hostel kitchen service providers namely R.R. Caterers, Diet Express, Santosh Caterers, Zenith
Food Solutions and Scholars run mess for their cooperation.

I extend my thanks to Dr. Franziska Steinbruch, Visiting Professor, IITM, Chennai and
Prof. Baltazar, Director, UNISUL, Brazil, for constantly supporting me and advising me
regarding campus sustainability. I am grateful to Prof. Eric Pallant, Allegheny College, USA, for
providing an opportunity to visit the sustainable campus initiatives implemented on their
campus. I am also thankful to Dr. Thomas Eatman, Assistant Professor, Allegheny College,
USA, for providing hands on training on aquaponics for water based water conservation.

I extend my sincere thanks to Dr.Walter Leal Filho, Professor, Manchester Metropolitan

University, London, for providing milestones in my career like initiation of International Green
Campus Summit (series), accommodating me as a co-editor for Springer Publications, honoring
me as a panelist at ‘World Symposium on Sustainable Development at Universities’ (WSSDU),
MMU, London and for providing me an opportunity as a researcher to play a key role in the
‘Inter-University Sustainable Development Research Program (IUSDRP)’ – Coordinated by
Manchester Metropolitan University, London, U.K. I also sincerely thank UNESCO-IHE, Delft,
Netherlands, for providing me an opportunity to do a course on ‘Groundwater Resources and
Treatment’ (2012) and to USEPA, for providing me a platform to showcase my initiatives at
National Sustainable Design Expo, Washington DC, USA (2013). Such a diverse variety of
exposure /experience has helped me a great deal to dive deeper into the field of campus
sustainability.

I am grateful to Dr. Adriano Ciani, Professor, Agricultural University, Italy, for

providing me a platform to showcase my research initiatives in his summer school program,
SIS-SMPT and also guiding me towards sustainable agricultural practices that will be useful for
our future activities in the educational campuses in India.

I would like to extend my hearty thanks to Shri. A. Vinayathan (Principal), Mrs.

Kamalam (Vice Principal), Mrs. Shanthi (Teacher), Shri. Shankar (Teacher), Shri. Jagan Mohan
Rao (Teacher) and to all other teachers, non-teaching staff, office staff, kitchen staff for their
moral support and to all the students of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (JNV) (2012-13) and to

vii
the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti for providing me and my team an immense support while
establishing the pilot project at JNV, and also for showing extraordinary interest for
institutionalizing the GCI at JNV.

I would like to extend my hearty thanks to Miss. A. Hemavathi (Headmistress,

Savarayalu Nayagar Government Girls High School), Mrs. Chandravathini (Headmistress,
Savarayalu Nayagar Government Girls Primary School), Mrs. Lakshmi (Teacher), Shri. Farook
(Teacher), Mrs. Anbalazhi (Teacher), Shri. Arunagiri (Teacher) and to all the other teachers,
non-teaching staff, office staff for their moral support and also to all the students of Savarayalu
Nayagar Government Girls High School (SNGGHS) for their close cooperation and support
while establishing the pilot project.

I remain grateful to Post Graduate students and Scholars of several batches (Sustainable
Development, Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Green Energy Technology and Mass
Media) for their voluntary help in collecting data on various campus activities/operations. In this
context, my special thanks go to Kavin Kumar, Tamizhselvan, Jaya Baskar, Alexander,
Pradheeps, Rajamanikam, Kamalraj, Jeevan, Sudhagar and 2010-11; 2012-13; 2015-16 batches.

I am very much grateful to the Association for Promoting Sustainability in Campuses and
Communities (APSCC), Puducherry and M/s Gazing Glory, Puducherry for providing financial
assistance and technology transfer/guidance throughout/entire study and also for their future
commitment in this regard.

And finally my sincere thanks are due to UGC for providing fellowship during my study
and to the faculty of the Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences and other non-
teaching staff for their constant support and encouragement during this study period.

Last but not the least I owe my gratitude to my wife Golda, my brothers Bhaskaran,
Nakkeeran, Neelakandan and to my in-laws for their understanding, support and patience during
my prolonged absence from my home for carrying out thesis related work.

viii
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Sustainable development (SD) is one of the biggest challenges of the twenty-first century
and there can be no sustainability where educational institutions (universities/IHEs/schools)
promote un-sustainability. ‘…no institutions in modern society are better situated and more
obliged to facilitate the transition to a sustainable future than schools, colleges and universities’.
In spite of a number of SD initiatives and an ever increasing number of
universities/IHEs/schools becoming engaged with SD principles and concepts, especially in the
developed world, most of them continued to be traditional in India, relying upon Newtonian and
Cartesian reductionist and mechanistic paradigms, because of the fact ‘one size does not fit all’.

Logically before this millennia majority of the green initiatives are related with the
development focused on renewable energy, while paying lesser attention to environmental
dimension. With increasing and expanding HEIs around the world including the South Asian
countries in the recent decades, the solid and liquid wastes in every form have increased
manifold in day to day campus operations, resulting in various levels of environmental
degradation and resource depletion not only in the campuses concerned but extending beyond
the boundaries, while several of such impacts seem to be irreversible. The accumulating body of
literature and the width/depth of coverage in the media on the urgent need and scope for campus
sustainability have facilitated the adoption of environmental sustainability strategies based on
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Recover (R-R-R-R) in a few campuses in India. However the program
is slow, largely because of the lack of demonstrable models in India for the stake holders to
select, act and reflect. Moreover, as pointed out by the campus sustainability workers it will be
more painful and time consuming to initiate this exercise because of the inertia when the target
audience is not sufficiently informed and motivated, the sustainability initiatives remained like
‘watermelons – green outside and red inside’ in majority of the campuses in India. To overcome
such hurdles and to provide platforms for various stake holders in an holistic manner, the first
objective of this study deals with evolving a sustainable design for campus operations which is
logical; flexible; testable; and to provide choices for various stakeholders to practice and adopt,
for in due course such strategies can be incorporated /integrated /scaled up into the campus
development plan and into all aspects of decision making. This of course, obviously demands a
transformational sustainability leader in the campus.

Against this backdrop, the Integrated Cyclical System Model (ICSM) was evolved as a
comprehensive framework for GCI in Pondicherry University, with special reference to basic
campus components such as water-food-energy nexus, purely based on enlightened self-interest
of the researcher. This evolved ICSM integrates various components under four themes, with
choice based adoptive system, more importantly providing green business opportunities through
ix
proven up-cycling concepts such as water reclamation, energy recovery, nutrient recovery, etc.
Over a period of time when these initiatives become well rooted, they will pave a strong
foundation for a green campus (GC) or sustainable green campus (SGC) or sustainable campus
(SC), possibly transferring the lessons learnt to the proposed eco-city or sustainable city or smart
city, by
‘serving as a model for global environmental sustainability where all the processes and
operational functions of the campus are closely knit, providing educational and practical value
to the institution and the surrounding environment’.

The second objective is to facilitate systemic, institution-wide integration of

sustainability principles into selected campus operations emphasizing on need based priorities,
to implement and manage by reducing waste generation, by providing a culture of sustainability
awareness and action research /outreach within the campus and local community. This was done
in tune with the State Action Plan on Climate Change (SAPCC) to integrate measurable
sustainability indicators through innovation in exploring major focal areas for public
engagement by involving all stakeholders. More importantly, as a sustainable design, it is in
agreement with ‘whole systems thinking’ and ‘mixed method approach’ to make the campus
into living laboratories of learning by providing opportunities to create culture of sustainability
for today’s students and tomorrow’s leaders. Three campuses such as residential school (central
board), non-residential school (state board) and university (central) were chosen for in-depth
studies. In all these campuses it is a bottom up grass root level initiative, which will ultimately
become a green campus over a period of time as anticipated with an emphasize on ‘water-food-
energy nexus’.

Green campus initiative starts always with water use inventory analysis (WUIA) and
food waste inventory analysis (FWIA) in all these campuses. The components of ICSM was
carefully selected focusing on the availability of the biodegradable wastes, space and need based
priorities approach, also considering the time and money constraints. Since GCI is an ongoing
process fully related with nature, ‘different period of time’ is needed to study empirically the
different components of ICSM. However well-established components provide a platform for
empirical study which is discussed in Chapters 5 and 6. All the identified components will
enable us to monitor the indicators of campus sustainability starting from sixth month onwards
and all the other components will be fully implemented within twenty four months. The process
will be replicated in phases in other networking institutions, subsequently fostering the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). At the residential school (JNV) the GCI is
implemented with integrated approach while at the non-residential school (SNGGHS) with
fragmented approach, whereas at Pondicherry University (PU) it is initiated in the line of
Talloires Declaration to fulfill its ten point action plan, since PU is the signatory institution.
x
 GCI at the Pondicherry University was implemented using ‘The Natural Step Four-Phase
Analytical Approach (ABCD - Approach)’. As part of the first phase, a general awareness about
the campus environmental sustainability and sustainable development was provided among the
PU administrators and selective campus communities initially and to move beyond later by
aligning all the campus stakeholders towards a common understanding of sustainability in a
whole-systems context. Following this, PU’s campus environmental sustainability framework
was envisioned on the ‘Principles of Backcasting’ and a 31 point recommendation was provided
to transform the campus into a model sustainable, living laboratory within the next couple of
years. Taking into consideration the examples of several institutions that are facing similar
issues, the framework was devised to be the governing principle and a driving force in the
implementation of the recommended policies for PU green campus that everyone dream of. The
Chapter concludes with the actions taken at PU to foster SD starting with the symbolic
commitment of the University in signing the Talloires Declaration, a ten-point action plan for
incorporating sustainability and environmental literacy.

The third objective deals with evaluating the selected components of the green campus
initiative and also to assess the change in attitude among students and teachers according to the
selected assessment system indicators (i.e. National Children Science Congress) and to
determine the degree of sustainability as a starting point to guide future action.

In India, there is a wide spread growing desire to address sustainability issues on

college/university campuses; however, many lack the effort necessary to effect real and
significant change. Part of the reason for their lack in effort is that many institutions do not
understand what is at stake. It is important to note that the majority of the suggested strategies
are neither prohibitively complex nor expensive, and their potential impact on campus
sustainability can be significant. Whereas institutional transformation cannot be imposed solely
from the top-down, it will not thrive without the support, vision, and involvement throughout the
top, bottom, and middle. We need to kick start a series of intensive long term strategies for
facilitating commitment, demonstration, and goal-setting, by setting this study as an example.

Because of the green campus initiative (ICSM) at the JNV residential school with
integrated approach, the school bagged “SUSTAINABLE CAMPUS CHALLENGE AWARD -
2013”, from the organizers of International Green Campus Summit; “CHANGE MAKER
AWARD –2014”, (green school) from the Center for Science and Environment (CSE); “two
awards in 2016 – one for an essay competition titled ‘are sustainable cities possible? based on
integrated components of ICSM and another for video on the ‘green campus initiative’, from
UK based ‘Trust for Sustainable Living (TSL)’ at Dubai. Similarly, since 2012 to till date teams

xi
of young student scientists working in different components participated in National Children’s
Science Congress (NCSC) at district/state/national levels and won many awards, medals and
prizes. Apart from this till today eminent scientists and professionals from India and across the
globe have visited and encouraged the students and the researchers. The researcher was awarded
as “FRIEND OF CHILDREN” (2015) by SNGGHS and as “GREEN CAMPUS CHAMPION”
(2015) by JNV for promoting students centered sustainability initiative.

Keywords: Green Campus, Sustainable Campus, Campus Greening, Sustainable Development,

Environmental Sustainability, Sustainable School, Sustainable University.

xii
III. TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE .............................................................................................................................................................. ii
DECLARATION ........................................................................................................................................................... iii
I. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................................................... v
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... ix
III. TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... xiii
IV. LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................................. xvi
V. LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................................. xvii
VI. LIST OF PLATES .............................................................................................................................................. xviii
VII. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................................................. xix
CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1 INTRODUCTION AND OUTLINE OF THESIS.................................................................................................... 1
1.1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.3. DECADE OF EDUCATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (DESD) ................................................................. 5
1.4. THE ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES AND INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION (IHE) ................................................. 7
1.5. GREEN CAMPUS (GC) AND GREEN CAMPUS INITIATIVE (GCI)........................................................................... 8
1.6. THE STATE OF GCI IN INDIA ............................................................................................................................... 8
1.7. RATIONALE ....................................................................................................................................................... 10
1.8. PURPOSE STATEMENT ....................................................................................................................................... 11
1.9. STUDY SITE ...................................................................................................................................................... 11
1.10. SCOPE AND LAYOUT OF THESIS ........................................................................................................................ 12
CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................................................. 15
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................................................ 15
2.1. HISTORY ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION .......................................................................... 16
2.2. REVIEW OF THE PROGRESS OF SUSTAINABILITY IN SECONDARY LEVEL EDUCATION ....................................... 17
2.3. REVIEW OF THE PROGRESS OF SUSTAINABILITY IN TERTIARY LEVEL EDUCATION ........................................... 21
2.3.1. INSTITUTIONS AND ENVIRONMENT – SOME EXAMPLES OF GCIS ACROSS THE WORLD .................................... 26
2.3.2. EVOLVING A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR GCI AT PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY ......................................... 27
2.4. A SHORT HISTORY ON THE EVOLUTION OF DESIGN IN THE CONTEXT OF SUSTAINABILITY MODELS ................ 29
2.4.1. ECO- DESIGN ..................................................................................................................................................... 30
2.4.2. SUSTAINABLE DESIGN FOR CAMPUS ................................................................................................................. 31
2.4.3. PERSUASIVE TECHNOLOGY DESIGN FOR CAMPUS ............................................................................................ 31
2.4.4. PRACTICE-ORIENTED DESIGN FOR CAMPUS ..................................................................................................... 32
2.5. A REVIEW ON THE THEORETICAL MODELS OF CAMPUS SD .............................................................................. 32
2.6. SYNTHESIS ........................................................................................................................................................ 34
2.6.1. ENVIRONMENT-SOCIETY-ECONOMY NEXUS ..................................................................................................... 34
2.6.2. CONSENSUS BETWEEN THE COMPONENTS OF THE MODEL ................................................................................. 35
2.6.3. TIME DIMENSION .............................................................................................................................................. 35
2.6.4. DESIGN STATUS OF THE MODEL ........................................................................................................................ 35
2.6.5. BEYOND SUSTAINABILITY ................................................................................................................................ 35
2.6.6. WORKING TYPE OF THE MODEL ....................................................................................................................... 35
2.6.7. NOVELTY IN THE MODEL .................................................................................................................................. 37
2.6.8. REGENERATIVE ................................................................................................................................................. 37
2.6.9. SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED ................................................................................................ 37
2.6.10. USED IN SPATIAL PLANNING ............................................................................................................................. 37
2.6.11. TNS OPENING OF THE FUNNEL ......................................................................................................................... 37
2.6.12. UPCYCLING ....................................................................................................................................................... 37
2.6.13. NEED FOR A NEW MODEL ................................................................................................................................. 37
CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................................................................. 38
3 PERCEPTION ASSESSMENT OF A SUSTAINABLE/ GREEN CAMPUS ..................................................... 38
3.1. PERCEPTION ASSESSMENT OF A SUSTAINABLE/ GREEN CAMPUS THROUGH THE TOOL - ‘SUSTAINABILITY
ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (SAQ)’ ........................................................................................................................... 39
3.2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................... 42
xiii
CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................................................................. 47
4 INTEGRATED CYCLICAL SYSTEM MODEL (ICSM) .................................................................................... 47
4.1. BACKGROUND ON THE EVOLUTION OF INTEGRATED CYCLICAL SYSTEM MODEL (ICSM)................................ 48
4.1.1. COMPONENTS IDENTIFIED FOR ICSM ............................................................................................................... 50
4.1.2. ICSM TO MOVE BEYOND SUSTAINABILITY ...................................................................................................... 54
4.1.3. ENVISIONING SUSTAINABILITY WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CONNOTATIONS ......................................................... 55
4.1.4. RECOGNIZING COMPLEXITY AND INTERCONNECTEDNESS ................................................................................ 56
4.1.5. ICSM AS EMPIRICALLY TESTABLE MODEL ...................................................................................................... 57
4.1.5.1. THEME I - SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF WATER RESOURCES ..................................................................... 60
4.1.5.2. THEME II – SUSTAINABLE FOOD PRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 62
4.1.5.3. THEME III – ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABLE OPERATIONS ............................................................ 65
4.1.5.4. THEME IV - COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH................................................................................................ 68
CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................................................................................. 71
5 PILOT SCALE IMPLEMENTATION OF ICSM ................................................................................................. 71
5.1. WHY SUSTAINABILITY PROJECTS NEED TO BE SMALL? .................................................................................... 72
5.2. WHY SCHOOL STUDENTS? ................................................................................................................................ 73
5.3. DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................... 74
5.4. PILOT PROJECT SITE 1 (JNV) ............................................................................................................................ 74
5.4.1. THEME I - SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF WATER RESOURCES ..................................................................... 76
5.4.2. THEME II – ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABLE OPERATIONS ............................................................. 86
5.4.3. THEME III – SUSTAINABLE FOOD PRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 89
5.4.4. THEME IV – COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH ............................................................................................... 92
5.5. PILOT PROJECT SITE 2 (SNGGHS) ................................................................................................................... 93
5.5.1. THEME I - WASTE WATER TREATMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY ............................................................................ 94
5.5.2. THEME II - FOOD WASTE INVENTORY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 96
5.5.3. THEME III - COMPOST/ VERMICOMPOST PRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 97
5.6. INDICATOR FOR ATTITUDINAL CHANGE AND SUSTENANCE ............................................................................ 100
CHAPTER 6 ................................................................................................................................................................104
6 GCI AT PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY – THE NATURAL STEP FRAMEWORK ....................................104
6.1. METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................................. 105
6.2. WHY ‘THE NATURAL STEP’ (TNS) FRAMEWORK? ......................................................................................... 107
6.3. TNS FUNNEL .................................................................................................................................................. 107
6.3.1. PHASE I - (A) AWARENESS CREATION AMONG THE PU CAMPUS COMMUNITIES: ........................................... 109
6.3.2. PHASE II - (B) BASELINE MAPPING OF THE PU CAMPUS ................................................................................. 112
6.3.2.1. VITAL STATISTICS OF PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY .......................................................................................... 112
6.3.2.2. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................................... 116
6.3.2.3. WATER USE INVENTORY ANALYSIS (WUIA) ................................................................................................. 119
6.3.2.4. SUSTAINABLE WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ........................................................................................ 130
6.3.2.5. FOOD WASTE INVENTORY ANALYSIS (FWIA) AT PU ..................................................................................... 132
6.3.2.6. SOLAR CAMPUS INITIATIVE (PHASE I) AT PU ................................................................................................. 146
6.3.3. PHASE III - (C) CREATING A VISION FOR PU CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY ......................................................... 148
6.3.3.1. EVOLVING A VISIONARY POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR GCI AT PU..................................................................... 150
6.3.3.2. STRATEGIC OPERATIONAL ACTION PLAN FOSTERING CAMPUS ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY .............. 151
6.3.3.3. PROPOSED PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY’S OFFICE OF CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY (PUOCS) ............................ 154
6.3.3.4. PROPOSED POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY ........................................................ 158
6.3.4. PHASE IV – (D) DOWN TO ACTION – PRIORITIES APPROACH .......................................................................... 164
6.3.4.1. “INCREASE AWARENESS ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (ACTION PLAN 1)” .............................................. 166
6.3.4.2. “CREATE AN INSTITUTIONAL CULTURE OF SUSTAINABILITY (ACTION PLAN 2)” ............................................ 166
6.3.4.3. “EDUCATE FOR ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE CITIZENSHIP (ACTION PLAN 3)” ..................................... 167
6.3.4.4. “FOSTER ENVIRONMENTAL LITERACY FOR ALL (ACTION PLAN 4)” ............................................................... 168
6.3.4.5. “PRACTICE INSTITUTIONAL ECOLOGY (ACTION PLAN 5)” .............................................................................. 168
6.3.4.6. “INVOLVE ALL STAKEHOLDERS (ACTION PLAN 6)”........................................................................................ 170
6.3.4.7. “COLLABORATE FOR INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACHES (ACTION PLAN 7)” .................................................. 170
6.3.4.8. “ENHANCE CAPACITY OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS (ACTION PLAN 8)” ...................................... 171
xiv
6.3.4.9. “BROADEN SERVICE AND OUTREACH NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY (ACTION PLAN 9)” .................. 171
6.3.4.10. “MAINTAIN THE MOVEMENT (ACTION PLAN 10)” .......................................................................................... 172
6.4. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................. 173
LIST OF REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................................176
ANNEXURES ..............................................................................................................................................................217
Annexure - A .................................................................................................................................................................218
Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) ..........................................................................................................218
Annexure - B .................................................................................................................................................................220
Steps adopted for Water Use Inventory Analysis (WUIA) ...........................................................................................220
Annexure - C .................................................................................................................................................................221
Water and Waste Water Assessment questionnaire.......................................................................................................221
Annexure - D ................................................................................................................................................................223
Location of main bore wells and their water supply for the entire campus ...................................................................223
Annexure - E ..................................................................................................................................................................224
Steps adopted for Food Waste Inventory Analysis (FWIA) ..........................................................................................224
Annexure - F ..................................................................................................................................................................225
Food Waste Inventory Assessment Questionnaire ........................................................................................................225
Annexure - G ................................................................................................................................................................226
Structured food waste inventory data sheet ...................................................................................................................226
Annexure - H ................................................................................................................................................................227
Criteria Identified for Pondicherry University Campus Sustainability..........................................................................227
Annexure - I ...................................................................................................................................................................228
Categories and sub categories for assessing performance of the frame work ...............................................................228
Annexure - J .................................................................................................................................................................231
List of Publications........................................................................................................................................................231
ADDENDUM ...............................................................................................................................................................233
Addendum – A ..............................................................................................................................................................234
PU Campus -Water Balance ..........................................................................................................................................234
Addendum – B ..............................................................................................................................................................244
PU Campus -Soil Quality Assessment ..........................................................................................................................244
Addendum – C ..............................................................................................................................................................252
Pondicherry University Campus Flora ..........................................................................................................................252

xv
IV. LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Ariel view showing the three study area...................................................................................................12

Figure 1.2. Schematic representation of the thesis layout ...........................................................................................13
Figure 2.1. Saltwater intrusion in the Puducherry region (Source: Hydrology Project II)..........................................28
Figure 3.1 Total number of the campus representatives surveyed and responded ......................................................41
Figure 3.2. (A-H) Perception of various aspects of sustainability agenda by different campuses ..............................43
Figure 3.3. Operational practices emphasized by the institution for moving towards green campus .........................45
Figure 4.1. Integrated Cyclical System Model (ICSM) with twelve integrated components of GCI fostering
environment protection and conservation ..........................................................................................................52
Figure 4.2. Integrated Cyclical Systems Model (ICSM) with Themes .......................................................................58
Figure 5.1 The components of ICSM implemented with integrated approach at JNV ...............................................75
Figure 5.2. Google map showing the location of the ten components of GCI at JNV, 2013 ......................................76
Figure 5.3. Schematic representation of the sectors for water use inventory analysis at JNV ....................................78
Figure 5.4. A google map showing an ariel view of the sectors and zones for WUIA at JNV ...................................79
Figure 5.5. (A) Maximum and (B) Minimum average temperature recorded in the sampling sites ...........................83
Figure 5.6. (A, B and C) Temperature variation among Barren land, Weather park and Restored area .....................84
Figure 5.7. The components of ICSM implemented with fragmented approach at SNGGHS ...................................93
Figure 5.8. Schematic representation of the sectors for water use inventory analysis at SNGGHS ...........................95
Figure 5.9. The number of science projects submitted for NCSC, after the initiation of GCI at JNV (Integrated
approach) .........................................................................................................................................................102
Figure 5.10. The number of science projects submitted for NCSC, after the initiation of GCI at SNGGHS
(Fragmented approach) ....................................................................................................................................102
Figure 6.1. The Natural Step (TNS) funnel framework ............................................................................................108
Figure 6.2. Compelling vision for sustainability through ABCD process ................................................................109
Figure 6.3. Expanding the funnel through green campus initiative ..........................................................................109
Figure 6.4. Awareness given and response level for PU administrators and students of Ecology and Environmental
Sciences Department ........................................................................................................................................111
Figure 6.5. Awareness (personal/ group discussion) given and response level .......................................................111
Figure 6.6. Ariel view map showing Pondicherry University...................................................................................114
Figure 6.7. Growth of student strength - 2001-15.....................................................................................................114
Figure 6.8. Growth of student hostel strength - 2001-15 ..........................................................................................115
Figure 6.9. Growth of faculty strength 2001-15 .......................................................................................................115
Figure 6.10. Growth of non teaching staff strength - 2001-15 ..................................................................................115
Figure 6.11. Schematic representation of the sectors and zones for WUIA..............................................................124
Figure 6.12. Study area zones chosen for water use inventory within the university campus ..................................125
Figure 6.13. Boys Hostel inventory. A. No. of occupants; B. Tank Volume; C. Water Dispensers; D. Bathrooms; E.
Toilets; F. Urinals ............................................................................................................................................127
Figure 6.14. Girls Hostel inventory. A. No. of occupants; B. Tank Volume; C. Water Dispensers; D. Bathrooms; E.
Toilets; F. Urinals ............................................................................................................................................128
Figure 6.15. Hostel Mess inventory. A. No. of Students; B. No. of Kitchen Staff ...................................................129
Figure 6.16. Total estimated water consumed at A. Boys Hostel; B. Girls Hostel; C. Kitchen Facilities; D. Staff
Quarters ............................................................................................................................................................130
Figure 6.17. Estimated potential saving in groundwater withdrawal for hostels and quarters at Pondicherry
University.........................................................................................................................................................131
Figure 6.18. Study area zones for kitchen waste management within PU ................................................................134
Figure 6.19. Schematic representation of the sectors and zones for kitchen waste management .............................135
Figure 6.20. Average food waste generated in different facilities (kg person-1 day-1) ..............................................139
Figure 6.21. The mean volume of wastes generated at each kitchen facility (Kg/day) categorized as pre/post cooked
wastes and whether it is suitable for nutrient or energy recovery ....................................................................140
Figure 6.22. Mean composition of the wastes generated at each kitchen facility (kg /day)......................................142
Figure 6.23. Number of Schools, Departments, Centres and Chairs at PU...............................................................146
Figure 6.24. Number of programs offered at PU ......................................................................................................147
Figure 6.25. Total energy consumption rate at PU during 2010-15 ..........................................................................147
Figure 6.26. Backcasting using the TNS framework ...............................................................................................149
Figure 6.27. Proposed permanent Governing Body framework of the PUOCS .......................................................155

xvi
V. LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1. Chronology of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD): The Indian Context ...............................18
Table 2.2. Chronology of Sustainable Universities/ Higher Education Declarations and Charters ............................21
Table 2.3. The synthesis of various models related to campus sustainability .............................................................36
Table 4.1. The Components identified for the ICSM for Univeristy/IHE/School ......................................................51
Table 5.1. Location of main bore wells and their water supply for the entire JNV campus .......................................78
Table 5.2. Quantum of water consumed at the Boys and Girls hostels .......................................................................79
Table 5.3. Average kitchen food waste generated (kg/per person per day) at JNV centralized kitchen .....................88
Table 5.4. Location of the main bore wells and their water supply for the entire SNGGHS campus .........................94
Table 5.5. Quantum of water consumed at the SNGGHS...........................................................................................95
Table 5.6. Average food waste generated per day at SNGGHS .................................................................................96
Table 6.1. Qualitative characteristics of greywater generated at selected sites within the campus...........................116
Table 6.2. Microbial characteristics of greywater generated at selected sites within the campus ............................117
Table 6.3. Location of main bore wells and their water supply for the entire campus .............................................122
Table 6.4. Anticipated biogas production from various hostel mess .......................................................................145
Table 6.5. Showing the anticipated energy consumption, savings, GHG emissions and reduction at silver jubilee
campus .............................................................................................................................................................148
Table 6.6. SWOT analysis for Green campus Initiative ...........................................................................................151
Table 6.7. Strategic operational action plan fostering campus environmental sustainability ...................................152

xvii
VI. LIST OF PLATES
Plate 5.1.(A) Conversion of the barren land into a (B) constructed treatment wetland ..............................................80
Plate 5.2. Motivated students and volunteers contributing plants for integrated xeriscape as a cooperative
movement...........................................................................................................................................................81
Plate 5.3. Site 3–Restored area (A) By March, 2013 and (B) By August, 2014 .........................................................81
Plate 5.4. (A) Site 1 – Barren land ..............................................................................................................................83
Plate 5.5. (A) Informal interview by team members (JNV) and (B) Team members scoping before audit (JNV) .....87
Plate 5.6. Auditing with awareness at JNV (A) Wet waste and (B) Dry waste ..........................................................87
Plate 5.7. Biogas installation by the students of JNV .................................................................................................89
Plate 5.8. JNV Team preparing the soil media ...........................................................................................................91
Plate 5.9. JNV Team members preparing the nursery tray .........................................................................................91
Plate 5.10. JNV team involved in (A) Egg plant sapling (B) Tomato sapling and (C) Chilly sapling ........................91
Plate 5.11. (A-D) Student centered outdoor activities for organic farming ................................................................92
Plate 5.12. Preparation of experimental treatment wetland (microcosm) – (A) Typha latifolia and (B) Arundo donax
...........................................................................................................................................................................95
Plate 5.13. (A) Trimming and (B) Watering the treatment wetland under the guidance of Headmistress ..................96
Plate 5.14. Collecting and weighing the table waste ...................................................................................................97
Plate 5.15. (A) Compost making process and (B) Gardening process ........................................................................98
Plate 5.16. (A)Mixing Slurry, (B)Making Compost and (C)identification of macro organisms through observation 98
Plate 5.17. (A) Weighing of raw materials for vermi-compost, (B) Preparing and (C) Maintaining the vermi-reactor
...........................................................................................................................................................................98
Plate 5.18 (A and B) - SNGGHS team students selecting benches for reuse from the discarded material – resource
recycling.............................................................................................................................................................99
Plate 5.19. (A) Mixing of raw material for soil media and (B) Filling up of the experimental ..................................99
Plate 5.20. (A and B) SNGGHS team planting seeds indoor for better germination ................................................100
Plate 5.21. (A and B) Transplanting the matured saplings and (C) setting up of Roof top garden - SNGGHS .100
Plate 5.22. Scholar providing awareness to the (A) students and (B) authorities ....................................................103
Plate 5.23. Knowledge transfer of field level awareness among students of JNV ....................................................103
Plate 5.24. Student driven green campus awareness campaign targeting fellow students and teachers of SNGGHS
.........................................................................................................................................................................103
Plate 6.1 (A) and (B). Formal and Open ended interview with CEW staff, PU........................................................123
Plate 6.2 (A) Over head tank (OHT) near quarters (B). Pump set near New shopping complex ..............................123
Plate 6.3. Girls hostel - (A) Kitchen staff transferring the food waste into sacs and (B) Ready for disposal ...........137
Plate 6.4. Girls hostel - (A) Coconut Shell used per day per mess (B) Burnt coconut shell .....................................137
Plate 6.5. Boys hostel - (A) Bio-digestible waste (excess food), (B) Compostable waste (trimmings) and (C)
Recyclable waste ..............................................................................................................................................137
Plate 6.6. Formal interview with (A) Residence warden and (B) Kitchen in charge ................................................138
Plate 6.7. (A) Segregation of comingled waste (B) On site open ended discussion with warden .............................138
Plate 6.8. (A) FWIA Team Members (B) Loading of waste sacs for disposal .........................................................138
Plate 6.9.Boys Mess - (A) Discarded egg shell and other waste (B) Left over waste after disposal .......................144
Plate 6.10. Boys Mess - (A) and (B) Choaking and over flowing of sewer system by kitchen waste, leaf litter and
hostel waste water (black and grey) .................................................................................................................144
Plate 6.11. (A) Dump yard behind Girls Hostel (B) Dumping yard behind boys hostel ...........................................144

xviii
VII. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AASHE Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education

ABC Always Be Careful
ABCD Anaerobic-antirotatory Bio-baffled Co-coupled Double-digester
ABCD - Approach Four-Phase Analytical Approach
ACUCC American College and Universities Climate Commitment
ACUI Association of College Unions International
ACUPCC American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment
AD Anaerobic Digestion
AE Assistant Engineer
AISHE Auditing Instrument for Sustainability in Higher education
AMR Aesculapia Model of Regeneration
APHA American Public Health Association
APSCC Association for Promoting Sustainability in Campuses and Communities
BIS Bureau of Indian Standards
BOD Biological Oxygen Demand
CBCS Brazilian Sustainable Construction Council
CBO Community Based Organizations
CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
CDEEP Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
CDM Clean Development Mechanism
CEW Civil Engineering Wing
COP21 United Nations Climate Negotiations
CPCB Central Pollution Control Board
CRE The Association of European Universities
CSA Climate Smart Agriculture
CSE Center for Science and Environment
CSM Campus Sustainability Movement
CSWMP Comprehensive solid waste management program
CW Constructed Wetland
DEE Department of Elementary Education
DST&E Department for Science, Technology and Environment
EC Electrical Conductivity
ECR East Coast Road
EEAT Environment Education, Awareness and Training Campaign.
EIA Environment impact assessment
EMSO Energy Management and Sustainable Operations
EPA Environment Protection Act
ESD Education for Sustainable Development
ESST Environmentally Sound Sustainable Technology
EWS Economically Weaker Section of Society
FNS/USDA Food and Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
FWIA Food Waste Inventory Analysis
FYM Farm Yard Manure
GAP Global Action Programme
GASU Graphical Assessment for Sustainability in Higher Education
xix
GCC Gateway Community College
GCI Green Campus Initiative
GCICM Green Campus Initiative Cooperative Movement
GCS Green Campus Summit
GEF Global Environmental Facility
GEM Global Education For All Meeting
GHESP Global Higher Education for Sustainability Partnership
GHG Green House Gas
GIS Geographic Information System
GOP Government of Puducherry
GREP General Research Ethics Procedures
GVSU Grand Valley State University
GW Grey Water
HEEPI Higher Education Environmental Performance Improvement
HHRKA The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act
HKUST Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
IAB International Advisory Board
IANS Indo-Asian News Service
IARU International Alliance of Research Universities
ICSM Integrated Cyclical System Model
IGCAUS International Green Campus Association of University Student
IHE Institutions of higher education
IIM-K Indian Institute of Management -Kozhikode
IIT-B Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai
IMD India Meteorological Department
IPCC International Panel on Climate Change
ISCN/GULF International Sustainable Campus Network
IUSDRP Inter-University Sustainable Development Research Program
JE Junior Engineer
JNV Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya
KAGCI Korean Association for Green Campus Initiative
KEDGE KEDGE Business School
LCMP Low-carbon Comprehensive Mobility Plans
LIG Lower Income Groups
MDG Millennium Development Goal
MHRD Ministry for Human Resource Development
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology
MNRE Ministry of New and Renewable Energy
MoEF&CC Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
MONET Monitoring sustainable development
MoWR Ministry of Water Resources
MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
MSc Masters of Science
NAPCC National Action Plan on Climate Change
NCERT National Council of Educational Research and Training
NCSC National Children Science Congress
NEERI National Environment Engineering Research Institute

xx
NEIWPCC New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
NFFLM Nested Four Frame Lens Model
NGO Non-Governmental Organizations
NPK Nitrogen, Phosphorous, Potassium
NSLP National School Lunch Program
NSW New South Wales
NWP National Water Policy
OHT Over Head Tank
OWG Open Working Group
P&D Planning and Development
PCCAP Puducherry Climate Change Action Plan
PESIT People's Education Society Institute of Technology
PU Pondicherry University
PUCGRF Pondicherry University Campus Green Revolving Fund
PUGCI Pondicherry University Green Campus Initiative
PUOCS Proposed University’s Office of Campus Sustainability
PURE&SC PU Renewable Energy and Sustainability Cell
REAP Renewable Energy Agency, Puducherry
R-R-R-R Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
RWH Rain Water Harvesting
SAQ Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire
SAT Sustainability Assessment Tools
SD Sustainable development
SDGS Sustainable Development Goals
SE Senior Engineer
SHE Sustainability in Higher Education
SLT Sustainability Literacy Test
SME Small and Medium Enterprises
SMTC Southern Maine Technical College
SNGGHS Savarayalu Nayagar Government Girls High School
STARS Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System
SWMR Solid Waste Management Rules
SWOT Strength Weakness Opportunities and Threats
T CO2 Tons of Carbon dioxide
TCCM Three Concentric Circles Model
TD Talloires Declaration
TDSB The Toronto District School Board
TD-TPAP Talloires Declaration - Ten Point Action Plan
TERI The Energy and Resources Institute
TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TNS The Natural Step
TSL Trust for Sustainable Living
TSS Total Suspended Solids
TTSE Two Tier Sustainability Equilibria Model
U.K. United Kingdom
UBC University of British Columbia
UC UC, Berkeley “Snapshots of Sustainability”

xxi
UCMERCED University of California, Merced
UCSC University of California, Santa Cruz
ULSF Association for University Leaders for a Sustainable Future
UNCED UN Conference on Environment and Development
UNDESAPD United Nations - Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population
Division
UNDESD United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development
UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
UNEP United Nations Environment Program
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UN-GAR UN General Assembly Resolution
UNO United Nations Organization
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USGBC United States Green Building Council
UT Union Territory
VIT Vellore Institute of Technology
WAP Water Action Plan
WBCSD World Business Council for Sustainable Development
WCED World Commission on Environment and Development
WED World Environment Day
WHO World Health Organization
WRI World Resources Institute
WSSD The World Summit on Sustainable Development
WSSD-U World Symposium on Sustainable Development at Universities
WUIA Water Use Inventory Analysis

xxii
 CHAPTER 1

1 INTRODUCTION AND OUTLINE OF THESIS

Introduction and About Green Scope and Layout

Chapter 1 Background Campus of the Thesis

1
1.1. Introduction

“Universities can nowadays be regarded as ‘small cities’ due to their large size, population, and
the various complex activities, which have some serious direct and indirect impacts (some of them
could be irreversible too) on the local environment. The magnitude of the environmental pollution and
degradation caused by universities in the form of energy and material consumption via activities and
operations in teaching and research, provision of support services and in residential areas could be
considerably reduced by an effective choice of organizational and technical measures” (Alshuwaikhat
and Abubakar, 2008; Poyyamoli et al., 2012). However, “the traditional practices and regulations of
addressing environmental issues in a reactive projects” (Brix et al., 2006) “and ad hoc manner in
several educational campuses with Newtonian and Cartesian reductionist and mechanistic paradigms
have become highly inefficient and cannot guarantee sustainability” (Lozano et al., 2010; Poyyamoli
et al., 2012).

Sustainable development (SD) is one of the biggest challenges of the twenty-first century. Of
late, “several universities have explored the ways in which to integrate it into their university policy,
organization and activities” (Weenen, 2000; Sharp, 2002). “Since universities posses access to the
most up-to-date knowledge of both environmental problems and technical solutions, they have the
responsibility to lead society toward environmentally sustainable policies and practices” (Uhl and
Anderson, 2001). Owens and Halfacre-Hitchcock (2006) emphasize that, “universities may be seen as
‘microcosms’ of society, and therefore their experiences may inform efforts for change at the societal
level”. In this context, sustainability efforts are defined broadly to include changes in campus
operations, financial and administrative planning and/or policy and/or academic curricula and/or
research that facilitate positive environmental changes.

“Many universities/IHEs in the developing world especially, still focus only on direct
environmental aspects like paper use and waste handling, even though the main tasks of the
universities, namely education, research and co-operation with the surrounding society, i.e. the indirect
aspects, are likely to have a considerable environmental impact” (Wall et al., 2010).

“The Principle of Sustainability was endorsed by Agenda 21 (United Nations, 1992) and was
globally confirmed again in the World Summit in Johannesburg (United Nations, 2002). As a result of
the conference, 2005 to 2014 was declared as the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable
Development (DESD)” (http://iefworld.org). DESD has to be strategically viewed in relation to other
international initiatives that are already in place, in particular the Millennium Development Goals
(MDG), Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), Global Environmental Facility (GEF) and
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in order to facilitate campus sustainability on a wider
scale.

2
 “The purpose of this thesis against this backdrop, is to provide a roadmap with back ground
and a broad conceptual framework for planning/implementing green campus strategies for
sustainability and to kick start such strategies in universities/IHEs/schools of India, based on best
practice case studies elsewhere” (Comm and Mathaisel, 2005; Chambers, 2009; Wall et al., 2010; UC
Berkeley, 2011).

1.2. Background

There are eleven of the most widely accepted SD initiatives in higher education, which relate
to the university system, namely: the Tbilisi Declaration (1977), the Talloires Declaration (1990), the
Halifax Declaration (1991), the Swansea Declaration (1993), the Kyoto Declaration (1993),the
Copernicus Charter (1994), the Declaration of Thessaloniki (1997), the Lüneburg Declaration (2001),
the Global Higher Education for Sustainability Partnership (GHESP) (2002), the Graz Declaration
(2005), the Turin Declaration (2009). They are all summarized and their relevance for ESD is
discussed by Lozano et al. (2010). Among these, the Talloires Declaration (1990) received a special
attention. “This is the first official statement made by university presidents, chancellors, and rectors of
a commitment for a ten-point action plan to incorporate sustainability and environmental literacy in
teaching, research, operations, assessment, reporting and outreach at colleges and universities”
(www.ulsf.org). In India, there is a wide spread growing desire to address sustainability issues on
college/university campuses; however, many lack the effort necessary to effect real and significant
change. Part of the reason for their lack in effort is that many institutions do not understand, what is at
stake? and, how to go about with it?.

Therefore, there is an urgent need for a professional and systematic approach to institutionalize
the sustainability principles as well as to reduce the consumption of resources and negative impacts of
the various campus operations. Unfortunately, “this approach is generally lacking in most of the
universities/IHEs/schools, especially in the developing world and hence achieving sustainability is not
reported to be easy” (Elizabete et al., 2005). Several workers have suggested that “university/IHE
should and can act as a change agent for sustainability” (Stephens et al., 2008; Corcoran and Wals,
2004; Shriberg, 2002b) while CSE (2009) and NCERT (2015) suggest that “schools too can act as a
change agent”. To that end, “campus sustainability programs have been the subject of recent case
studies, conferences, and dissertations” (Clugston and Calder, 1999; Dahle and Neumayer, 2001;
Carpenter and Meehan, 2002; Shriberg, 2002b; Wright, 2004; Price, 2005; Hunting and Tilbury 2006;
Nicolaides, 2006; University of Calgary, 2007; University of Toronto, 2007; Ferrer-Balas et al., 2008;
Savanick et al., 2008a and b; Sustainability, 2008; Rauch and Newman, 2009; The Princeton Review,
2010; Kevin et al., 2011; Poyyamoli et al., 2012; USGBC, 2014). These studies have “proposed and
assessed current models” (Shriberg, 2002 a, b and Williamson, 2012), “identified barriers” (Shriberg,

3
2002b, 2003; Velazquez et al., 2005 and 2006; Lozano et al., 2010), “examined specific strategies of
implementation such as environmental management systems” (Noeke, 2000; Carpenter and Meehan,
2002; Spellerberg et al., 2004: Sammalisto and Arvidsson, 2005; Nicolaides, 2006; Jain and Pant,
2010) and “the role of collaboration” (Moore et al., 2005). Price (2005) asserts that “universities need
to move from the perception that environmental management systems are marginally important and a
‘soft control issue’ and separate from campus sustainability operations to a more integrated system
within university/IHE/school sustainability”.

“The interdisciplinary approach to involvement of students in education and practice in the

area of sustainability is well documented” (Bhasin et al., 2003; Cortese, 2005; Domask, 2007;
Sammalisto and Lindhqvist, 2008; Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008; Walker and Seymour, 2008; GVSU,
2009; Chhokar, 2010; Jones et al., 2010). “Students have been found to be formidable ambassadors for
furthering sustainability both on and off campus through experiential learning. This engagement has
allowed students to see the linkages between other areas of studies beyond the sciences, such as social
science, community development, and political science, thus facilitating interdisciplinary /trans-
disciplinary outlook”(GVSU, 2009; WSCSD, 2015). “Students have also been able to learn valuable
skills that have led to personal job creation and entrepreneurship especially in the developed world. In
spite of these emerging trends, universities/IHEs/schools in several developing countries have not
adopted sustainability strategies at the same rate, creating an increasing disparity between market
needs and academic deliverables in the area of sustainability including adopting sustainability
strategies, producing intellectual capital and knowledge workers” (Wall et al., 2010).

According to Kerby and Mallinger (2014), “the word sustainability has become a metaphor for
environmental justice, social good and economic resilience”. Originally adopted “in the field of
forestry; the use of the term ‘sustainability’ eventually spread into other fields such as ecology,
economics, sociology, cultural and political sciences” (UNESCO, 1997). “Even though the origins of
the terms ‘sustainable development’ or ‘sustainability’ goes back many decades, it was substantially
enhanced since the Brundtland Commission Report (1987), which is also known as Our Common
Future”. The report attempted to address the growing need with a specific definition and the same has
since become the most used definition of sustainability:

“development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs”

In June 1992, the United Nations congregation initiated the UN Conference on Environment
and Development (The Earth Summit), in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The same year, “the Union of
Concerned Scientists reported that fundamental transformational changes mitigating the environmental
challenges are urgent, if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about” (Kendall,
1992). Since then, “the policy makers working on climate change and other sustainability challenges
4
are invited to invest their efforts in adopting Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and
supporting inter-ministerial and multi-stakeholder coordination and collaboration with civil society
organizations, such as community groups, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), associations,
unions and foundations” (UNESCO, 2014). Subsequently, “the term ‘sustainable development’ or
‘sustainability’ has found its way into the international conventions and agreements, government and
non-government agencies/ enterprises, universities, higher educational institutions, schools, NGO’s,
CBO’s, etc. across the world and are becoming increasingly important in many different aspects of our
lives” (UNESCO, 2014; Muthu et al., 2015). Over the period of time, “the depletion of natural
resource have led to further challenges that are multidisciplinary, immense and complex leading to
negative impacts on human health, poverty and unpredictable disasters” (Gerlitz et al., 2015; Parvin et
al., 2015). These further indicate that, IHEs have a key role to play as a facilitator for such a transition
towards sustainability.

1.3. Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD)

“The DESD called for universities/IHEs to engage their students in sustainability learning, be
places of research in sustainability education, be leaders by modeling best practices in sustainability
management, and to be ‘poles of activity’ for their communities and nations” (UN-DESD, 2007).
“Universities/IHEs in the developed countries by and large have responded to this call to action, as
evidenced by the signing of numerous international sustainability in higher education declarations”
(Lozano et al., 2013; Sylvestre et al., 2013; Sterling, 2014), “the proliferation of sustainability in
higher education publications” (Wright and Pullen, 2007) and “the creation of umbrella organizations
like the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE),
Association for Promoting Sustainability in Campuses and Communities (APSCC), Korean
Association for Green Campus Initiative (KAGCI), International Green Campus Association of
University Students (IGCAUS), Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS), International
Sustainable Campus Network (ISCN)”, etc.

“UNESCO and the government of Japan organized the World Conference on Education for
Sustainable Development in Nagoya (November -2014), where over 1,000 participants and more than
70 government delegations endorsed the critical role that education has, in bringing about a more
stable and sustainable society in the face of pressing global challenges. At the conference, UNESCO
launched a roadmap for implementing its ‘Global Action Plan’ on education for sustainable
development over the next five years, including a considerable challenge to the higher education
sector to develop ‘whole institution approaches’ coupled with ‘mixed method approaches’ reflecting
the reorientation of teaching and the curriculum as well as campus and facilities management in line
with the principles of sustainable development” (UNESCO, 2014). It is also interesting to note that
recently, “UNEP launched Greening the University Toolkit (UNEP, 2013) followed by the
5
International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU) which also launched a comprehensive Green
Guide for Universities (IARU, 2014), echoing UNESCO’s call and reflecting the trend that
sustainability is moving from the margins to the mainstream”. This brings us to the fundamental
challenge as pointed out by Sterling (2014): “how can we ensure that education has more strong
impact on sustainable development – and sustainable development are embedded at the heart of
education and learning – so that there is both mutual benefit and accelerated positive effect, sufficient
to win breakthrough towards an economically secure, ecologically stable and socially just world, way
into the future?”

“The United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were originally proposed to
bridge the social, economic and health inequalities that exist between countries that are very much
relevant in the context of DESD. With the 15 year cycle of MDG coming to an end in 2015, the United
Nations has introduced an even more ambitious set of goals for the period 2016-2030, known as the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s). The first ‘draft’ of the SDG’s was created by a ‘High-Level
Panel in 2013” (Loewe, 2012; United Nations, 2014; UNECE, 2015) and came into effect since
1st-January-2016. The experience with implementing and monitoring the MDG’s holds many lessons
for the SDG’s, that is,
“we must learn from our successes, and also from our failures to perform better in the future”.

A key lesson learnt from the MDG’s is that “we need more and better data to monitor the
implementation of the SDGs. We need a true ‘data revolution’ with new sources of data and better
integration of statistics into decision-making”, (UNECE, 2015). “Reorienting education to
sustainability in the context of SDGs requires that traditional compartments and categories can no
longer remain in isolation from each other and that we must work increasingly at the interface of
disciplines in order to address the complex problems of today’s world, where, education plays a dual
role, in both reproducing certain aspects of current society and preparing students to transform society
for the future” (UNESCO, 2014). For example, “Monash Sustainability Institute's, Sustainable
Development Program was launched in 2012. It aims to support Australian and regional leadership in
the development and implementation of the UN SDGs. Monash university is working with a wide
range of national and international stakeholders to create insights into how the SDGs can be made
more scientifically and locally meaningful, having the central activities focused on influencing the
development of goals that are appropriate for Australia and the Asia Pacific region, and also to build
preparedness for future implementation of the SDGs” (Monash University, 2015). Moreover, “the
SDGs are set to follow the MDGs in their effort to continue improving the livelihoods of our world’s
most disadvantaged peoples, with the major focus, that the next generation of students can be properly
prepared to implement the proposed SDGs” (Michigan University, 2015).

6
1.4. The Role of Universities and Institutions of Higher Education (IHE)

“Of late, several Universities and IHEs have begun the debate about the concept of
sustainability and the ways in which to integrate it into their university/higher education policy,
organization and activities” (Weenen, 2000; Sharp, 2002; Lozano et al., 2014; Amaral et al., 2015;
Ellis and Martin, 2015). Owens and Halfacre-Hitchcock (2006) emphasized that “universities may be
seen as ‘microcosms’ of society, and therefore their experiences may inform efforts for change at the
societal level”. “Furthermore, with access to the most up-to-date knowledge, the universities possess a
natural responsibility to lead the communities and policy makers toward a more environmentally
sustainable policies and practices” (Poyyamoli et al., 2012; Godemann et al., 2014; Riccaboni and
Trovarelli, 2015). In this context, campus sustainability efforts are defined broadly to include changes
in campus operations including facilities, financial, administrative planning, policies, academic
curricula and research that facilitate positive environmental changes.

“There can be no sustainable world where universities promote un-sustainability” (M’Gonigle

and Starke, 2006) and “no institutions in modern society are better situated and more obliged to
facilitate the transition to a sustainable future than schools, colleges and universities” (Orr, 2004).
“The environmental pollution and degradation caused by universities in the form of energy and
material consumption via activities and operations in teaching and research, provision of support
services and in residential areas could be considerably reduced by an effective choice of organizational
and technical measures” (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar, 2008). IHEs have all it takes to invent and
develop sustainable system innovation: brilliant minds, national/international networks with
governments, companies and other scientists, sufficient space and access to equipment and future
generations to make campus/city sustainability happen. “More recently, there is an increase in the
number of universities, IHEs and schools, incorporating the principles of SD into their curriculum and
way of life to transform their campus into what they call as a ‘Green Campus’ ” (Sharp, 2002;
Simpson, 2003; Cole and Wright, 2003) “which is also referred to as ‘Sustainable Campus’ or ‘Smart
Campus’ by some workers” (Wang, 2014; Ralph and Stubbs, 2014; Evans et al., 2015; Zhao and Zou,
2015). The campuses respond to these issues in a number of ways, from action research to outreach
and raising awareness. The focus of the PU Green Campus Initiatives (PU-GCI) has been to form an
action plan to reduce the campuses water footprint, energy footprint, ecological footprint and
environmental impacts by primarily improving operational efficiency and resource recycling.
According to Muthu et al. (2015), “the drive to attain the GREEN CAMPUS status for PU is to serve
as a regional model for global environmental sustainability where all the processes and operational
functions of the campus are closely knit, providing educational and practical values to the institution
and the surrounding environment”.

7
 “However, the traditional practices and regulations of addressing environmental issues in a
reactive project and ad hoc manner in the campuses have become highly inefficient and cannot
guarantee sustainability” (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar, 2008). The conventional thoughts, principles,
methods are in question now. Hence, “the challenge we are facing today requires radical changes,
closer stakeholder cooperation and committed leadership. University/IHEs/schools are places where
today and tomorrow’s leaders are groomed and such institutions can also be considered as models for
the society, since the vast student community can be ideally motivated and trained inside the campus,
so that they can take the message to the society at large. Hence, they along with the dedicated team of
faculty and staff are expected to evolve appropriate solutions to these problems by conducting
research, providing information, and training qualified individuals. Incidentally, the transition to
sustainability opens up new challenges and also tremendous opportunities” (CBCS, 2015). This
present study is a pioneering attempt from India in this direction.

1.5. Green Campus (GC) and Green Campus Initiative (GCI)

There has been no standard definition for the term ‘Green Campus’. All the reviewed green
campus definitions have the following core principles:
“Conserving natural resources, environment, energy, economy and social sustainability based on
environmental education for sustainable development through awareness, motivation and
action research on the ground through experimental learning”

(Cole and Wright, 2003; El-Mogazi, 2005; An Taisce 2013; Kibbutzim, 2015; Muthu et al., 2015;
Tahir, 2015; AASHE, 2013; Jain et al., 2013; MNRE, 2015; NEIWPCC, 2015; USGBC, 2014;
APSCC; 2016). From the available definitions, it is clear that there is a common thread that runs
through all of them – facilitating participatory initiatives to reduce waste and improve the operational
efficiency in the campus functioning with respect to energy, water, waste, etc. Lozano et al. (2013)
“also precisely highlighted this as the ‘Golden Thread’ that runs through the entire university system,
that has to be central focus of any GCI”.

1.6. The state of GCI in India

India, a vast subcontinent enveloped in a plurality of cultural heritage and diverse demography,
adopted a new paradigm of thinking and development since Post-Stockholm Conference in 1972
called Sustainable Development (SD), following which, it became part of 187 countries agreeing on
carrying out an important commitment towards SD by signing the Rio Declaration during 1992 UN
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). The Government of India's sensitivity and
commitment to sustainable and inclusive growth is reflected in its major policies and also specific
initiatives and programs adopted through its Five Year Plans to realize the MDG's. This goal became
more relevant when India became a partner of the UN General Assembly Resolution (UN-GAR) for
establishing the UN-DESD (2005-2014) in the year 2005 emphasizing that,
8
 “education is an indispensable element for achieving sustainable development”.

In the recent past, India experienced both an accelerating growth rate along with unexpected
environmental impact and unequal socio-economic development. However, challenges are still to be
met in terms of creating awareness and ensuring the adoption of ESD based development perspective.
This is because, “concerns for environment conservation/protection cannot be put into place without
taking into account the larger socio-economic and cultural reality of society in which the concerns of
environment are inbuilt with environmental conservation and protection” (UN-DESD, 2007).

In spite of the ability of the IHEs to be leaders in sustainable thought and practice, there is still
reluctance on the part of many IHEs in India, to make sustainability issues a priority in curricula,
research, service and operations. Even though many institutions practice several initiatives at grass
root level to foster sustainability, the review of literature reveals a void in the methodological/ system
based implementation of such initiatives that is comprehensive and measurable which is also backed
up by the published research. This void has propelled this research.

In India, industrial development, rapid urbanization, urban sprawl and blooming job market in
the recent decade have promoted the increase in number of secondary and higher educational
institutions. “At present there are around 642 Universities, 34908 colleges and 11356 Stand Alone
Institutions” (MHRD, 2013) operating all over India. “The educational institutions consume more
natural resources than any Small or Medium Enterprises (SMEs) due to their large size and operations.
For instance, a developing University in India consumes about 800000 liters of water and uses about
5333 KWH of electricity per day for their operations” (Gobinath et al., 2010), the same is true in our
university (that is growing leaps and bounds) as well (Chapter 6). Hence, educational institutions
should also be considered along with the industries to reduce the pollution (via - command and control
and polluter pay approach) and to preserve our natural resources by “developing sustainable methods/
design/ strategies/ tools to improve their environmental performance” (Gobinath et al., 2010). “In spite
of a number of SD initiatives and an increasing number of universities/IHEs becoming engaged with
SD, most of them in India continue to be traditional, and rely upon Newtonian and Cartesian
reductionist and mechanistic paradigms” (Poyyamoli et al., 2012; Lozano et al., 2013). They still focus
only on direct environmental aspects like paper use, water harvesting and waste handling, with ad-hoc
approaches in comparison to the universities/IHEs of developed countries where such strategies are
incorporated /integrated into the campus development plan and into all aspects of decision making.
Therefore, there is an urgent need for a professional and systematic approach to promote action
research on campus greening or sustainability, to revamp the curricula/syllabi across the disciplines, to
institutionalize the sustainability principles as well as to reduce the consumption of resources
and negative impacts of the various campus operations. According to this study, the tertiary

9
level educational institutions can become world class ‘green campuses’ over the medium term of 5-10
years, by making a very substantial contribution in areas such as environmental awareness and
training; optimization of resource reuse; reduction of resource/energy consumption and associated
costs; environmental protection; enhanced links with community, business, government organizations
and other IHEs. “Notable among the Indian IHEs adopting a diversity of green strategies for campus
sustainability, are (arranged alphabetically):

1) Amrita university (www.amrita.edu)

2) Christ University, Bangalore (www.christuniversity.in)
3) DG Ruparel College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Pune (www.ruparel.edu)
4) Great Lakes Institute of Management, Kanchipuram (www.greatlakes.edu.in)
5) Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi (http://www.iitd.ac.in)
6) Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Mumbai campus(www.iitb.ac.in)
7) Indian Institute of Management -Kozhikode (IIM-K)(www.iimk.ac.in)
8) Institute of Management Development and Research, Mumbai (www.imdr.edu)
9) People's Education Society Institute of Technology (PESIT), Bangalore (http://pes.edu)
10) Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore (VIT) (www.vit.ac.in)”

1.7. Rationale

This study is based on an action research, carried out at Pondicherry University (PU)
(including extramural activities at schools), to understand the challenges of SD in the campuses of
developing nations and propose a framework that works best for such campuses. PU is situated in the
Union Territory of Puducherry, “a ‘Regional Higher Education Hub of Southern India’, comparatively
with the highest college density among all the states. For every 100000 of population in the 18-23 age
groups, Puducherry has 61 colleges, the highest in the country” (Philip, 2014). “The town hosts 149
IHEs 23% managed under the Government and 77% under private ownership. The institutes are
widely varied with 90 numbers of total affiliated colleges such as Medical/Dental/Research Institute
(13 nos.), Para medical (09 nos.), Engineering (19 nos.), Arts and Science (21 nos.), Education (25
nos.), Law (02 nos.), Veterinary (01 no.) along with 7 Polytechnics and 2 Catering Institutes. In total,
PU has around 68060 students enrolled both directly and through affiliated colleges (PU - 6058,
Affiliated colleges–52450, Community college–796, Distance Education–8756)” (PU Statistics, 2016).
With two centrally sponsored projects solar city and smart city (Smart Cities, 2015) in the region, PU
can collaborate, coordinate and connect with people within the campus and beyond in an effort to
provide empowerment to the higher education academia that could builds a better sustainable future.

Instead of simply adding a few classes on environmental issues and sustainability, the
sustainability advocates are calling for a fundamental rethinking of how university/IHEs/schools can
educate students, conduct research, interact with local communities and ecosystems, operate their

10
campuses, and provide a model for other social institutions, even though the management and
organization do not typically change quickly or radically. This type of situation is becoming
increasingly frustrating to stakeholders attempting to create organizational change for sustainability.
For example, Uhl et al. (2004) claim: “our universities contain enormous brain power, but a dearth of
vision, courage, and moral responsibility, more concerned about ‘training students’ to fit into a status
quo world that is unraveling, rather than forthrightly addressing the causes of this unraveling and
offering our young people a sense of hope and purpose”. In this context, Universities have a greater
leverage but more often they fail to use it in creative and exciting ways, especially in India.

1.8. Purpose Statement

This research is based on the fundamental premise that environmental issues are of critical
importance, and that educational campuses have a major responsibility, both to lead and also to set an
example for the society. The fundamental basis for this dissertation is that, “the scholars and experts
have agreed that the institutions of higher learning, have a special responsibility to address the
continuing environmental crisis and provide leadership for the broader society” (Sharp, 2002;
Simpson, 2003; Nafukho et al., 2005; Goddard and Vallance, 2011; Wang, 2013) “to effectively
educate students of all ages to help make the transition to sustainable societal patterns” (Lozano,
2013). The main objectives of this largely exploratory research study are to:

 evolve a sustainable design for campus operations which is logical; flexible; testable; and to
provide choices for various stakeholders to practice and adopt
 facilitate systemic, institution-wide integration of sustainability principles into selected campus
operations – ‘water-food-energy’ nexus to start with
 evolve a system framework to evaluate the selected green campuses according to the selected
assessment system indicators and determine the degree of sustainability as a starting point to
guide future action

The over-arching goal of such study will be to provide a roadmap for stakeholders and guide
the scholars and decision makers attempting to create organizational changes required for transforming
their campus into a Sustainable Campus/ Green Campus.

1.9. Study Site

Three sites were selected as part of this study namely Pondicherry University (PU), Jawahar
Navodaya Vidyalaya (JNV) and Savarayalu Nayagar Government Girls High School (SNGGHS)
(Figure 1.1).

 PU (Latitude: 12.026344 | Longitude: 79.849281), located in the northern border of Oulgaret

Municipality, is a Central University established under the Pondicherry University Act - 1985.
11
 It hosts about 15 Schools, 37 Departments, 10 Centers, 2 Chairs with the total number of
Teaching, Non-Teaching Staff and Students Enrolment sanctioned were 489, 720, 3197 (2910 -
MSc + 287 - PhD) respectively. PU is the apex research institute having around 90 numbers of
total affiliated colleges such as Medical/Dental/Research Institute (13), Para medical (09),
Engineering (19), Arts and Science (21), Education (25), Law (02), Veterinary (01) with total
student strength of about 68060 (PU - 6058, Affiliated colleges – 52450, Community college –
796, Distance Education – 8756) (http://www.pondiuni.edu.in).

 JNV (Latitude: 12.036865 | Longitude: 79.853085), located in the northern border of Oulgaret
Municipality, is a fully residential co-educational institution established in the year 1986 –
1987, which is sponsored by Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Govt. of
India. The school provides education from sixth standard to twelfth standard, with a total
strength of 495 students as on 2015, and all the expenses related to tuition, boarding and
lodging are borne by the MHRD.

 SNGGHS (Latitude: 11.934177 | Longitude: 79.827724) is a non-residential state government

funded girls school. SNGGHS is located in the heart of Puducherry Municipality. The school
provides education to nursery, primary and high school students with a total strength of 455
students as on 2015.

Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya (JNV)

Pondicherry
University (PU)

Savarayalu Nayagar Govt.

Girls High School (SNGGHS)

Figure 1.1. Ariel view showing the three study areas

1.10. Scope and Layout of Thesis

This thesis is organized in six chapters and is represented schematically in Figure 1.2

Chapter 1 provides an introduction, background and addresses the role of Universities and
IHEs in bringing about a sustainable change in the campus operations. The chapter also touches upon
the state of GCI in India, background on Pondicherry University, and secondary schools where this
action research was carried out followed by the scope and layout of this thesis.

12
 Introduction and About Green Scope and Layout
Chapter 1 Background Campus of the Thesis

Progress of
sustainable/green Theoretical
Literature Review campus in foundation for
Chapter 2 secondary and various models
tertiary level studied
educational
institutions

Perception Formulating
Chapter 3 assessment by framework for
SAQ “green campus”

Synthesis of Rational for

various models ICSM
Chapter 4 Background implementing
studied ICSM

Pilot scale at JNV Empirical study

(Integrated WUIA
Chapter 5
approach) FWIA

Pilot scale at Microclimate study

SNGGHS Empirical study Biogas production
(Fragmented
approach)
Compost production

WUIA

FWIA

NCSC as indicator
for attitude change

Green Campus Empirical study

Chapter 6 Initiation at PU WUIA

FWIA

Other Initiatives Talloires Declaration

SLT

Policy for PU

Ten point action plan

Achievement

Conclusion
Figure 1.2. Schematic representation of the thesis layout

Chapter 2 deals with an extensive literature review on the history of campus sustainability/
green campus and its progress in secondary and tertiary level educational institutions of India. It also
explains the theoretical foundations and background on the various models of selected campuses

13
(foreign and Indian). Case studies among schools, universities and organization are also described and
various strategies relating to the sustainable management of the basic life support systems like water,
soil, and air for campus sustainability are discussed.

Chapter 3 gives a perception assessment of a sustainable campus/ green campus through the
tool ‘Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire’ (SAQ). The results from the survey are used as a
comprehensive tool to identify the weaknesses and set goals, while formulating the framework for
campus environmental sustainability.

Chapter 4 provides a synthesis of the principles of the theoretical framework and the results of
SAQ discussed in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 to evolve the Integrated Cyclical System Model (ICSM) as
a comprehensive model/framework for GCI. The background, rationale and the implementation
approach for ICSM are discussed in this chapter.

Chapter 5 discusses the implementation of the ICSM at a pilot scale in two selected school
campuses (JNV and SNGGHS) in both integrated and fragmented form, to test its feasibility before
implementing it full-fledged in PU. The National Children Science Congress (NCSC) that is organized
by the Government of India every year was used as a motivational tool and also as an indicator to
measure the progress of GCI in the pilot implementation.

Chapter 6 is devoted to the implementation of Green Campus Initiative (GCI) at Pondicherry

University using The Natural Step Four-Phase Analytical Approach (ABCD - Approach). As part of
the first phase, a general awareness about the campus environmental sustainability and sustainable
development was provided among the PU campus communities and beyond by aligning all the campus
stakeholders towards a common understanding of sustainability in a whole-systems context. Following
this, an extensive baseline data mapping of the PU campus was conducted. This exercise includes
several audits with respect to water and waste with some supporting empirical studies to gain an
insight into the current status of how sustainable the campus is and what are the threats and challenges.
Following this, PU’s campus environmental sustainability framework was envisioned on the
‘Principles of Backcasting’ and a 31 point recommendation was provided to transform the campus into
a model sustainable and living laboratory. Taking into consideration the examples of several
institutions that are facing similar issues, the framework was devised to be the governing principle and
a driving force in the implementation of the recommended policies for PU green campus that everyone
dream of. The Chapter concludes with the actions taken at PU to facilitate campus sustainability
starting with the symbolic commitment of the University in signing the Talloires Declaration, a ten-
point action plan for incorporating sustainability and environmental literacy in teaching, research,
operations and outreach at colleges and universities; conducting conferences and workshops on SD
and signing up for the Sustainability Literacy Test (SLT).

14
 CHAPTER 2

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Progress of
sustainable/green
campus in Theoretical
Literature Review foundation for
Chapter 2 secondary and
tertiary level various models
educational studied
institutions

15
2.1. History on Sustainable Development and Education

It was von Carlowitz (1713) “who first used the term ‘sustainability’ in the context of
preventing the overuse of natural resources especially wood” and was later used in the same sense by
Kasthofer (1818) as quoted by Thatcher (2014). “Later in the nineteenth century, the conservation
movement spread in the developed world and its advocates were called as conservationists, who
believed in efficient management of natural resources” (Dade, 2010). “Three schools of thought were
active in this conservation movement: natural resource management (conservation), wilderness
preservation and urban quality of life issues related to the environment” (Wellock, 2007). “The now
known term and the basic principle of ‘sustainable development’ was defined first in 1987 by the
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED)”.

Researchers working in this field have ever since proposed several models ranging from
‘pillars’ to ‘triangles’ to ‘prisms’ to ‘eggs’ to explain SD. Later these definitions were modified and
re-formulated according to different point of views, “with majority referring to the viability of natural
resources and ecosystems over time, and the maintenance of human living standards” (Keiner, 2005 a
and b). “Keiner (2005a and b) interpreted sustainability as ‘to conserve’, ‘to preserve’, whereas
Marcuse (1998) judged sustainability as ‘slogan’ and ‘trap’, because it hides rather than it reveals the
unpleasant fact that society does not really recognize its responsibility and the real causes of pollution
and degradation”. “The vital aspect of implementing sustainability is ‘to develop’, ‘to promote’, ‘to
improve’, ‘to conserve’ which is often small and non-attractive, lacking inspiration, ultimately
perceived by the younger generation as boring” (Keiner, 2005 a and b).

“Even though there is at present a large body of literature on SD, a detailed vision of what
sustainability might mean in practice is likely to be the subject of continuing discussion” (Leal,
2011a). According to Leal (2011a), “there have been various landmarks in the process of designing
approaches and mechanisms to bring sustainable development issues to university policies, some of
which were set in motion well before the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED)”. However, there is a growing gap in the knowledge transfer to developing
economies and the human enterprise is continually overwhelming the earth’s ecological systems and
its services by draining its natural resources. “Therefore the challenge lies now in the
operationalization of the term sustainable development, i.e. ‘the implementations of initiatives that do
not merely pay lip-service or be as watermelons (red inside and green outside) to the words but
actively do justice to the original concept’ ” (Keiner, 2005b; Campbell, 2015). In view of this, “radical
transformations of the mindset, technology, politics and economics are also much needed with the
total system reorientations by fully embodying the principles of eco-cultural sustainability” (Nixon,
2002), “where higher education sector, bestowed with freedom to develop new ideas, comment on

16
society, and engage in bold experimentation, as well as contribute to the creation of new knowledge is
in a unique position to lead this transformation of the human psyche” (Essex Report, 1995).

“One of the reasons why few universities in the global South have ever succeeded in the quest
of implementing sustainable development in their programs is due to the existence of various
misconceptions such as the concept of SD refers only to environmental concerns” (Leal, 2000;
Cortese, 2003; McKibben, 2007; Willard, 2012). Leal (2011a) also highlighted that, there are some
assumptions that need to be made clear, if SD efforts are expected to yield the expected benefits:

“the assumptions are that the sustainability efforts should involve everyone, be lifelong,
be holistic about connections and be practical and action-oriented”.

“Sustainability in higher education is a relatively recent theme that made some progress only
since early 1990’s” (Leal, 1999; Savelyeva and McKenna, 2011). Colleges and universities across the
world, “with an ethical obligation to provide this type of education are becoming the catalysts of this
change by leading the efforts to transform their campuses into models of environmental sustainability”
(Orr, 2004; Edwards, 2010; Rasmussen, 2011; Savelyeva and McKenna, 2011; Osmond et al., 2013).
On one hand, “efforts towards implementing SD should be focused to empower people with the
knowledge, understanding and capacity to influence society in a way which progresses environmental
objectives along with other legitimate social and economic objectives” (DEH, 1999; Pandey, 2005;
Sharma, 2007; Sundar, 2007; Ghosh, 2009; Leal, 2011b). On the other hand, “behavioral change
should be induced through motivation as otherwise the stakeholders will not be well informed and
confident about what to engage and do” (Parkin, 2010; Godemann et al., 2014; Horhota et al., 2014).

2.2. Review of the Progress of Sustainability in Secondary Level Education

“Since the Stockholm Conference in 1972, various initiatives were taken to save and upgrade
the nature, and one such initiative is the concept of ‘Green School’. It was introduced in Europe in the
1990s while the Rio Earth Summit (1992) took cognizance of the need to take action in ‘every area in
which human impacts on the environment’, which was further catalyzed at ‘The World Summit on
Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg (2002)’ to bring about a shift in ‘educating about
the environment’ to ‘educating for sustainability’, followed by United Nations ‘Decade of Education
for Sustainable Development (UN-DESD)’ (2005-14)”. This shift reflected that there was an urgent
need for everyone to be aware and to develop a deeper understanding to meet the environmental
challenges that we face today. Globally it was agreed that, “by enabling children to use appropriate
skills to take necessary action on environmental, economic and social issues which are intertwined
(not in isolation) in pursuit of a better quality of life” (Sharma and Pandya, 2015; NCERT, 2015).

“In India, when we look at ‘Education and Ecology’, the concept of green schools is holistic,
not only having energy efficient buildings but aesthetically designed architecture, acoustically treated
outdoor arenas, with adequate lung spaces rendering the learning ambience inviting and pleasant;
17
given to the kind of food served, organic and fresh, which is well rooted in the Gurukul tradition”
(Chakravarti, 2015). “India’s ‘Green Schools Program Manual’ developed by the Center for Science
and Environment” (CSE, 2009) gives “step by step guidelines to students and administrators on how
to conduct an environmental audit in the school” (Jerath et al., 2011). The Government of India, “in its
Article 51A of the Constitution says that it is the ‘fundamental duty of every citizen to protect and
improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife’ ”, furthering this, the
National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), India developed a resource book
titled, “‘Towards a Green School on Education for Sustainable Development for Elementary Schools’,
which was innovatively created by Dr. Kavita Sharma, from the Department of Elementary Education
(DEE), NCERT and her colleagues” (Sharma and Pandya, 2015). Being a joint responsibility of one
and all, “it aims to involve the entire school community (children, teachers, heads and other support
staff) and the neighborhood to work together through participatory, practical and collaborative
approaches via ‘greening’ and ‘whole school approach’ ” (NCERT, 2015). “A whole-system/school
approach to sustainability requires all the campus individuals to work together for successfully
advancing the ‘whole-school sustainability program’ by shifting not only practices, policies but also
culture” (USGBC, 2014). Table 2.1 shows the chronology of mile stone towards the education for
sustainable development (ESD) in India.

Table 2.1. Chronology of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD): The Indian Context
(Adapted and modified from respective web sites; Sharma and Pandya, 2015 and NCERT, 2015)

Year Mile Stone

1964-66 “Mahatma Gandhi’s Basic Education and recommendations by the Education
Commission”
1972 “Stockholm conference on the Human and Environment”
1972 “Establishment of National Council of Environmental Planning and Coordination”
After 1972 “Various enforceable laws and regulations for environmental protection was
enacted, naming few - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; the
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977; the Air (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, etc”
1975 “Curriculum development programs at the National Council of Educational
Research and Training (NCERT)”
1980 “Indira Gandhi’s prime-ministership prepared the groundwork for the creation of a
federal Department of Environment in 1980, which transformed into full-fledged
Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) in 1985”
1986 “National Policy on Education”
1988 “The landmark ‘National Forest Policy”
1988 “Curriculum development programs at the National Council of Educational
Research and Training (NCERT)”
1992 “Program of Action (POA) at all levels of schooling”
2000 “Curriculum development programs at the National Council of Educational
Research and Training (NCERT)”

18
 2000-01 “Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) (Education for All Movement) a flagship program
of the Government of India has been operational since 2000-2001”
2002 “The Supreme Court of India’s landmark judgement by the year 2002 made it
obligatory for the States and UTs to comply with the implementation of
environmental aspects through education, wherein the strategies of infusion,
integration or making it as a separate subject area were adopted by the States”
2003 “The Supreme Court of India’s historic judgement on 18th December 2003 also
directed that EE should be an integral and compulsory part of the school curriculum
from classes I to XII”
2005 “United Nations launched the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development
(UN-DESD)”
2005 “Curriculum development programs at the National Council of Educational
Research and Training (NCERT)”
2005 “National Curriculum Framework–2005 endorsed the infused and integrated
approach to EE laying great emphasis on the habitat of students and its relation with
learning. Then with the theme, ‘Habitat and Learning’ is equivalent to EE.”
2006 “The new paradigm of education as proposed by the Position Paper on National
Focus Group on Habitat and Learning”
2009 “Right To Education Act (RTE Act)”
2009 “Green Schools Program Manual developed by the Center for Science and
Environment”
2010 “Draft guidelines for Whole School Development Planning (WSDP) under Sarva
Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), March - 2010. The school is envisioned as child
development friendly, inclusive and educationally rich, sustainable ecosystem, safe
and secure from hazards, incorporating elements of green architecture, optimum
resource utilization through culturally and environmentally sustainable practices.”
2014 “World Conference on Education for Sustainable Development (UNESCO), Japan
aimed at stock-taking of the implementation of UNDESD and ‘Reorienting
Education to Accelerate Action for SD’, setting Agenda for ESD beyond 2014.”
2015 “ ‘Towards a Green School on Education for Sustainable Development for
Elementary Schools’ – a resource book developed by National Council of
Educational Research and Training (NCERT).”

“These initiatives paved a way for the reorientation of the thinking and practice of formal
education, including curriculum’s teaching-learning approaches and assessment, which goes beyond
the formal curriculum to a holistic, i.e. ‘whole school approach’ where the student’s experiences are
not confined to the classroom but are part of the learning process in the school and the community,
linked to real life in real/actual situations, precisely implementing ‘lab to land’ concepts. This type of
an education requires leadership that places campus sustainability at the heart of the whole school
policy, planning and practice, and that engenders democratic and participatory decision-making
process” (Sharma and Pandya, 2015; NCERT, 2015).

The existing environmental status in schools with respect to water, air, land, energy and waste
was studied in various parts of the world, with fewer studies coming up in India. Under green program

19
“the schools perform self-assessment of environmental practices i.e. water, air, energy, land, and
waste” (Jerath et al., 2011). Kennedy et al. (2011) and Williams (2013) pointed out that, “the shifts in
leadership at the school and classroom level provide improvement for both students and adults
resulting in increased collective responsibility and professionalism. Educational leadership is an
essential element in the composition of schools, and increasingly the literature reports indirect, yet
powerful influences on student achievement” (Leithwood et al., 2010; Williams, 2013). When it
comes to campus greening or green campus, conservation of the very basic components of the campus
such as water, food and energy comes into picture. Out of these water and food play a major role for
the survival of human and biodiversity, followed by energy. More over biodegradable waste and grey
water constitute major portion of solid and liquid waste generated within the campus and also have the
potential for cross contamination and for producing pathogenic microbes. Hence, the GC initiation is
principally focused on campus resource recycling, followed by energy conservation strategies.

Wilkie et al. (2015) suggested that, “food waste can be reduced through educating students and
staff in order to change behaviors that generates food waste”. “Since large quantities of preventable
food waste are generated further down the food production chain” (Wilkie et al., 2015) “global efforts,
such as the Food Loss and Waste Protocol, are currently underway to help identify, quantify, and
reduce food waste” (WRI, 2014). Educational institutions are the significant source of food waste and
represent an ideal opportunity for diverting food waste from landfills through two primary approaches
such as reduction and recycling. The food waste can be collected and recycled by incorporating variety
of strategies through anaerobic digestion (energy recovery) followed by composting and vermi-
composting (nutrient recovery), and finally resulting in food production (nutrient recycling). On the
other hand grey water reclamation for soil based water conservation (landscape, xeriscape, etc.) and
water based water conservation (aquaponics, hydroponics, etc..) integrated with sustainable waste and
energy management will ultimately strengthen the ‘water-food-energy nexus’. In this regard Chapter 4
discusses with the development of Integrated Cyclical System Model (ICSM) and Chapter 5 discusses
the outcomes of this model as empirical study at JNV and SNGGHS, followed by a full-fledged green
campus initiative at PU, which is discussed in Chapter 6. The following are some of the international
initiatives taken at school level:

 In the US, “the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) sponsored by the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, made
several changes to school-provided meals” (HHRKA, 2010; FNS/USDA, 2013). “One of the
most significant changes, pertains to food waste, is that all students are now required ‘to be
served’ a fruit or vegetable with lunch” (HHRKA, 2010; Wilkie et al., 2015). “In 2011,
the U.S. Department of Education launched its Green Ribbon Schools Award Program - a
monumental step forward for the green schools” (USGBC, 2014).
 In Canada, “The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) introduced waste minimization and
energy conservation standards during 2002-03 and launched an Eco-Schools program that
20
 provides an EcoTeam Guide in addition to posters, resource materials, strategies, staff support
and workshops to help teachers get their schools involved in working towards these
environmental standards” (ACER, 2015).
 “Australia’s New South Wales (NSW), Environmental Education Policy for Schools (NSW,
2001) recommends to conduct environmental audits, because it improves school’s efficiency
and environment” (Jerath et al., 2011). “This policy supports effective environmental education
programs in government schools in NSW, by providing guidelines on the management of
school resources in accordance with ecological sustainability, as a starting point for addressing
global environmental issues” (NSW, 2001).
 “The UK's National Framework for Sustainable Schools states that the children need new skills
if they are to become part of the solution to challenges such as climate change rather than part
of the problem” (Cutler, 2007). Skills include expressing points of view, weighing up
evidence, cooperating, thinking critically, tackling real problems, participating in decisions,
and making informed choices. “Pupils taking part in Science Across the World (SAW) have
opportunities to develop these skills and behaviors’ that enable them to make positive
contributions to the Sustainable Schools agenda” (Cutler, 2007). “British council also had
recently introduced, guidelines on how to build sustainable partnership among schools”
(British council, 2015).

2.3. Review of the Progress of Sustainability in Tertiary Level Education

Each and every campus is endowed with a measurable stock of environmental assets such as
flora and fauna, fertile and non-cultivable land, ground and surface water, clean air, coastline etc. It is
the responsibility of every individual of the campus to embrace the Principle of Intergenerational
equity (Weiss, 1992; DEH, 1999):
“as members of the present generation, we hold the earth in full trust for future generation”

which in recent years, emphasized by many bilateral and multilateral declarations/agreements for SD,
some of these declarations are widely accepted SD initiatives in higher education, naming few: “the
Tbilisi Declaration (1977), the Talloires Declaration (1990), the Halifax Declaration (1991), the
Swansea Declaration (1993), the Kyoto Declaration (1993), the Copernicus Charter (1994), the
Declaration of Thessaloniki (1997), the Lüneburg Declaration (2001), the Global Higher Education for
Sustainability Partnership (GHESP) (2002), the Graz Declaration (2005), the Turin Declaration
(2009)”. They are all summarized in Table 2.2 and their relevance for ESD is discussed in detail by
Lozano et al. (2010).

Table 2.2. Chronology of Sustainable Universities/ Higher Education Declarations and Charters
(Adapted and modified from respective websites; Leal, 2011b and Wright, 2002)

Year Declarations (or) Charters

1972 “Stockholm Conference on The Human and Environment”
1975 “Belgrade Conference on Environmental Education”
1977 “Tbilisi Declaration”

21
1987 “Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development, also known as the Brundtland Report”
1988 “The Magna Charta of European Universities”
1990 “Talloires Declaration”
1991 “Halifax Declaration”
1991 “The Urgent Appeal from the CRE (The Association of European Universities),
Presented to the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED)”
1992 “The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Summit,
Earth Summit) Agenda 21, Chapter 36: Promoting Education, Public Awareness and
Training”
1992 “Toronto World Congress for Education and Communication on Environment and
Development”
1993 “Swansea Declaration of the Association of Commonwealth Universities”
1993 “Kyoto Declaration of the International Association of Universities”
1993 “Copernicus University Charter for Sustainable Development of the Conference of
European Rectors”
1994 “University Charter for Sustainable Development (Copernicus Charter)”
1994 “Blueprint for a Green Campus (Campus Earth Summit at Yale University)”
1997 “Global Student Environmental Charter”
1997 “Declaration of Thessaloniki”
2001 “Lüneburg Declaration on Higher Education for Sustainable Development”
2002 “The Ubuntu Declaration on Education, Science and Technology for Sustainable
Development”
2002 “The Global Higher Education for Sustainability Partnership (GHESP)”
2002 “World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg Summit, Rio+10)”
2005 “Graz Declaration on Committing Universities to Sustainable Development”
2007 “American College and University Presidents' Climate Commitment (ACUPCC)”
2008 “G8 University Summit Sapporo Sustainability Declaration”
2009 “The Turin Declaration – (G8 University Summit) Torino Declaration on Education
and Research for Sustainable and Responsible Development”
2010 “G8 University Summit: Statement of Action (subject – Universities and
Communities: transition to a sustainable future)”
2012 “The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio +20)”
2013 “The Global Action Programme on ESD endorsed by the UNESCO General
Conference as a follow up to the DESD”
2014 “World Conference on ESD launches the Global Action Programme (GAP) on ESD”
2014 “Muscat Agreement: ESD included as a target in the Muscat Agreement adopted at the
Global Education For All Meeting (GEM) and in the proposal for Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by the Open Working Group (OWG).”
2014 “World Conference on Education for Sustainable Development (UNESCO), Japan
aimed at stock-taking of the implementation of UNDESD and reorienting Education to
Accelerate Action for SD, setting Agenda for ESD beyond 2014.”
2015 “The World Education Forum: The World Education Forum (Incheon, Republic of
Korea) is expected to take into account the outcomes of the 2014 World Conference
on ESD”

22
 “One of the important commitments to sustainability in Higher Education was enacted in 1990
when a group of university leaders authored and committed to the Talloires Declaration” (Wright,
2002). “This is the first official statement made by university presidents, chancellors, and rectors of a
commitment for a ten-point action plan to incorporate sustainability and environmental literacy in
teaching, research, operations, assessment, reporting and outreach at universities and HEIs. These
presidents and chancellors stated that universities have a major role in the education, policy formation,
and information exchange necessary to remedy environmental change caused by inequitable and
unsustainable production and consumption patterns that aggravate poverty in many regions of the
world” (Dade, 2010). “They also agreed to set an example of environmental responsibility by
establishing institutional ecology policies and practices of resource conservation, recycling, waste
reduction, and environmentally sound operations” (ULSF, 2015a). The Talloires Declaration described
key actions that IHEs should take to move toward sustainability with a focus both internally and
externally for improvement.

“The Talloires Declaration was followed by the Halifax Declaration (1991) and Lüneburg
Declaration (2001). The Halifax Declaration emphasized ethical obligations and cooperation in
pursuing sustainability, while the Lüneburg Declaration included a more specific commitment to
produce an action-oriented ‘Toolkit’ for universities, managers, administrators, faculty and students
designed to move from commitment to concrete action focusing on research and education related to
sustainability”. “By 1994 was another major milestone, when campus delegates from 22 countries
gathered at Yale University for the Campus Earth Summit that resulted in the publication of
‘Blueprint for a Green Campus’, which documented practical steps toward campus sustainability and
had significant impact within the academic community” (Heinz Family Foundation, 1995). “Following
the Campus Earth Summit, the academic community as a whole has demonstrated a decided
improvement in environmental performance, with a significant number of institutions adopting
‘sustainability policies’ and ‘campus greening’ programs. Taken individually, these efforts have
displayed varying degrees of commitment and success, from profound institutional transformations to
token gestures” (McIntosh, 2001; Calder and Clugston, 2002).

In addition to these declarations, several umbrella organizations/ networks/ declarations have

sprung up across the world that empower and assist the IHEs work more collaboratively, which is
much needed to bring about the desirable changes to facilitate SD at global scale. Notable among them
are “International Sustainable Campus Network (ISCN/GULF) Charter, American College and
University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), Association for the Advancement of
Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) in North America, Copernicus Campus known as Higher
Education Environmental Performance Improvement (HEEPI) in Europe, the Tongji Declaration in
China, the International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU) having Secretariat in Denmark, and
Association for Promoting Sustainability in Campuses and Communities (APSCC) in India”.
23
 In India, there is a wide spread growing desire to address sustainability issues on
university/IHE campuses; however, many lack the effort necessary to effect real and significant
change. “As a general observation of campuses across India, their growth over a period of time has
resulted in unsustainable resource extraction and utilization, resulting in the degradation of quality of
campus environment and life. In fact, many campuses in India have already lost the quality of basic
life support systems like water, soil and air. Unless the resources are managed sustainably, it will
further result in the loss of ecological carrying capacity and ecosystem services of the campus.
Therefore, the needs and necessities of each campus should be sustainably managed to create an
environment of self-scrutiny, experimentation and innovation” (Muthu et al., 2015). Though, the
higher education policy of India is embedded with several principles of SD, the implementation is
faced with challenges due to lack of financial support and motivation/ commitment for inter-
disciplinary transformative learning opportunities and action research. As of December 2015, only 30
out of more than 500 institutional signatories of Talloires Declaration are from India; 1 out of 60
institutional members of the ISCN is from India and none of the over 800 IHEs registered globally on
the AASHE are from India.

“Though sustainability has become the mantra for development for virtually all sectors - IHEs
are different, in the sense that they have stakeholders, not shareholders as in the case of corporate
sectors, they are otherwise not immune to many of the external drivers behind the corporate shift to
sustainability” (Bardaglio and Putman, 2009; Lubin and Esty, 2010). “Yet, implementing
green/sustainability practices, across all walks of the campus often proves to be considerably more
challenging than in a corporate environment because campuses have additional pressures and unique
challenges” (Walton and Galea, 2005; Velazquez et al., 2005; Ferrer-Balas et al., 2008; Bardaglio and
Putman, 2009; Krizek et al., 2012; Poyyamoli et al., 2013 and 2015) such as :

 “University/IHEs are typically tasked with the trinity of education, research and service; which
dilute the focus and create competing priorities”

 “Different university constituents demand different services – students, faculty, staff and
alumni – each of whom have varying, and sometimes competing priorities in terms of
sustainability. For instance, recycling efforts offer some experiential learning for students, but
may contribute little towards advancing formal curricula. Likewise, cross-cutting
sustainability-oriented courses are on the rise, but may be insufficient to advance campus
renewable energy installations. It is often difficult to uncover cross-constituency synergies
between these constituents”

 “New domestic competition from for-profit enterprises increasingly commodifies educational

products and cuts into market share. Campuses may be less likely to move forward on
sustainability if programs and revenues are shrinking, which is the case now in India”

 “With recession economies the ‘new normal’, campus professionals are asked to cut costs,
increase staff productivity but not payroll”

24
  “The typical structure of universities/IHEs – including power concentrated at several levels and
a philosophy of protecting tradition and academic rigidity often hinders the paradigm shift to
produce a sweeping change that is often required”

Higher Education sector in India has witnessed a tremendous increase in its institutional
capacity in the years since Independence (1947). The number of Universities/University-level
institutions has increased 34 times from 20 in 1950 to 677 in 2014. The number of colleges registered
have also shown manifold increase with just 500 in 1950 growing to be more than 37000 in 2014
(MHRD, 2015). “Despite all of these important and positive pronouncements, however, the transition
from rhetoric to reality has been slow” (Nixon, 2002) and “in rapidly developing countries like India,
it is always fraught with challenges” (Chidanamarri, 2009). “Even though over 600 universities
worldwide have committed themselves towards sustainability by signing international agreements,
declarations and conventions, and despite the fact that several thousand of them are pursuing matters
related to sustainable development on an ad hoc basis, many of them have not succeeded in fully
implementing the principles of sustainable development into practice due to a combination of reasons,
varying from lack of institutional interest, to limited resources or staff involvement” (Leal, 2011b). “In
order for the transition to an environmentally sustainable future to be successful, people need to
become more educated about the essential concepts of environmental sustainability as well as how to
integrate green practices into our institutions and our personal lives” (Orr, 2004; Bardaglio and
Putnam, 2009; McKenzie-Mohr, 2011). To overcome such hurdles and to facilitate the transition, the
ICSM was developed by embracing whole campus approach (Chapter 4). “A few studies in the past on
Talloires and Halifax Declaration signatories, found that the majority of signatory institutions have
made no attempt to implement the declaration within their institution” (Walton et al., 2000). However,
“this perception is gradually changing as institutions with higher commitment had higher
implementation as well, and had also signed declarations, charters or initiatives” (Lozano et al., 2014).
As a part of this dissertation, “with enlightened self-interest” (Gittell, 1981; Cerych and Sabatier,
1986; Dominick, 1990; Lane, 1990; Orr, 1992 and 2004; Rainsford, 1990; Wood, 1990; Berry and
Gordon, 1993; Smith, 1993; Dolence and Norris, 1995; Keniry, 1995; Creighton, 1998; Shriberg,
2002a and b; Lozano et al., 2013; Krasny and Delia, 2015), the researcher has tried his best to
implement the ten point action plan of Talloires Declaration, as a pioneering attempt to implement the
declaration in full (discussed in the Chapter 6).

Indian schools, IHEs and universities have also finally started to understand the importance of
conserving the environment and have started appreciating its significance. “Green initiatives have
been introduced in different learning environments and students are being taught to live in coherence
with nature rather than in conflict with it. While some are renovating their campuses others have
constructed new buildings on eco-friendly lines” (Save the planet, 2011). The Association for
Promoting Sustainability in Campuses and Communities (APSCC), from India strives to integrate

25
social, economic, ecological and environmental aspects of sustainability into the practices of the next
generation of leaders, in the hopes of creating a holistic sustainability network among the educational
campuses. In this context, the association is partnered with the Association for University Leaders for
a Sustainable Future (ULSF), to promote ‘Talloires Declaration’ (TD) in India and has taken the total
number Signatory Institutions in India from 10 to 30 in the past three years including Pondicherry
University as one of the Signatory.

2.3.1. Institutions and Environment – Some Examples of GCIs Across the World

“At IIT-B, Mumbai, Vanmahotsav is celebrated every year, where all students, faculty and
residents of the campus together plant saplings at a designated spot within the campus, as ‘their
initiatives are not to save money or reduce our carbon foot-print, but as an opportunity to understand
how these systems function and also we are exploring new ways to harness alternate and clean sources
of energy’, says Devang V. Khakhar, Director, IIT-B” (Go-Green, 2014). “According to Shyam
Asolekar, Professor at IIT-B’s Centre for Environmental Science and Engineering, ‘saving the
environment is not only about introducing energy saving devices, but it is about changing people’s
mindset and empower them to save their environment’ ” (https://www.iitbombay.org). “According to
Balachandran, Founder and Dean, Great Lakes Institute of Management, ‘Indian educational
institutions are not sufficiently enlightened about eco-friendly campuses and it is important for
institutions to go green not only from the point of view of protecting the environment but also from
teaching the youth the importance of maintaining ecological balance and ensuring sustainable
development’. WeSchool, as a Management School in Mumbai, encourages students by inviting
participants from across the country along with international counterparts to come up with innovative
products to conserve water, manage household waste and create open spaces in key areas of the
Mumbai city, under the theme ‘Humanizing A Metropolis'. Some of the products that the students
came up with includes smart tap meters that monitor the water use, taps with regulators to help fight
the laziness of closing the tap, says Uday Salunkhe, Group Director, WeSchool” (GoGreen, 2014).

“The Harvard Sustainability Plan recognizes that creating a sustainable campus strengthens
core research and teaching mission and it also acknowledges that the challenges before us are complex
and interconnected demanding an ever-developing approach to sustainability” (Sylvestre et al., 2013;
Cornellsun, 2015; Harvard, 2015). “University of California evolved a comprehensive and dynamic
Campus Sustainability Plan (CSP) that adapts to changing circumstances” (UCSC, 2015) while,
“University of Vermont developed a plan in whole systems thinking and sustainable design to
transform the university into a leader” (Pollock et al., 2009; Blumenthal, 2013; IARU, 2014; UCSC,
2015). Ball State University expects to be able to cut its campus carbon footprint nearly in half
through the implementation of its campus-wide heating and cooling system. Among the others,
“Arizona State University, Georgia Institute of Technology, Pomona College, UC Davis, Duke

26
University, UC San Diego, Harvard University, and University of Washington has already set the
benchmarking to reduce water consumption” (SEI, 2011; UC Berkeley, 2011). “Georgetown
University integrates students, faculty, staff and external partners in its development and adopts
Sustainability and Smart Growth as core planning principles for its long-term ‘2037 Master Plan’. The
University of Melbourne has established a high-level Sustainability Executive Group that is expected
to save 50000 T CO2 over the life of the projects. The Universidad International Del Ecuador has
successfully implemented a project to convert a diesel-powered bus to a solar-powered vehicle. The
first Japanese assessment system of campus sustainability is being developed by Hokkaido University,
comprising more than 150 indicators covering issues including policy, financial resources, facilities
management, curriculum, sustainability literacy, living lab, ecosystems, land use, etc.. The University
of Tokyo has gone a step further by combining the demonstration of carbon reducing technologies
developed at the school with organizational innovations, by levying an internal carbon tax from all
graduate schools and institutes. With the help of approximately 100000 students on the campuses of
Politecnico di Milano and University of Milano, a ‘sustainability district’ neighborhood is being
created” (ISCN, 2014).

2.3.2. Evolving a Conceptual Framework for GCI at Pondicherry University

The agenda of establishing sustainable design for the PU campus is to implement a series of
effective and immediate measures to prevent environmental degradation, based on the Precautionary
Principle 15 of Rio Declaration (UNEP, 2013) which states that:

“where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be
used as reason for postponing cost effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”
coupled with the Principle of Intergenerational Equity (Weiss, 1992; DEH, 1999):

“the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is
maintained or enhanced for the benefit of the future generations.”

“Among the available universities and organization as the excellent examples for GCI
worldwide and based on Princeton Review, the following are some of the reference quoted for
evolving a conceptual frame work for GCI at PU:
1. Allegheny College (http://allegheny.edu)
2. Climate Charter of the University of Cambridge (http://www.cam.ac.uk)
3. Climate Planning by AASHE (http://www.aashe.org)
4. CT Green School – 12 steps for Sustainability (http://www.easternct.edu)
5. Harvard’s Sustainability Initiative (http://green.harvard.edu)
6. Pathways to a Green Campus of Middlebury college (http://www.middlebury.edu)
7. Skidmore College’s Strategic Environmental Elanning (https://www.skidmore.edu)
8. Student Sustainability Forum of Yale University (http://sustainability.yale.edu)
9. University of Copenhagen’s Steering Committee Structure (http://cas.ku.dk)
10. USGBC - Roadmap to a Green Campus (www.centerforgreenschools.org)”

27
 Traditionally, Puducherry region is endowed with a measurable stock of environmental assets
such as top soil, biodiversity, fertile and non-cultivable land, ground water and clean air, etc..
However, due to urbanization, urban sprawl and industrialization in the Puducherry region there is a
steep decrease in the quality of a lot of these basic life support systems due to varied reasons, for
example, “salt water intrusion and drop in the ground water table (as of March 23, 2015)” (Hydrology
Project II; Prasad, 2015); “uproot of over 70% of the trees by cyclones (Thane), 2011” (IFRC, 2011);
“increasing levels of air pollution with air quality index at 75.00 (as of March, 2015), increasing levels
of water pollution index at 58.33 (as of March, 2015) coupled with unsustainable
solid/biomedical/hazardous waste management are some of the challenges to overcome” (NUMBEO,
2015).

“Apart from this the major challenges faced by the entire Puducherry region in particular are
the ingress of sea water into the aquifer up to a distance of 5 to 7 km from the coast (Hydrology
Project II, 2007; Muthu et al., 2011; Edwin and Poyyamoli, 2012) (see Figure 2.1), water scarcity of

Seawater Intrusion
from Bay of Bengal

Figure 2.1. Seawater intrusion in the Puducherry region (Source: Hydrology Project II)

roughly below 200 cum per person per year” (CGWB, 2005; Muthu et al., 2011; 2015; Edwin and
Poyyamoli, 2012; CSE Manual, 2009; UNPAN, 2015), “improper solid waste management, open
drainage, domestic/ industrial water pollution, cross contamination” (Narasimhan, 2010) is increasing
“the associated risk of health issues and water borne diseases” (MOHFW, 2006; Hospido et al., 2010).

“Unless the available resources are managed sustainably, it will result in the loss of ecosystem
services and the ecological carrying capacity” (Muthu et al., 2015). In view of this, “the Government
of Puducherry has formulated a ‘Vision for 2020’ which clearly describes the water/sewage/waste
management problems such as ground water depletion, salt (sea) water intrusion, industrial pollution,
sewage pollution, medical/solid/hazardous waste pollution etc. It has also called for the attention of
educational and research institutions to supplement their effort on minimizing water related issues of
28
the state by initiating action research and extension” (Muthu et al., 2011; CSE, 2009; UNPAN, 2015).
Since PU, as an apex educational and research university in the region, situated along the coastline on
the northern border of the Oulgaret Municipality, can neither remain idle nor neglect the current
challenges facing the university and the region. Hence, the focus of the GCI at PU is therefore to keep
water, food and energy as the core components, and to serve as a model for local/ regional
environmental sustainability where all the processes and operational functions of the campus are
closely knit, providing educational and practical value to the institution and to the surrounding
environment. The sustainable design was evolved from the measures taken by various universities
globally without compromising the Indian government’s priorities along with immediate need of the
hour at regional level as well. To address these critical challenges and to facilitate the full
implementation of Agenda 21, along with achieving the other MDGs and SDGs through Universities,
Higher Education and Schools, in the context of the Indian scenario, a conceptual framework for
Pondicherry University’s Action Plan towards Environmental Sustainability was developed “focusing
on four main strategies within the campus (modified and adopted from Thomas and Nicita, 2002):

 As a central university in India, PU’s commitment to environmental education is aiming to

demonstrate, strengthen and promote system-wide change in collaboration and coordination
with state, and local administrative bodies in support of the government's vision for
sustainability change in policies, programs and operations.

 As a campus rich in multi-level stake holders, PU will strive to foster behavioral change and
harmonize the spirit of students, faculty and staff community to work together through GC
platform

 As a campus rich in ethnic/cultural diversity, educational systems will have to be reoriented to

bring out a unique culture of sustainability, in which continuous learning for SD are reinforced.

 As a campus rich in the diversity of blocks and buildings, PU will strive to enhance efficiency
in resource/ energy consumption, material purchasing and implementing up-cycling/ down-
cycling/ reusing strategies, so that it becomes a living laboratory for other universities/ IHEs/
schools/ organizations/ industries etc.”

2.4. A Short History on the Evolution of Design in the Context of Sustainability Models

“Higher education sector across the world has adopted a campus greening movement toward
sustainability, by borrowing the principles, management frameworks and assessment techniques from
the private sector” (Thatcher, 2014). “The movement aims to address all of the following main
components – 1) protecting and restoring ecological systems, 2) enhancing the well-being of all
peoples and animals, 3) improving economic efficiency” (www.sustainablecampus.org). “The primary
goals of the movement are to design, implement and manage green and sustainable initiatives on
campus by improving operational efficiency, reducing waste generation, providing a culture of
sustainability awareness within the campus and to the local community by developing an institutional

29
action plan though integration and innovation in exploring focal areas for public engagement by
involving all stakeholders” (Lehmann, 2010; Leal, 2011b; Bierly and Shy, 2013; Muthu et al., 2015;
Sharma and Pandya, 2015; NCERT, 2015; Cornell, 2015; Roosevelt, 2015; ULSF, 2015a). “Both
education and sustainable development are complex issues, therefore, it is crucially important to
develop the strategy through a participatory process involving governments, public experts, NGOs,
communities and other stakeholders from the environment and education fields. Hence unlike a
commercial product development, design in this sense is to orient oneself with a non-commercial
objectives right from the start of defining the action plan and should be made comprehensive, socially
acceptable and flexible enough, so that its implementation could be adapted to each country’s
priorities, specific needs and national features” (Pidlisnyuk, 2010). Archer (1979) characterizes
design,

“as an important cog in the wheel of addressing the problems modern society is faced with, such as
the ecological problem, the environmental problem, the quality-of-urban-life problem
and so on”.
“During the past decade of education (2005-14), universities and colleges have implemented
several initiatives that include: modeling biodiversity and energy conservation; adopting sustainable
procurement practices; adopting an environmental management systems; designing campuses as living
laboratories for learning; research and community engagement; supporting fair-trade food and
products; promoting healthy lifestyles; as well as lowering their carbon/ water/ ecological foot print,
etc.” (Alliance, 2012). “Looking at sustainability as intimately interconnected and interdependent
themes of environment, energy, social and economic development” (Cornellsun, 2015), “the process
of greening a campus encourages many interconnected strategies to make changes within their
individual spheres of influence” (Tahir, 2015). “This may include utilization of the wealth of
knowledge that cuts across departments and traditional boundaries” (Kok, 2007; Sylvestre et al., 2013;
Johnston, 2015). “The best practices on campus sustainability documented incidentally, will ultimately
become a resource for colleges and universities by paving the way for further action research,
development and dissemination” (Sofer and Potter, 2008; Muthu et al., 2015). Some of the early stages
of design methodologies and its evolution are detailed in the following sections.

2.4.1. Eco- design

“Eco-design is one of the first formal design approaches in sustainable design in the early
1990’s, and was promoted initially as an end-of-pipe approach to material recycling, i.e., re-using
discarded products” (Potter and Dewberry 1993; Roy, 1994) “with a subsequent paradigm shift to the
entire product lifecycle” (Brezet and Hemel, 1997; Azapagic, 1999; Simon, 2013; Gobinath et al.,
2010; Kuijer, 2014; ECOAP, 2015), which is culminated in sustainable design.

30
2.4.2. Sustainable Design for Campus

“As a reaction to the global environmental and economic crises, eco-design is replaced with
sustainable design/ environmentally conscious design” (DEH, 1999; Pollock et al., 2009; Thorpe,
2010) “complying with the principles of three pillars, ecological, social and economic sustainability”
(McLennan, 2004). “Sustainable design encompasses or revolves around up-cycling, where
conversion of materials and products (waste resources) into new materials of greater quality” (Martin
and Parsapour, 2012). For instance, “the production of biogas from wastes (Martin and Parsapour,
2012); conversion of food waste into compost (Harvard, 2015) or vermicompost (Edwards et al.,
2007); removing pollutant from wastewater using the combination of nanomaterials like carbon nano
tubes with powdered orange peel (Jain et al., 2010); agriculture waste into sustainable bio-fuels and
high quality, omega-rich, high-protein fish feed (Schroeder, 2014) are some of the examples of
up-cycling”.

The sustainable design over the eco-design is to “eliminate negative environmental impact
completely through skillful, sensitive design” (McLennan, 2004) requiring no non-renewable
resources; impacting the environment minimally; and directly/indirectly connecting people with the
natural environment, with innovations for social inclusion and economically viable. The primary goals
of sustainable design for GCI are “to develop an integrated and interconnected (re)design by involving
all stakeholders and continuously innovate allowing for an ever-developing approach to sustainability
and implement the same within the campus and surrounding community” (Mannison, 2006; Sylvestre
et al., 2013; Tahir, 2015; Muthu et al., 2015; Cornellsun, 2015; Oregon, 2015; Cornell, 2015;
Roosevelt, 2015; Harvard, 2015).

2.4.3. Persuasive Technology Design for Campus

“The sustainable design principles dictate that, the design must cater for a behavioral change
program to influence the campus dwellers/ stakeholders to operate in a more efficient interaction-
oriented way” (Lockton et al., 2008) called persuasive technology design. Fogg (1999), Elias (2007),
Lockton et al. (2008), Wever et al. (2008), Lilley et al. (2009), Zachrisson and Boks (2012) and Kuijer
(2014) all present similar orderings of design i.e. good at persuading someone to do or participate.
Three types of potential users are distinguished within university/IHE/school namely positive users,
persuasive users and inefficient users. “This persuasive design will have incredible potential to shift
student culture towards pro-sustainability behaviors by exhibiting high level professionalism and
making things to happen by adopting environment friendly habit and mind sets in campus and
residential life with innovative ways as a successful change agent by developing leadership and
communication skills to influence the behaviors of others and to leave behind a wealth of resources”
(Lilley, 2009; Tufts, 2010; AASHE, 2013; Babson, 2014; Harvard, 2015; HLS, 2015; Middlebury,
2015) as an ‘all-encompassing concept’ (McFarlane and Ogazon, 2011; Fraser, 2014).
31
2.4.4. Practice-Oriented Design for Campus

“Several workers specializing in sustainable design have suggested that drawing on social
practice theory is a potential way to overcome challenges through ‘practice-oriented design’, a
relatively new area of research that emerged in response to a series of workshops and publications
emerging from the ‘Designing and Consuming: objects, practices and processes’ research program
(2005-2006) and many design scholars are working on it” (Pettersen, 2015). Hence, besides a different
mind-set, designers require novel design approaches to employ in their empirical projects or
extramural activities.

2.5. A Review on the Theoretical Models of Campus SD

The meaning and definition of the word sustainability has several dimensions, one of which is
to assert the dichotomous relationship between humans and nature (ecology and environment) and the
multiple dimensions or multiple pillars of sustainable development. Moving towards SD presents
tremendous challenges as the humans need to adapt to nature and not otherwise. As there are ‘no one
rule that will fit SD for all’, models of SD not only help us to understand the concepts of sustainability
better but also understand the intricate dependencies of SD with external factors. Achieving SD thus,
“requires more effective, open, and productive association among the people themselves” (CSE, 2013)
Models provide a guideline to gather, share, and analyze information; they also help coordinating
work; and educate and train the stakeholders. With campus being viewed as a microcosm of society in
general, evolving a model for campus sustainability is useful to arrive and frame an understanding of
how a university/ IHE/ school is situated within the wider context of the environment, society,
economy and politics. For universities/ IHEs/ schools to become sustainability leaders and change
drivers, “they must ensure that the needs of the present and future generations be better understood
and built upon, so that professionals who are well versed in SD can effectively educate students of all
ages to help make the transition to sustainable societal patterns” (Lozano, 2013) “paving strategies for
smart city/ sustainable city/ eco city” (Richard, 2002; Karlin et al., 2010; ACUI, 2011; Finlay and
Massey, 2012; Huffington, 2013; Bhattacharya and Rathi, 2015; Shah, 2015; Sonetti et al., 2016).
“Students and staff must be empowered to catalyze and implement new paradigms, and ensure that SD
is the ‘golden thread’ that runs through the entire university/ IHE /school system” (Lozano et al.,
2013).

“The following academic databases were used for the literature search: Web of Knowledge,
Scopus, ProQuest and SAGE Journals, with the key words including transformation on terms such as
sustainability, innovation model, sustainable model, and sustainability model” (Bocken et al., 2014).
Twelve standard and most studied models are selected and they were reviewed in this chapter to
categorize and compartmentalize them so as to evolve a new model as part of this action research for

32
GCI implementation. The criteria that are mentioned further in this section were used to add structure
to the literature search.

The Integrated cyclical System Model (ICSM) developed for universities/HEIs/schools, “was
considered to represent their leadership role to help improve the effectiveness of Education for
Sustainable Development (ESD) (Lozano et al., 2013) through campus environmental management
system (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar, 2008) emphasizing more on resource and nutrient recovery
through up-cycling (Martin and Parsapour, 2012; McDonough et al., 2013; Harvard, 2015) and its
application as green economic initiative (UNEP, 2013) or as growing green economy (The Princeton
Review, 2010) for green economic growth (AASHE, 2013), through closed-loop business models
(Wells and Seitz, 2005) such as natural capitalism (Hawkin et al., 2013), social enterprises (Grassl,
2012), product service systems (PSS) (Tukker, 2004) and as new economy concepts for e.g. Blue
Economy (Pauli, 2010)”. The matrix and the synthesis of the models were discussed in the later part of
this chapter. The ICSM is “either expected to create new value or reduce negative impacts on the
environment and society” as suggested by Bocken et al. (2014). The initial models of sustainability
stem from a simple triangle model, also called ‘three pillar’ or ‘three circles model’. Since the
Burndtland Report, metamorphosis of definitions and models ranging from ‘pillars’ to ‘triangles’ to
‘prisms’ to ‘eggs’ were evolved and later several other models were designed to address the identified
gaps in the previous models.

“Based on the foundations of these models, the researcher has evolved an “Integrated Cyclical
System Model” (ICSM), a hybrid model of SD, emphasizing more on environmental sustainability as
suggested by Costanza (1991), Currie-Alder (1997), Atkinson (2000), Hart (2000), Dobers and Wolff
(2000), Reinhardt (2000), Rees (2002), Doppelt (2003), Fadeeva (2005), Lozano (2008), Rasmussen
(2011), DeFoe (2013), Thatcher (2014), Kubik and Ashton (2014), Kerby and Mallinger (2014),
Muthu et al. (2015) by involving all stakeholders (Leal, 2009; Finlay and Massey, 2012; Sharma and
Pandya, 2015; Muthu et al., 2015; NCERT, 2015; www.ulsf.org), fostering green economy (The
Princeton Review, 2010; AASHE, 2013; UNEP, 2013) augmented with the following elements such
as awareness creation, action research, reducing waste generation to preserve valuable resources
(Tahir, 2015) and to meet the complex challenges by ever adapting to change (UCSC, 2015) through
whole systems thinking and sustainable design (Pollock et al., 2009) in collaboration with other
universities/HEIs/schools/government/NGOs/industries as an ‘all-encompassing concept’ (McFarlane
and Ogazon, 2011; Fraser, 2014)”.

“Such an approach will promote trans-disciplinarity; making sustainable development an

integral part of the institutional framework; creating on-campus life experiences; and ‘Educating-the-
Educators’ ” as recommended by Lozano (2013). The process adopted is referred to as evolution due

33
to the fact that the GCI implementation is a continuing process that is iterative in nature and the design
too can undergo revision based on the practical experiences.

2.5.1. Criteria Identified for a Detailed Study of the Models

Among the various models reviewed, twelve relevant models were selected under seven groups
for study: (1) Pillars (Three Pillar Model and Four Pillar Model), (2) Venn Diagram, (3) Nested
Circles of Sustainability (Egg of Wellbeing and Egg of Sustainability Model), (4) Prisms (Prism
Model and MAIN Prism Model), (5) Nested Model of Sustainability, (6) Three Concentric Circles
Models, (7) Recent Models (Two Tired Sustainability Equilibria Model; Nested Four Frame Lens
Model and Aesculapia Model of Regeneration). The following are the criteria by which different
sustainability models are compared (Table 2.3):

1) Environment-society-economy nexus
2) Consensus between the components of the model
3) Time Dimension
4) Design Status of the model
5) Beyond sustainability
6) Working type of the model
7) Novelty in the model
8) Regenerative
9) Sustainable Technologies Incorporated
10) Used in spatial planning
11) TNS opening of the funnel
12) Up-cycling
13) Need for a New model

2.6. Synthesis

The comparative analysis of the selected models were carried out against twelve sets of criteria
and presented in Table 2.3. The primary and secondary criteria are categorized under: nexus between
environment-social-economy, consensus between the components of the model, time dimension,
design status of the model, goes beyond sustainability, working type of the model, novelty in the
model, regenerative, technology incorporated, used in spatial planning, TNS opening of the funnel and
the need for a new model.

2.6.1. Environment-Society-Economy Nexus

It is observed that the nexus between environment, society and economy is described as natural
capital, manmade capital and social capital which includes social and cultural factors. As shown in
Table 2.3, the natural capital and the social capital are factored in all 12 models, whereas the man
made capital is factored in all except the Egg of Wellbeing Model. The cultural aspects became
prominent only since the Nested Model of Sustainability introduced in 1995. All the previous models

34
like the three Pillar Model, Venn Diagram, Egg of Wellbeing Model and Egg of Sustainability Models
did not factor for the cultural aspects.

2.6.2. Consensus between the components of the model

The consensus between the components of the model has been studied and analyzed against the
environmental, social, political and economic factors.

2.6.3. Time Dimension

It is observed that the earlier workers on the models of SD totally ignored the time dimension.
It was only since the Two Tired Sustainability Equilibria Model introduced in the year 2008, the time
dimension is actually factored. From there on the more recent models like Nested Four Frame Model
and Aesculapia Model of Regeneration incorporated the aspect of time into the model.

2.6.4. Design Status of the model

The design status of the selected models is analyzed and categorized based on whether the
design is overall satisfactory or flawed. In case of a flawed design, we tried to capture whether it is
confusing, non-explanatory or excludes sustainability principle. It is observed that the Pillar, Venn
Diagram and Prism Models lacked a good design and hence not found to be satisfactory. The
sustainability design workers have indicated that, the design for the Three Pillar and Basic Prism
Models are found to be confusing and Venn Diagram Model excluded the principles of sustainability,
whereas The Four Pillar and the Main Prism Model are also found to be both confusing and non-
explanatory.

2.6.5. Beyond Sustainability

Only since the year 2000, when Hart introduced the Three Concentric Circle Model for
sustainability, the models started to serve the purpose ‘beyond sustainability’ and all the previous
models stick on to only the SD aspects.

2.6.6. Working Type of the Model

The working type of the model is analyzed based on whether the aspects covered in the design
are independent or interdependent or interconnected or embedded and whether it works on the
Principle of Integration. It is observed that the aspects covered in the design are totally independent for
Pillar and Prism based models. The Venn Diagram model is found to be interconnected and both the
egg models are interdependent, interconnected and embedded in their design. The Nested Model,
Three Concentric Circle Model and all the three recent models are found to be interdependent,
interconnected and embedded in their design and also work on the Principle of Integration.

35
 Table 2.3. The synthesis of various models related to campus sustainability

Environment – Consensus between Beyond Need for

Society – Economy the Components of Time Design Status of the sustain- Working type Novelty a New

publication (Based on literature

Nexus the Model Dimension model ability of the Model in the Model model
Social Environ- Econ- Flawed

Primary author and year of

TNS opening of the funnel

Sustainable Technologies
Capital mental Social Political omical Design

Used in Spatial Planning

Sustainability Principle
Sustainability Model

Supporting Authors

Manmade capital

Non Explanatory

Interdependent
Natural capital

Interconnected

Incorporated
Regenerative
Not included

Independent

Upcycling
Integration
Exclusion of

Embedded

Innovative
Confusing
reviewed)

Included

Creative
Cultural

Testable
Ref. No.

Social

Exists

More

More

More

More

Good
Less

Less

Less

Less

Yes

Yes
No

No
Temple pedimentor Keiner, 2005 a & b; Adams et al., 2006;
1 WCED, 1987   -  - - - - - - - - - -  -  - - - -  - - - - - - - - -  - -  -
Three Pillar Model Kubik andAshton, 2014; Thatcher, 2014

Peattie, 1995; Mebratu, 1998; Mitchell,

2000; Lozano-Ros, 2003; Keiner, 2005
Venn Diagram of International a&b; Edwards, 2010; Adams et al., 2006;
2 three over lapping Union of Lozano,2008; Rasmussen, 2011; Bass and   -   -  -  -  -  -  - - -  - - - -  - - - -  -   - -  -
circles Architects, 1993 Dalal-Clayton, 2012; Willard, 2012; Kerby
and Mallinger, 2014; Thatcher, 2014;
Kubik and Ashton, 2014

Egg of Wellbeing IDRC, 1997; Guijt et al., 2001; Keiner,

3 IUCN, 1994
2005 a & b
  - -   -  -  -  - -   - - - - - -    - - -  -   - -  -
Model

Egg of Busch-Lüthy,
4
1995
Keiner, 2005a & b   -    -  -  -  - -   - - - - - -    - - -  -   - -  -
Sustainability
Mebratu, 1998; Hart, 2000; Guijt et al.,
2001; Giddings et al., 2002; Hart,2006;
Waltner- Toews, et al. 2008; Lozano,
Nested Model of
5 Peattie, 1995 2008; Willard, 2012; Rasmussen 2011;       -  -  -  - -   - - - - - -     - -  -   - -  -
Sustainability
Cato, 2012; O'Brien and O'Keefe, 2013;
Maser 2013; Kubik andAshton, 2014;
Thatcher, 2014; Willard, 2012
Spangenberg
Valentin and Spangenberg, 1999; Stenberg,
6 Prism Model and Bonniot,     - - - - - - - - - -  -  - - - -  - - - - - - - - -  - -  -
2001; Keiner, 2005 a & b; Thatcher, 2014
1998

UNESCO, 2001; Stenberg, 2001; Nurse,

7 Four Pillars Model Kain, 2000 2006; Scerri and James, 2010; Thatcher,     - - - - - - - - - -  -   - - -  - - - - - - - - -  - -  -
2014

Stenberg, 2001; Keiner, 2005 a & b; Moir

8 MAIN Prism Model Kain, 2000     - - - - - - - - - -  -   - - -  - - - - - - - - -  - -  -
and Carter, 2012

Mitchell, 2000; Keiner,2005 a & b;

Three Concentric
9 Hart, 2000 Lozano, 2008; Rasmussen, 2011; Moir and       -  -  -  - -   - - -  - -     - -  -   - -  -
Circle Model
Carter, 2012
Two Tired
() (-)
10 Sustainability Lozano, 2008 Moir and Carter, 2012; Thatcher, 2014       -  -  -  -  -  - - -  - -            
Equilibria Model (-) ()

Nested Four Frame Rasmussen, Giddings et al., 2002; Bolman and Deal, () () () (-)
11       -  -  -  -  -  - - -  - -          
Lens Model 2011 2003; Hart, 2006; DeFoe, 2013 (-) (-) (-) ()

AesculapiaModel of Ashton and Kerby and Mallinger, 2014 () (-)

12       -  -  -  -  -  - - -  - -            
Regeneration Kubik, 2014 (-) ()
Integrated Cyclical
() (-)
13 System Model This Study This Study (2010-15)       -  -  -  -  -  - - -  - -            
(ICSM) (-) ()

36
2.6.7. Novelty in the Model

The novelty in the model is analyzed based on whether it is innovative or creative or testable. It
is observed that the Pillar and Prism based models lacked all three aspects of novelty whereas the
Venn Diagram, Nested Model, Three Concentric Model and the Egg Models were found to be testable
in spite of them being neither innovative nor creative as they are built upon the previous models of
sustainability.

2.6.8. Regenerative

Some aspects of regeneration is seen only in the recent models of sustainability. It is the main
theme for the Aesculapia Model of Regeneration as it is based on the concept of healing of the wounds
inflicted until now by all the unsustainable decisions. The Nested Four Frame Lens Model is found
neutral whereas the Two Tired Sustainability Equilibria Model has some element of regeneration built
into the design though the terminology is not directly used.

2.6.9. Sustainable Technologies Incorporated

Except for the Pillar and Prism models, all the other models found to be applicable for use in
evolving cum implementing sustainable technologies.

2.6.10. Used in Spatial Planning

All the twelve models are found to be applicable for use in spatial planning.

2.6.11. TNS Opening of the Funnel

The Natural Step (TNS) opening of the funnel is found to be applicable only for the three
recent models of SD (Two Tired Sustainability Equilibria Model; Nested Four Frame Lens Model and
Aesculapia Model of Regeneration), whereas all the others lacked of it.

2.6.12. Upcycling

Similar to TNS opening of the funnel, the upcycling factor is found to be applicable only for
the three recent models of SD. All the others lacked of it.

2.6.13. Need for a New Model

There was a definite need for a new model until the recent models were introduced. This is
because all of them lacked in certain key principles and clarity in their design and do not account for
the time dimension as it is very important considering the cross cutting issues of sustainability. The
recent models, though they all go beyond sustainability and addressed some of the prominent
drawbacks of the previous models, there is still room for improvement. Hence the Integrated Cyclical
System Model (ICSM) was proposed as part of this study to overcome the limitations of the existing
models and to serve as a comprehensive model for decision makers in creating a sustainable campus.

37
 CHAPTER 3

3 PERCEPTION ASSESSMENT OF A SUSTAINABLE/ GREEN

CAMPUS

Perception Formulating
Chapter 3 assessment by framework for
SAQ green campus

38
 This chapter deals with the perception assessment of Indian institutions towards green campus
using the Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) as a tool. The results were found to be
useful to identify the weaknesses and set goals, while formulating a broad framework for campus
environmental sustainability at Pondicherry University (PU). It was found that all of the reviewed
samples focused on operational policies, including in relation to water management, electricity use,
waste disposal, greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction, addressing environmental externalities from the
physical dimensions. It was also observed that the energy conservation, followed by waste reduction/
recycling, water conservation and environmental/ energy audit have been the major focus of Indian
institutions when it comes to sustainability.

3.1. Perception Assessment of a Sustainable/ Green Campus Through the Tool - ‘Sustainability
Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ)’

According to Bandy (1998), “sustainability is a process and not a destination and Sustainability
Assessment Tools (SAT) offer incentives to IHEs by encouraging them to move towards
sustainability” (Yarime and Tanaka, 2012). In order to assess the perception of the administrators and
various stakeholders of the Indian Universities and IHEs, “we have utilized the Sustainability
Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) for our empirical study, to measure sustainability, to delve deep into
decision making” as suggested by Shriberg (2002a and b). University/ IHEs vary considerably in how
they approach sustainability, for instance some concentrate on minimizing their ecological footprint
through changes in operations; while others emphasize sustainability in the curriculum. Implementing
sustainability projects at university/IHEs increasingly involve inter/trans-disciplinary cooperation and
close collaboration with diverse stakeholders in society. “Therefore it is of critical importance to
develop and implement concepts and methodologies for conducting comprehensive, long-term and
integrated assessment of research, education and outreach activities on sustainability at
university/IHEs” (Yarime and Tanaka, 2012). “The SAQ was principally developed by ULSF, with
inputs and suggestions from various colleagues and partners across the globe” (Shriberg, 2002a;
Nixon, 2002; Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar, 2008; UNESCO, 1997; ULSF, 2015a) and is primarily
intended to be used as an assessment instrument and also as a teaching tool. According to Shriberg
(2002a) and Nixon (2002), “the ultimate goals of SAQ are to offer its users, a comprehensive
definition of sustainability in higher education as well as to provide a snapshot of their institutions on
the path to sustainability”. Cole and Wright (2003) “highlighted it as a fairly straight forward
assessment with greatest strength in facilitating dialogue, community and capacity building, and also
helping with the determination of common objectives for improvement”. “This survey gives a very
good impression of the institution’s accomplishments on seven critical dimensions of higher education
as recommended by ULSF: “1) Curriculum; 2) Research and Scholarship; 3) Operations; 4) Faculty
and Staff Development and Rewards; 5) Outreach and Service; 6) Student Opportunities;
7) Administration, Mission and Planning”.
39
 “For the assessment of sustainability in universities/ IHEs, a variety of tools
have been developed for use (Shriberg, 2002a and b; Lozano, 2006). The notable ones among
them are the Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ), the Auditing Instrument for
Sustainability in Higher education (AISHE) and the tool for the Graphical Assessment for
Sustainability in Higher Education (GASU). As the PU is committed to campus sustainability through
Talloires Declaration, a specific rapid tool for assessing the level of campus sustainability – the
Sustainability Assessment questionnaire (SAQ) was used in the present study” (Togo
and Lotz‐Sisitka, 2009; UNEP, 2013; ULSF, 2015b).

This SAQ was intentionally designed by the researchers working with ULSF, to stimulate
discussion and to further the assessment by campus representatives who are knowledgeable about the
ongoing activities and also responsible for the specific activities. The SAQ aims to increase
environmental consciousness by encouraging debate about ‘what sustainability means for
university/IHE practically and philosophically?’ by providing the state of sustainability on their
campus along with prospective recommendations to promote the next steps for campus sustainability.
Based on the recommendation provided by ULSF in the year 2008, the SAQ for qualitative analysis
was designed to assess the extent to which the reviewed college or university are sustainable, and to
incorporate the same in our model and recommendations. The SAQ was structured around 15 critical
questions, classified into 3 major categories with sub-categories in each of them, with responses on a
5-point Likert scale as ‘unsure or NA’, ‘not at all’, ‘somewhat’, ‘quite a bit’ and ‘a great deal’; and
also in open-ended paragraphs (see Annexure A):

Category 1 - Perception of various aspects of sustainability agenda by different campuses

Question 1 – General awareness about green campus or sustainability
Question 2, 3, 4 – Academic and curriculum
Question 5 – Faculty research on sustainability
Question 6, 7 – Campus community commitment and university involvement
Question 8 – Administration’s leadership commitment

Category 2 - Operational practices emphasized by the institution for moving towards green
campus
Question 9 – Water conservation
– Soil conservation
– Food Production (Organic horticulture)
– Waste reduction/ recycling
– Energy/ environmental audits
– Energy conservation
– Biodiversity conservation
– Retrofitting
– Sustainable transportation
– Green purchasing
– Green building and infrastructure
Question 10 – Prioritized operational practices for future implementation

40
Category 3 – Miscellaneous, covering barriers, affiliation, action plan and feed back
Question 11-15 – General (open ended questions)

As part of this study, an ‘International Green Campus Summit’ was convened at Puducherry
during 4th and 5th, April - 2013, in collaboration with Association for Promoting Sustainability in
Campuses and Communities (APSCC); Pondicherry University; Hamburg University; Manchester
Metropolitan University and Puducherry Pollution Control Committee, Govt. of Puducherry, with
official permission from Govt. of India Ministries such as Home Affairs, External Affairs,
Environment and Forest, to raise awareness and ensure commitment among the key stakeholders
(http://www.greencampussummit.org). The SAQ was provided to 60 representatives from
universities/IHEs working in green campus issues, who have gathered at the Green Campus Summit-
2013, focusing mainly on the curriculum, operational practices and issues related to governance. “This
approach is useful when the desired sample size is selective in representing large and widely
distributed groups, in addition, survey participants may be more willing to answer honestly” (Dade,
2010). Out of 60 university/IHE representatives approached, 52 representatives mostly representing
the Universities have responded (Figure 3.1). The survey data were coded (0— unsure; 1— not at all;
2— somewhat; 3—quite a bit; 4—a great deal; and 77—missing) and entered into SPSS software
(IBM Statistics software) for analyses.

Figure 3.1 Total number of the campus representatives surveyed and responded

The ordinal data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, which provided not only an
explanation of the key variables of the research, but also allowed further analyses. In order to provide
a standardized framework for comparison between and among the categories, frequency distributions
were converted to percentages.

“For this study, we explored both short and long versions of the sustainability assessment
instrument with different blends of quantitative and qualitative measures, as suggested by ULSF. In

41
order to keep the SAQ qualitative and impressionistic, we did not include a rating /scoring system,
because in rapidly developing countries like India, the scholars consider that a rating/scoring system
would make the sustainability assessment instrument prematurely quantitative and difficult for most of
the IHEs to complete without extensive research, and moreover it might also discourage some
prospective users” (www.ulsf.org). However, as suggested by Shriberg (2002a); Togo
and Lotz‐Sisitka (2009), “this tool is very successful as a ‘discussion-generating’ and ‘progress-
reporting’ tool for campus sustainability scholars and practitioners and hence we have used it initially
to obtain a snap shot about the university/IHE towards sustainability and to compare and select the
appropriate strategies for our framework”.

“While empirical research examining sustainability in institutions had increased in the

scholarly literature since early 1990s” (Wright and Pullen, 2007), the majority are reported as case
studies. Corcoran et al. (2004) “contend that case study research on sustainability in university/IHE
have not lived up to its potential for improving sustainability because of the lack of comparative
studies (comparative research refers to policies and practices with regard to sustainability initiatives)”,
while Wright (2002) and Swearingen (2009) have indicated that “there is a lack of research examining
the implementation of sustainability from a comparative angle too”. In tune with the concluding
recommendations provided by these workers, Vincent and Focht (2009) and Vaughter et al. (2013)
opined that, “without comparative research, there will be little understanding of the degree to which
conceptualizations and practices of sustainability in university/IHE are convergent or divergent”.
Earlier, Shriberg (2002a) and Cole and Wright (2003) “examined some of the most promising
international examples of campus sustainability assessment techniques, and suggested that the campus
sustainability/ green campus movement would benefit from the development of cross institutional
assessment to progress further towards sustainability. With an aim of laying groundwork for an
expanding body of comparative research, this review critically examines and contrasts the trends and
gaps within the existing cross-institutional research on sustainability policy and operational practices,
by providing possible directions for further research” as suggested by Vaughter et al. (2013).

3.2. Results and Discussion

“SAQ was done, drawing upon Mayring’s (Vaughter et al., 2013; UTSC, 2015) criterion for
categorization in qualitative research” (Vaughter et al., 2013). “Mayring’s criteria for systematic
qualitative analysis include inductively forming initial categories developing sub-categories and later
revising the categorizations through an iterative process known as a feedback loop. Our content
analysis of existing comparative empirical studies on sustainability revealed considerable variations
among geographical location and status of the campus with similarities in terms of sustainability
policies and operational practices” as inferred by Vaughter et al. (2013). The results on the
perception of various aspects of sustainability by the participating campuses are presented in the

42
Figure 3.2 (A-H). The results are useful as a comprehensive tool to identify the weaknesses and set
goals, while formulating the framework for campus sustainability at PU or for any other IHE in India.

Figure 3.2. (A-H) Perception of various aspects of sustainability agenda by different campuses
A. Awareness level of the campus community towards the principles and concepts of Campus
Sustainability
B. Specialized courses or programs fostering sustainability or sustainable development
C. Degree to which the campus community participates in majors, minors or certificate programs related to
sustainability
D. Degree to which the sustainability principles are embedded into the regular programs and courses
E. Degree to which faculty research or scholarship is being done in the area of sustainability
F. Degree to which the campus community is involved or concerned with improving campus or local
sustainability
G. Degree to which the College/University is involved in community projects and internship programs
related to sustainability
H. Degree to which the administration /leadership is committed to adopt the principles of green
campus/sustainability

When it comes to the awareness level (Figure 3.2-A) of the campus community towards the
principles and concepts of campus sustainability, 8% of the respondents were unsure, 27% responded
in the negative and 65% responded positively in the categories somewhat, quite a bit and a great deal.
Regarding specialized courses or programs (Figure 3.2-B) fostering sustainability or sustainable
development, 23% of the respondents were unsure, while 42% responded in the negative and only
23% responded positively in the categories somewhat, quite a bit and a great deal. When it comes to
the degree to which the campus community participates in majors, minors or certificate programs
(Figure 3.2-C) related to sustainability, 35% of the respondents were unsure, 23% responded in the
negative and 37% responded positively. Similarly, when it comes to the degree to which the
sustainability principles are embedded into the regular programs and courses (Figure 3.2-D), 12% of
43
the respondents were unsure, 42% responded in the negative and 35% responded positively. When it
comes to the degree to which faculty research or scholarship (Figure 3.2-E) is being done in the area
of sustainability, 29% of the respondents were unsure, 42% responded in the negative and only 29%
responded positively. And more importantly when it comes to the degree to which the campus
community is involved or concerned with improving campus or local sustainability (Figure 3.2-F), 8%
responded in the negative and 92% responded positively. But regarding the degree to which the
College/University is involved in community projects and internship programs (Figure 3.2-G) related
to sustainability, 19% of the respondents were unsure, 35% responded in the negative and 46%
responded positively. And finally it comes to the degree to which the administration /leadership is
committed to adopt the principles of green campus/sustainability (Figure 3.2-H), 19% of the
respondents were unsure, 25% responded in the negative and 56% responded positively.

The response to the questions B, C, D and E (Figure 3.2) indicates that there is a lack of
importance given towards academic and curriculum when it comes to sustainability and green
campuses. “This may be attributed to the lack of research on sustainability principles in broader
disciplines and also may be lack of professional development training as suggested by several
workers” (Vaughter et al., 2013; Poyyamoli et al., 2015). This finding is also consistent with that of
Davis et al. (2003) and Vaughter et al.,’s (2013) that, “the comparative research that does exist on
sustainability outcomes in university/IHE focuses mostly on operations and governance, with little
attention paid to curricular or teaching/learning outcomes”, while Ciurana and Leal (2006) pointed out
that “for successful campus ‘greening’, existing curricula must be revamped across all disciplines to
increase permeability of disciplines within institutions to work inter-disciplinarily, by establishing a
relationship between theory and practice in course work and creating space for reflection”. “The
results also indicate that there is a huge potential to utilize or involve the campus community for
improving the campus sustainability as suggested by several earlier workers” (Finlay and Massey,
2012; Posner and Stuart, 2013; Elliott and Wright, 2013; Krasny and Delia. 2014; Best Colleges,
2016; Sustainability Degrees, 2016).

The second part of the questionnaire is dealt with the eleven categories of operational practices
emphasized by the institution for moving towards green campus (Figure 3.3), and the results have
shown that University/IHEs consume more natural resources than any Small and Medium Enterprises
(SME). For instance, “an average developing University in India consumes about 800000 liters of
water and uses about 5333 KWH of electricity per day for their operations” (Gobinath et al., 2010;
GoGreen, 2014; Rege, 2014). “Hence, educational institutions should focus on strategies to preserve
the natural resources by developing appropriate methods/ design/ strategies/ tools to improve their
performance through campus operations” (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar, 2008; Gobinath et al., 2010;
Vaughter et al., 2013).

44
 Figure 3.3. Operational practices emphasized by the institution for moving towards green campus

This study compares site specific campus operations policies and practices at multiple
institutions. “The reviewed sample (n = 52) focused on operational policies, including in relation to
water management, electricity use, waste disposal, GHG reduction, addressing environmental
externalities from the physical operation” based on the suggestions from Vaughter et al. (2013). It
could be noted that the energy conservation, followed by waste reduction/ recycling, water
conservation and environmental/ energy audit have been the major focus of Indian universities/IHEs
when it comes to sustainability. “In an international comparison of universities in India, Japan, Spain,
Sweden and the United States”, according to Ferrer-Balas et al. (2008) and Vaughter et al. (2013), “a
group of researchers illustrated that the initial uptake of sustainability into operational policies is often
the most difficult hurdle and university/IHE must overcome them in order to manage their facilities in
a more sustainable fashion”. This hurdle is also seen in our empirical study (Chapter 6) that the
existing average campus operation facility is below the average level of sustainability. While
“sustainability initiatives at university/IHE operations appear to be flourishing internationally”
(Vaughter et al., 2013), “the conditions necessary for the successful implementation of sustainable
45
initiatives are absent/ considerably lacking, because of administrative and financial constraints, lack of
communication, support and training among faculty and administrators”, which is in agreement with
Velazquez et al. (2005). However it is anticipated that, by the next academic year, situation will
improve based on the current developments.

Other national and international research articles also suggest that “faculty and staff leaders
tend to have a more significant role in the long-term implementation of operational initiatives around
sustainability within institutions, through collaboration with administrators” (Shepard and Johnson,
2009) “necessitating for strong leadership as a precursor” (James and Card, 2012) “like TERI
University which had implemented an educational approach by integrating sustainability issues
throughout curriculum, research and sustainable operations on campus” (Jain et al., 2013; Richardson
and Kachler, 2016). “Since operational practices are not only concerned with institutional campuses
but also with residential communities, communication between the institution and the surrounding
community on regional sustainability challenges is also an important factor for successful uptake of
sustainable operational policies across cultures and nations” as recommended by Stephens et al.(2008)
and Vaughter et al. (2013) while “paving way for ‘eco-city’ ” as suggested by Richard (2002), Finlay
and Massey (2012). The recently proposed “eco city or smart city projects in India” (Bhattacharya and
Rathi, 2015; Shah, 2015) can be used as ideal entry points for facilitating the synergy between the
campus and the city. “Based on the available comparative research on sustainability audits, a large
majority of the studies examine operational outputs of institutions and does not focus on the evaluation
of other dimensions, such as education, research, governance or community engagement” (Vaughter et
al., 2013). “Both the academic and operational practices should be given equal importance, which also
will provide space for reflection” (Ciurana and Leal, 2006), “while the latter takes care of campus
sustainability; the former takes care of community sustainability and would facilitate jointly favoring
regional sustainability- towards eco city or smart city or sustainable city” (Richard, 2002; Karlin et al.,
2010; ACUI, 2011; Finlay and Massey, 2012; Huffington, 2013; Bhattacharya and Rathi, 2015; Shah,
2015; Sonetti et al., 2016).

46
 CHAPTER 4

4 INTEGRATED CYCLICAL SYSTEM MODEL (ICSM)

Synthesis of Rational for

various models About the evolved
Chapter 4 ICSM implementing
studied ICSM

47
4.1. Background on the Evolution of Integrated Cyclical System Model (ICSM)

Archer (1979) characterizes design “as an important cog in the wheel of addressing the
problems modern society is faced with, such as the ecological problem, the environmental problem,
the quality-of-urban-life problem and so on”. Since education and sustainable development are
complex issues, it is crucially important to develop a sustainable model for participatory approach by
involving government, international organizations, public experts, NGOs and other stakeholders from
the environment and education fields to address such problems (details given in Chapter 6).
“Considering the political, economic, social and cultural diversity existing in the region, the model
should be flexible enough, for implementation which can be adapted to each country’s priorities,
specific needs and national features” as stressed by Pidlisnyuk (2010). Since the earlier models such as
the venn diagram, prism and non-concentric circles model addressed the challenges in isolation,
Lozano (2008), Moir and Carter (2012) suggested that, “in order to study the complex phenomena of
environment, society and economy, appropriate actions within the solution space, with deeper
understanding of the interrelatedness of the dimensions with respect to the scale and the dynamic
processes of change over time, is needed”. Hence evolving a comprehensive and socially acceptable
model, viewing sustainability as an “all-encompassing concept” (McFarlane and Ogazon, 2011;
Fraser, 2014) is considered as more important and also emphasized in the evolved new model (ICSM).

“University leaders and staff must be empowered to catalyze and implement new paradigms,
and ensure that SD is the ‘golden thread’ that runs throughout the entire university system” (Lozano,
2013). GCI at PU is basically evolved from past experiences both in-house and elsewhere and it is
implemented as an action research program. “The term ‘action research’ was first coined by Professor
Kurt Lewin of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the year 1944” (O'Brien, 2001; Muff,
et al., 2013) and is defined as “ ‘a comparative research on the conditions and effects of various forms
of social action and research leading to social action’ that uses ‘a spiral of steps, each of which is
composed of a circle of planning, action and fact-finding about the result of the action’. Action
research is either research initiated to solve an immediate problem or a reflective process of
progressive problem solving led by individuals working with others in teams or as part of a
‘community of practice’ to not only improve the way they address issues and solve problems but also
to produce guidelines for/from best practices” (Denscombe, 2010). “Action research is better suited
for this dissertation as it is used in real situations, rather than in contrived, experimental studies, since
its primary focus is on solving real problems. Mostly, it is chosen when circumstances require
flexibility or require the involvement of the people in the research, or require that change must take
place quickly or holistically” (O'Brien, 2001). Action research can also be undertaken by larger
organizations or institutions, guided by professional researchers, with the aim of improving their
strategies, practices and knowledge of the environments within which they practice.

48
 Over a decade ago, Shriberg (2002b) reported that “sustainability in university/IHE offers only
some theoretical work, practical advice and ‘stories of transformation’ and that there is a severe lack
of empirical data and academic case studies”. “This is still true today to a large extent since in spite of
a large body of literature on SD, a detailed vision of what sustainability might mean in practice is
likely to be the subject of continuing discussion” (Leal, 2011b). “Although the concepts of green
schools, eco-campus, green university have already been put forward at in India and abroad, it has
been difficult to be implemented due to the lack of specific approaches and concrete measures” (Tan
et al., 2014). Moreover most of the case studies are available only from the developed parts of the
world and there is a complete lack of systematic assessment of organizational factors and decision
making processes for initiating and maintaining changes in developing regions.

In view of this, a new hybrid design “Integrated Cyclical System Model” (ICSM) was evolved
(Figure 4.2), based on the research work done by Hart (2000); Mitchell (2000); Giddings et al. (2002);
Keiner (2005a and b); Hart (2006); Bolman and Deal (2003; 2008); Lozano (2008); Rasmussen
(2011); Moir and Carter (2012); DeFoe (2013); Kubik and Ashton (2014); Thatcher (2014) and Kerby
and Mallinger (2014). The ICSM “use the four frames such as ‘structural, human resource, political,
and symbolic’, to examine the implementation of environmental sustainability initiatives in an
organizational context” as suggested by Hart (2000); Mitchell (2000); Giddings et al. (2002); Keiner
(2005a and b); Hart (2006); Bolman and Deal (2003; 2008); Lozano (2008); Rasmussen (2011); Moir
and Carter (2012); DeFoe (2013); Kubik and Ashton (2014); Thatcher (2014) and Kerby and
Mallinger (2014). The ICSM is “actually based on a consortia of theoretical ideas/case studies from
developmental theory and ecological theory to evolve a model of sustainability based on the concepts
of risk and resilience, using systems thinking” (Kubik and Ashton, 2014) “which works over time
within the context of larger systems” (Lozano, 2008) “that require multidisciplinary investigations”
(Sterman, 2001; McFarlane and Ogazon, 2011; Fraser, 2014) “empirically testable” (Kerby and
Mallinger, 2014) and “also move beyond sustainability” (Wait, 2014). As suggested by Kleindorfer
quoted in Drake and Spinler (2013), “a multi-disciplinary approach was adopted as part of this
dissertation by participating in various conferences/ workshops/ seminars on diverse fields related with
green campus and also by collaborating with scholars from other disciplines to gain deeper insights
and suggestion”. “Such cross-pollination requires intentional effort but pays off by increasing the
visibility of sustainable research beyond our own circle of scholars, enhancing its potential impact and
emphasizing that sustainability can be achieved only through beyond one’s own ability” (Drake and
Spinler, 2013) as an “all-encompassing concept” (McFarlane and Ogazon, 2011; Fraser, 2014) which
was emphasized in the ICSM as discussed throughout this dissertation.

The ICSM model incorporates a list of potential approaches that contribute to an innovative
model for campus sustainability and support such archetype. They are “eco-efficiency improvements

49
(Shah and Ward, 2003), cleaner production (Fresner, 1998), eco-design (Baumann et al.,
2002 and Bocken et al., 2011) with visions for a new economy and society (blue economy) (Pauli,
2010) and the natural step (TNS) (Robèrt, 2008) by creating value from waste (up-cycling, down-
cycling, recycling, closed loop), industrial symbiosis (Chertow, 2000) through product service systems
(Baines et al., 2007) and social enterprise solutions (Grassl, 2012)”.

Similar to the Three Concentric Circles Model (TCCM), Two Tier Sustainability Equilibria
Model (TTSE), Nested Four Frame Lens Model (NFFLM) and Aesculapia Model of Regeneration
(AMR), this hybrid ‘Integrated Cyclical System Model (ICSM)’ (Figure 4.2) is evolved with
innovation, creativity and testable features with the principle concept of up-cycling to open the ‘TNS
Funnel’. Lozano (2008) and Moir and Carter (2012) recommended that, “the three concentric circle
with expanded economy in the first tier sustainability equilibria coupled with second tier sustainability
equilibria model will pave way for opening of the TNS funnel with time dimension” (Robert, 2000;
Janet and Peter, 2007; Chambers et al., 2008; Lozano, 2008) “by infusing regeneration” (Kerby and
Mallinger, 2014; Ashton and Kubik, 2014 and Wait, 2014) (discussed in detail in Chapter 2).

4.1.1. Components Identified for ICSM

Orr (1992) suggested that, “graduates of a sustainable institution are ‘ecologically literate’,
which includes the ability to apply systems thinking (in a cross-disciplinary manner) and to recognize
and challenge the dominant paradigm”. One of the goals of ICSM is to produce ecologically literate
students through integration of sustainability into curricula and through practical applications of
sustainability concepts and also assessing the sustainability implications of all research activities. The
components identified for the ICSM at PU or other university/IHE/school are listed in Table 4.1. The
University or IHE should focus their action plan for SD towards the research, service and operations.
“In terms of research, the institute should not only focus their efforts on research directly related to
sustainability, but also assess the sustainability implications of all the other research activities. In
terms of service, the institute should help local, national and international communities in ensuring a
healthy ecological, social and economic future, and in terms of operations, it should reflect the core
values of sustainability through design by and for the environment (i.e., mimicking the natural system
and cycles) in all their operating systems” (Uhl et al., 1996). ICSM is ‘not only about problem solving,
but also finding the problem’ and is evolved to mitigate and adapt to the challenges and risks posed by
it.

Basically the model is designed to safe guard existing natural cycles and systems, with
mitigatory effect on climate change. It is broadly classified under four themes, namely sustainable
management of water resources; sustainable food production; energy management and sustainable
operations; communication and outreach, all of which comes under institutional governance. The

50
 individual components of the ICSM that are attached to these four themes are clearly depicted in the
Figure 4.1 and they are designed to work individually in a cyclical manner and also integrated with
one another to close the loop.

The university/IHE should focus their action plan for SD towards the research, service and
operations. In terms of research, the institute should not only focus their efforts on research directly
related to sustainability, but also assess the sustainability implications of all the other research
activities.

Table 4.1. The Components identified for the ICSM for University/IHE/School
Sl. Components identified for the ICSM Themes
No
I. Water resource management
e.g. ground water, rain water, waste water
Sustainable
II. Soil based water conservation management
e.g. integrated xeriscape, hügelkultur, green wall, etc.
of water
III. Water based water conservation
resources C
e.g. integrated aquaponics, hydroponics, aqua culture,
etc. A
IV. Composting, vermi-composting, bio-pesticide and bio- M
P
fertilizer
Sustainable U
V. Food and food services food S
production
G
VI. Climate resilient organic farming
O
V
VII. Energy production E
e.g. Anaerobic bio-digester, solar campus, bio fuel etc. Energy R
management N
VIII. Energy conservation
and A
e.g. Green building, green purchasing, etc
Sustainable N
IX. Sustainable transportation Operations C
e.g. Bio-diesel for vehicles, solar powered vehicles,
E
etc.
X. Community outreach and Curriculum

Communicat
XI. Disaster and risk – preparedness and management ion
and outreach
XII. Office of Sustainability

51
 Structural Human
Resour
Economy ce

Political Symbolic
Society

Environment

Ecosystems Security

Structur Human
al Resource
Economy
Political Symbolic
Society

Environment

Figure 4.1. Integrated Cyclical System Model (ICSM) with twelve integrated components of GCI
fostering environment protection and conservation

“The following foreign and Indian universities, IHEs and organization (placed in alphabetical
order), are some of the excellent examples studied through their official web site, the reports produced
by the Princeton Review, AASHE ‘STAR’ rating, and through random sampling (personal visit,
personal interview, structured questionnaire, e-mail communications, and phone call), to evolve the
conceptual frame work for green campus initiative related to the sustainable management of the basic
life support systems like water, soil, and air for campus sustainability:

Foreign

1. Allegheny College (http://allegheny.edu)

2. Climate Charter of the University of Cambridge (http://www.cam.ac.uk)
3. Climate Planning by AASHE (http://www.aashe.org)
4. CT Green School – 12 steps for sustainability (http://www.easternct.edu)
5. Harvard’s Sustainability Initiative (http://green.harvard.edu)
6. Pathways to a Green Campus of Middlebury College (http://www.middlebury.edu)
7. Skidmore College’s Strategic Environmental Planning (https://www.skidmore.edu)
8. Student Sustainability Forum of Yale University (http://sustainability.yale.edu)
9. University of Copenhagen’s Steering Committee Structure (http://cas.ku.dk)
10. USGBC - Roadmap to a Green Campus (www.centerforgreenschools.org)
52
Indian

11. Amrita university (www.amrita.edu)

12. Christ University, Bangalore (www.christuniversity.in)
13. DG Ruparel College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Pune (www.ruparel.edu)
14. Great Lakes Institute of Management, Kanchipuram (www.greatlakes.edu.in)
15. IIT-Delhi (http://www.iitd.ac.in)
16. IIT-Mumbai campus (www.iitb.ac.in)
17. Indian Institute of Management -Kozhikode (IIM-K)(www.iimk.ac.in)
18. Institute of Management Development and Research, Mumbai (www.imdr.edu)
19. People's Education Society Institute of Technology (PESIT), Bangalore (http://pes.edu)
20. Vellore Institute of Technology (VIT), Vellore (www.vit.ac.in)”

“It is argued that the overwhelming majority of resources that humans use come from nature in
the form of ecosystem services” (Costanza et al., 1997) and “it is therefore impossible to separate
human development from environmental degradation” (Thatcher, 2014). Kates et al. (2001) noted that
“determining what is to be sustained (e.g. biodiversity, ecosystem services, community, culture, etc.),
what is to be developed (e.g. wealth, consumption, education, culture, equity, regions, etc.), and the
length of time (e.g. across a single lifecycle, inter-generational, multiple generations, indefinitely, etc.)
are much needed factors to be considered for SD”. The above mentioned reasoning gave rise to what is
called now ‘The Natural Step (TNS)’ (Robèrt, 2002; Thatcher, 2014), “by encapsulating four
principles where a sustainable society attempts to eliminate the:

(1) concentration of materials that belong in the Earth’s crust;

(2) concentration of toxic accumulated substances produced by the society;
(3) degradation of natural processes (cycles and systems); and
(4) conditions which prevent people from meeting their basic needs”

To move beyond sustainability, ICSM is modeled after the TNS framework. “To make it an
economic/economically viable model, the concept of “up-cycling” was applied to create more value
from waste; creating on-campus life experiences; and educating-the-educators” (McDonough et al.,
2013; Lozano, 2013; Bocken et al., 2014). ICSM is scalable, either integrated as whole or fragmented
as parts (discussed in Chapter 5 as pilot projects) and can be adapted with varying degree, as it is not
part of the four themes of the ICSM, on what to implement and how, but it is up to the University or
IHE or School to prioritize the needs, based on the challenges faced by them. Under each theme “the
components can be identified on need based priorities” (Kubik and Ashton, 2014) “doing the right
things first” (Kleynhans and Spies, 1994) “to effectively educate students of ‘all ages’ to help make
the transition to ‘sustainable societal patterns’ ” (Lozano et al., 2013). “It is also categorized for easy
implementation, to empower and to catalyze university leaders and staff by implementing new
paradigms” (Bocken et al., 2014). “Every component has a specific and cyclical methodology,
integrated with another component for value creation as green business models” (Beltramello et al.,
2013; Wells and Seitz, 2005) “by closing the loop for campus sustainability” (Wells and Bristow,
53
2007; Lüdeke-Freund, 2009; Boons et al., 2013; Boons and Lüdeke-Freund, 2013). It is designed in
such a way, that in case, due to some unavoidable technical errors or natural situation, if any
component is not functioning it won’t affect the performance of another component, for instance, if
the anaerobic plant is not producing biogas (due to acidification), still the other components in the
model will function properly. More importantly, on need based priorities, any component can be
added in due course to this ICSM, according to the theme.

4.1.2. ICSM to Move Beyond Sustainability

Kerby and Mallinger (2014), “argue for the necessity of developing an empirically testable
multi-dimensional model of sustainability, grounded in sound theoretical concepts”. Wait (2014),
“takes a look at how we might move ‘Beyond Sustainability’ by linking sustainable practices to a
university or IHE’s mission statement. In his article, ‘Can a University’s Public Affairs Mission Move
the Institution Beyond Sustainability?’, Wait, pointed out that, while institutional commitments to
sustainability will vary and take different forms, he recommended four strategies for sustainability:

1. institutional steps to acknowledge and incorporate sustainability in every sector

2. incorporation of sustainability in the existing curriculum
3. a survey of student interests and change in attitudes on campus sustainability and
4. outreach mission to move beyond sustainability”

“The problem of defining sustainability as the primary challenge at the universities/IHEs”

(McFarlane and Ogazon, 2011) only be defined “when educators, administrators, managers, decision
makers, and societies as a whole recognize the well understood biophysical constraints of earth
systems to support human existence” (Maser, 2013). Currently many universities/ IHE’s/ schools
appear to be adhering to sustainability principles; however, how they address sustainability varies
greatly, and integration with mission statements of the institution is far from complete, because
institutional commitment to environmental sustainability can be discerned by whether its president/
vice-president or chancellor/ vice-chancellor has signed either of the two major declarations and how
far they are committed, namely, Talloires Declaration (TD) or the American College and Universities
Climate Commitment (ACUCC) where the former is globally recognized. “As of January 16, 2016,
499 institutions have signed the total ‘Talloires Declaration’ including 30 from India” (ULSF, 2016)
and “for ACUCC, as of June 2015, 685 signatories; 2512 submitted GHG inventories; 539 submitted
climate action plans; 399 submitted progress reports” (http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org).
In addition, “within the declaration, there is a commitment for training environmentally literate
students who will go on to become ecologically responsible citizens” (Green, 2013; Wait, 2014;
ULSF, 2015a). However, “the available literature reveals that this goal is far from being realized”
(Bardaglio and Putman, 2009; Brundiers et al., 2010; Lozano et al., 2010; Brundiers and Weik, 2011;
Winter and Cotton, 2012; Barth 2013; Brundiers and Weik, 2013; Wait, 2014). Apart from TD or
54
ACUCC, till 2014, “institutional commitment to sustainability is also illustrated by the 837 higher
education institutions that belong to the AASHE, in addition, 300 higher education institutions have
gone through AASHE’s ‘Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System’ or STARS. Within
STARS, no institutions have received ‘platinum’ status; however, 57 have achieved ‘gold’, 158 have
achieved ‘silver’, 67 have achieved ‘bronze’, and 22 have achieved ‘reporter status’ ”
(http://www.aashe.org).

“Most of these committed institutions do not have sustainability as a mission, nor do they
integrate sustainability into their mission explicitly” (McFarlane and Ogazon, 2010; Wait, 2014).
However, there are various examples of committed institutions that have integrated sustainability into
their existing mission very explicitly. “It is well accepted that how a university focuses on
sustainability will depend on the institution, its culture, priorities, mission, and its resources” (Barlett
and Chase, 2004; Kerr and Hart-Steffes, 2012; Wait, 2014) “as ever as an evolving process” (Weiss,
2009).

“ ‘Institutionalizing sustainability’ is nothing but modeling sustainability in operations and

promoting sustainability through community engagement within the university/IHE/school campus”
(http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org). University of Hawaii at Manoa provides an
illustrative example of ‘operationalizing sustainability’ within their strong and evolving mission. Tang
and Hussin (2013) “provide an interesting example of advancing sustainability through a mission
based on needs and demands”. “However, even in institutions with clear missions on sustainability,
and where the missions are based on environmental, social, and economic sustainability, only a small
part of the educational pedagogy and actual curriculum addresses sustainability” (Orr, 2004;
McFarlane and Ogazon, 2011; Wait, 2014). This function of operationalizing and moving beyond
sustainability auctioned will be the responsibility of, the Office of Campus Sustainability under the
communication and outreach theme. At PU, Renewable Energy and Sustainability Cell (PURE&SC)
has been constituted and the Office of Campus Sustainability for overall governance is proposed.
Preceding this, in tune with the UN’s World Environment Day theme (2014) ‘raise your voice’, PU
has explicitly committed to GCI by signing the ‘Talloires Declaration’. In due course, the Office of
Campus Sustainability is expected to operationalize SD in the mission statement and moving beyond
sustainability.

4.1.3. Envisioning Sustainability with Environmental Connotations

In the majority of the cases, “SD has primarily the environmental connotations” (Costanza,
1991; Goldin and Winters, 1995; Currie-Alder, 1997; Elkington, 1997; Atkinson, 2000; Dobers and
Wolff, 2000; Diesendorf, 2000; Reinhardt, 2000; Hart, 2000; Rees, 2002; Doppelt, 2003; Fadeeva,
2005; Lozano, 2008; Rasmussen, 2011; Moir and Carter, 2012; Kubik and Ashton, 2014; Thatcher,
55
2014; Kerby and Mallinger, 2014; Wait, 2014 and Fraser, 2014) with the key characteristic features
such as, “the integration of economic, environmental, and social aspects, and the relations among
them” (Diesendorf, 2000; Langer and Schon, 2003; Cairns, 2004; Lozano, 2008; Bass and Dalal-
Clayton, 2012).

“Various scientists and authors recommend the use of images, graphical representations, and
models to help explain, raise awareness and increase understanding and diffusion rates of complex
concepts, as it is in the case of sustainability” (Atkinson, 2000). “They help to communicate,
generalize and make more tangible concepts that are difficult to express clearly with words” (Stokes,
2001; Hilligoss and Howard, 2002; Schnotz, 2002; Carney, 2002; Sankey, 2003; Lozano, 2008). “The
constant use of such images can improve learning and understanding of new or complex concepts,
such as sustainability, when images are carefully selected and constructed to complement written text
without substituting it” (Lozano, 2008). “The images are easier to remember than non-image data, and
also help to make the text more compact or concise, concrete, coherent, comprehensible,
correspondent and codeable” (Schnotz, 2002; Carney, 2002; Lozano, 2008).

Among the various sustainability models or graphical representations reviewed in Chapter 2,

the four-frame lens model along with the nested model of concentric circles, and regeneration model, a
new hybrid model is developed (Figure 4.2) which can assist educational leaders in the process of
answering the research question related with campus sustainability: How does a university/IHE
implement a comprehensive environmental sustainability initiative? Since the society and economy of
the nested model with political frame of the four frame lens model together are embedded by or within
the environment, initiative for sustainability from the ecological stand point is of significance. The
ICSM is based on the framework depicting the Four Frame Model as a lens to view organizational
change wherein the environmental connotation is stressed more by taking the shape of a cyclical gear
to depict its capability to not only integrate with various other components that fosters SD but also
allows integration within the components themselves in a cyclical pattern.

4.1.4. Recognizing Complexity and Interconnectedness

“Sustainability is complex and interconnected” (Harvard, 2015). “SD recognizes the complex
interconnections of social, environmental, cultural and economic factors and only a sustainable
community will understand and value the dynamic interconnections with local, national and
international community’s” (DECD, 2007). Following this, “the most complete and balanced model
provided by MONET (Monitoring Sustainable Development)” (Altwegg et al., 2004; Thatcher, 2014),
“and the two-tiered sustainability equilibria model of SD” (Lozano, 2008), “captures the complexity
and balances the human needs against the needs of natural systems” (Dekker et al., 2013; Thatcher,
2014). “From the non-environmental degradation perspective, the resources are scarce, consumption
56
cannot be continued indefinitely, natural resources should be used without surpassing their carrying
capacities, and environmental capital should not be depleted” (Costanza, 1991; Currie-Alder, 1997;
Atkinson, 2000; Dobers and Wolff, 2000; Hart, 2000; Diesendorf, 2000; Reinhardt, 2000; Fullan,
2002; Rees, 2002; Doppelt, 2003; Langer and Schon, 2003; Reinhardt, 2004; Fadeeva, 2005; Daly,
2006; Dresner, 2008; Lozano, 2008; Rasmussen, 2011; Moir and Carter, 2012; Kubik and Ashton,
2014; Thatcher, 2014; Kerby and Mallinger, 2014; Wait, 2014 and Fraser, 2014).

4.1.5. ICSM as Empirically Testable Model

“While evolving empirically testable hypothesis” (Kubik and Ashton, 2014; Kerby and
Mallinger, 2014) “the model must be simple, and it is crucial to incorporate the local environment into
the observation” (Van den Bergh, 1994) “which can be employed to check, if their simulated findings
are supported in the real world using real data” (Campbell et al., 2015). The history of the
development of the concept of sustainability, fails to recognize the fluid boundaries and complex
interactions among the three circles. ICSM as an empirically testable model was developed “using
systems thinking approach” (Kubik and Ashton, 2014), “where a system is any group of interacting,
interrelated, or interdependent parts that form a complex and unified whole having a specific purpose
requiring multidisciplinary investigations to work on the system and not in the system” (Sterman,
2001).

“The major drawbacks recognized by a number of sustainability scholars, re-searchers and

practitioners, in the area of sustainability are a lack of full integration and interrelatedness amongst the
different aspects, and a lack of consideration of the dynamic time perspective” (Lozano, 2008) which
“led to another representation aiming to include the time perspective offered by ‘The Natural Step
Funnel Framework’ ” (TNS, 2015). Hence, “in order to achieve real change it is necessary to evolve a
cyclical model (Figure 4.2), facilitated with greater awareness and understanding, for, the
University/IHE that continuously violates sustainability principles will suffer economically” (Nattrass
and Altomare, 2013). “An indicator for this trend is the recent survey at a ‘National Association of
College and University Business Officers Conference’, which found that institutional emphasis on
environmental sustainability is expected to increase in the near future compared to other academic
initiatives” (Fogel and House, 2010; Posner and Stuart, 2013). Since time is irreversible and crucial
now, the researcher of this study collaboratively selected the components with the primary focus on
‘up-cycling’ strategy, in order to enhance the abilities of the stakeholders, to motivate and to involve
them all with commitment. The components for ICSM is selected principally through the use of
natural resources without going beyond their carrying capacities and the production of pollutants
without passing the bio-degradation limits of the receiving system.

57
 The themes, sub themes, and examples/ideas for ICSM were selected to transform by more
explicitly defining the core values and re-orient program offering and pedagogy to reflect the mission
of educating new generations of scientists with a solid understanding of ecological, social, and
economical sustainability. “The aim is to equip the ‘student future leaders’ to solve the most
fundamental issues faced by the society – those focused around public health, a sustainable food
supply and the responsible use of renewable natural resources using student centered learning and inter
disciplinary learning” (Rojas, 2007).

Figure 4.2. Integrated Cyclical Systems Model (ICSM) with Themes

“Since sustainability is a highly complex, multidimensional” (Rice and Ezzy, 1999) and “all-
encompassing concept” (McFarlane and Ogazon, 2011; Fraser, 2014), the theme identified for ICSM
is also broad covering water-food-energy nexus and “most of the referencing materials were from field

58
like engineering, economics, sociology, and related sciences emphasizing multi-disciplinarity”
(Velazquez et al., 2006; Lozano, 2006). “Triangulation of various concepts reviewed is used as a
method for increasing reliability” (Velazquez et al., 2006). To develop on the components of ICSM,
“rigorous reviewing of the University/IHE/organizations official web site, published and unpublished
articles, conference proceedings, university reports, books, website documents and education for
sustainability profiles, campus initiatives, etc through the website” (Velazquez et al., 2006), “Princeton
Review, STAR – AASHE, stratified random sampling” (Dade, 2010), formal and informal interviews
with the staff and students through structured/semi structured questionnaire, media news and views
were done. “The ultimate goal of the literature review was the identification of the diverging strategies
and practices undertaken by various key players of sustainability initiatives in order to be able to
generate initial meaningful insights about organizational institutional areas and issues for exploring
how to effectively implement sustainability initiatives in university contexts” (Velazquez et al., 2006)
“by picking up low hanging fruit” (Clugston, 2000; Sharp, 2002; Mason et al., 2003 and Wilkie et al.,
2015) “such as small sustainable projects” (Gladwin et al., 1995; Breyman, 2000) “for easy
implementation” (Leal, 2000; Finlay, 2010) (see Figure 4.3).

In order to qualify as an ICSM component, the following criteria were met to facilitate the
process of collecting sustainability initiatives/strategies:

 “Firstly, the sustainable model archetypes are need to exhibit transformation in model, clear,
intuitive, explanatory and innovative” (Bocken et al., 2014)

 “Secondly, innovations should generate environmental and/or social benefits in operations,

either through creating new value, or by significantly reducing negative impacts on the
environment and society” (Bocken et al., 2014)

“In the process of evolving the themes and sub-themes, standard campus examples such as
Gateway Community College (GCC) (North Haven and Long Wharf, Connecticut) and Southern
Maine Technical College (SMTC) (South Portland, Maine) were considered. For example, the GCC
green campus team chose the following five areas of concern: Pollution Prevention, Water
Conservation, Wastewater, Energy, and Indoor Air Quality and the team have made a commitment to
continue to investigate ways to implement a ‘Green Campus’ program through student participation”
(NEIWPCC, 2015). In the same way SMTC green campus team selected the following six areas of
concern namely Water conservation, Storm water Management and Wastewater Generation, Air
Quality, Energy Conservation, Solid Waste Management Practices, and Hazardous Waste and Special
Waste Practices. Several other examples are also considered and exemplified with a local touch for
ICSM.

59
4.1.5.1. Theme I - Sustainable Management of Water Resources

According to the World Resources Institute (www.earthtrends.wri.org) “the term ‘water stress’
will have less than 1,700 cubic meters of annual per capita of renewable fresh water availability and
‘water scarcity’ is used when this availability falls below 1000 cubic meters”. “Various parts of India
are heading from water stress to water scarcity and as a general trend across the Puducherry region, the
water table has declined from about 5 to 23 m from the East to North West of the region within a
period of 30 years” (PONNIC, 2015). “Puducherry Hydrology Project II reported that, due to the over
exploitation of the underground water resources there is an imminent threat of the ingress of sea water
up to a distance of 5 to 7 km from the coast and the damage caused to the coastal aquifers is
irreversible” (Hydrology Project II, 2007). “Since Puducherry region’s water level is shallow ranging
from 12-14 m below ground level and the annual per capita water availability in Puducherry is roughly
200 cum per person per year” (Reddy, 1999; Puducherry Hydrology Project– II, 2007; CSE, 2013),
currently Puducherry is in ‘water scarce’ condition.

Water Resources Consortium in its report (2009) stated that “globally, current withdrawals of
about 4500 km3 exceeds the availability of about 4200 km3; by 2030, the demand is expected to
increase to 6900 km3; with a slight drop in availability to 4100 km3, resulting with a deficit of 40%
and for India, the annual demand is expected to increase to almost 1500 km3, as against a projected
availability of 744 km3; a deficit of 50%” (Narasimhan, 2010; Rajaram and Qadri, 2014). Hence
sustainable management of water resources is the need of the hour and it is the duty and responsibility
of university/IHEs to be role model for others as they consume huge amount of ground water. To
provide various avenues for stakeholders and also to maximize the water conservation in ICSM, this
theme has three sub themes:

 Water resource management (e.g. ground/ surface water, rain water, waste water)
 Soil based water conservation (e.g. integrated xeriscape, hügelkultur, green wall, etc.)
 Water based water conservation (e.g. aquaponics, hydroponics, aqua culture, etc.)

The first sub theme is purely related with the resource management; while the later two sub themes
emphasize that water conservation can be achieved not only through water saving/ recycling but also
through soil and water management. In subsequent chapters, they are discussed in detail.

Why Water Resource Management?

“Since currently Puducherry in water stress condition as discussed earlier, the water table have
also started declining steadily due to over extraction of ground water, according to T.M. Balakrishnan,
Commissioner cum Secretary (Works). According to Mr. Manohar, Chief Engineer, PWD, Govt of
Puducherry current consumption of water in Puducherry is set at 135 lpcpd and made a plea to citizens
of Puducherry to adopt a sustainable water policy through self-discipline” (Narasimhan, 2010). “At

60
campus level, it is generally assumed that around 65% to 80% contributes to the waste water”
(Kujawa-Roeleveld and Zeeman, 2006; Edwin and Poyyamoli, 2012) “which is further categorized
into 70% grey water and 30% black water” (Kujawa-Roeleveld and Zeeman, 2006; Kujawa-Roeleveld
et al., 2008; Edwin and Poyyamoli, 2012; Golda, 2015). “Out of this 70% grey water produced, 60%
comes from bathroom” (Morel and Diener, 2006). “It is assumed that if this 70% of the total generated
grey water is properly treated and managed, a minimum of 60% of blue water can be produced”
(Kujawa-Roeleveld and Zeeman, 2006; Golda, 2015).

“Management strategy such as ‘pump-and-treat’ and ‘dig-and-dump’ techniques, is often

expensive, has limited potential, and is usually applicable to small areas; additionally, it also makes
the soil infertile and unsuitable for agriculture by destroying the micro habitats. Hence there is the
need to develop and implement an environmentally sound sustainable technology (ESSTs) such as a
‘Constructed Wetland’. Since efficient wastewater treatment and reuse is critical for SD” (Poyyamoli
et al., 2013) “using constructed wetlands can be an affordable treatment option” (Kumar, 2013;
Paulson, 2013). When this reclaimed water is used for various water based/ soil based conservative
purposes along with the harvested rain water for onsite application, true water sustainability of the
campus will be achieved. When the same strategy is followed among campus and communities as
clusters, water sustainability of the region can also be achieved.

Why Soil Based Water Conservation?

Xeriscape, hügelkultur, landscape, green wall, vertical wall, green roofs, etc. are some of the
excellent examples for soil based water conservation. For instance, “integrated xeriscape refers to
sustainable landscape/ gardening activities in ways that reduce or eliminate the need for potable water,
originated in Colorado (USA) and eventually the idea spread throughout the world to utilize water
efficient landscape/ gardening designs to save and recycling of water” (Hilaire et al., 2008; Poyyamoli
et al., 2013; Muthu et al., 2015; Tahir, 2015; Amr et al., 2016). The role of soil in the xeriscape area
plays a major role in retaining water to maintain the hydrological cycle including the relative ability of
soil to hold moisture and transport the retained or unused water by plants downward through the soil
profile and contribute to the ground water recharge. “When a xeriscape system is integrated with water
reclamation and organic compost application, it will help reduce the consumption of ground water;
increase soil moisture retention; eliminate synthetic fertilizers; restore top soil; enhance soil microflora
and fauna; conserve biodiversity and restore habitat; attract butterflies, honey bees, migrants and
native species, sequesters carbon and mitigate climate change” (UNEP, 2013; Muthu et al., 2015).

Why Water Based Water Conservation?

To retain the availability of water and to maximize the nutrient availability in the water for the
plants, and also to generate economy - aquaponics, hydroponics, aqua culture, etc. are recommended
61
for practice with in the campus (emphasized more as business model). Hydroponics is the science of
growing and producing plants in nutrient-rich solution, instead of soil. Hydroponic farming utilizes up
to 90% less water than traditional soil farming, and grows crops twice as fast due to a controlled
environment of nutrients, water, and oxygen. It does not require herbicides or pesticides, and also
needs much less maintenance than traditional farming. This, of course, is ideal for students (GT, 2015)
and employees (Microsoft, 2015) interested in sustainable urban farming methods. “Whereas
aquaponics is a closed-loop food production approach in which animals and plants are grown together.
The system usually includes a small garden of vegetables and a tank of fish. Through the aquaponics
process, the fish consume food and excrete waste in the tank. Bacteria in the tank convert the toxic
ammonia in fish feces into nitrates, which are then used as nutrients to help the plants survive. The fish
tank is connected to the bed of vegetables by pipes that deliver water and nutrients in one pump and
flow back to the bed with another pump, creating a constant flow” (Eatmon et al., 2015; Loyala, 2015;
Miller, 2015; NCSU, 2015).

4.1.5.2. Theme II – Sustainable Food Production

United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (UN-FAO) report says that, “1/3 of the
food produced annually for human consumption is wasted, which is a high volume of wastage that
occurs right through the food supply chain, by exerting an adverse impact on land, water, biodiversity
and climate change, coupled with the impact of the GHG emissions that are known to result from
current patterns of food production, processing, marketing and consumption, associated with
commercial flows”. “India’s poor harvesting methods associated with inadequate storage and
distribution system contributes significantly to the food wastage, says a report by Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, UK. When it comes to wasting food, along with its impact on natural
resources, India is ahead of China, says the UN report. 40% of all fresh food produced in India
perishes before it can get to customers thus resulting in demand and price hike” (BBC, 2014). As a
general observation in universities/IHEs the food mile and food waste, for and from kitchen facility is
seems to be more (see FWIA, Chapter 6).

John Beddington, British Scientific officer, “warns the world of possible crisis, ‘perfect storm
by 2030, because our food reserves are at about 50-year low, and by 2030 we need to produce 50%
more food, at the same time, we will be also in need of 50% more energy, and 30% more fresh water,
and all of these things are operating on the same time frame’ ” (Beddington, 2013). “The research
communities, now have no excuse, but only have to alert our elected leaders that the time for
climate-smart-agriculture for food production is now, right at the door. Almost all agricultural projects
grew out of the necessity to find alternatives for water shortages and waste water disposal” (FAO,
2013). “Food waste is often the single largest component of municipal solid waste” (Hoornweg and
Bhada-Tata, 2012), “and ranks as the world’s third worst GHG emitter” (FAO, 2013). “Hence,
62
integration of efficient and effective recovery and application approach will pave way for climate-
smart-food production” (World Bank 2010; IFAD, 2012; Scherr et al., 2012; Tahir, 2015). This theme
integrates “sustainable food production and supply using student centered learning and inter
disciplinary learning” (Rojas, 2007) thereby closing the loop with the following three sub themes.

 Compost, vermicompost (bio-pesticide and bio-fertilizer)

 Food and food services
 Climate resilience organic farming

Why Compost?

“All major dining facilities on campus constitutes to the majority of the organic waste stream”
(Sangamithirai et al., 2015). “Compost production is identified as cost effective and resource recovery
option” (Sangamithirai et al., 2015) “for solving this major waste management problem as well as an
environmentally favorable strategy” (Flavel and Murphy, 2006). According to various workers like
USEPA (2013), Taylor (2013); Alicia (2014); Thorne (2014); Beben (2015); Sangamithirai et al.
(2015); Muthu et al. (2012; 2014; 2015) “composting yields many benefits including the reduced need
for chemical fertilizers, water, and pesticides, higher crop yields, revitalization of poor soils,
avoidance of methane and leachate generation in landfills, pollution prevention, and extension of
landfill life”. According to the Droffner and Brinton (1995), Elwell et al. (1996), Garibay and Jyothi
(2003), Muthu et al. (2012; 2015) “the awareness for organic manure is increasing rapidly in
developing world and composting is gaining attention for treating organic food wastes in different
systems”. Sarah Campbell (2007) and Merrow et al. (2012) define food waste as “the preparatory
wastes of the kitchen and the food that remains uneaten by the students”. Several ‘Green Campus’
examples studied earlier (4.1.1), converts food waste into compost/ vermicompost in their campuses.
“Nowadays composting is used to minimize municipal and mixed waste streams, to control odor and
contamination problems” (Sangamithirai et al., 2015; SWMR, 2015); “for its ability to break down
organic chemical contaminants (e.g. hormones, antibiotics)” (CSANR, 2015) and “also for its usage as
nutrients to benefit soil” (Sangamithirai et al., 2015).

“The organic manure content in compost is known to increase the volume of water held at field
capacity at a much greater rate” (Hudson, 1994). The research done at Michigan State University
concludes that, “1 % of organic matter will increase soil’s organic matter content by 10 %” (Gould,
2015). The U.S. Compost Council (2008) has stated that “the frequency and intensity of irrigation will
be reduced because of efficient water use characteristics of compost, for the compost reduces soil
crusting, increases water absorption and penetration into the soil layers contributing to the water table
recharge”. “Recent research suggests that the addition of compost can also facilitate moisture
dispersion laterally from its point of application” (Gould, 2015). “As an already-stabilized material,
compost may be more useful for improving long-term soil quality and nutrient supply than as an
63
immediate source of nutrients for crops” (CSANR, 2015). Compost can be used to increase
agricultural production by improving soil properties, water retention and the supply of essential
nutrients. Hence composting is a promising and economically feasible option in
Universities/IHEs/Schools considering the vast quantum of biodegradable wastes generated and the
hidden potential for campus organic horticulture.

Why Vermicompost?

As the vermicomposting process adds value to waste, and further more reduces the volume of
biodegradable solids and making its application easier, there is a growing interest in vermi-composting
than mere composting. Atiyeh et al. (2000) and Hammermeister et al. (2004) reported that
“vermicompost has higher available N than compost, and also they reported that compost is superior in
ammonium, whereas vermicompost tends to be higher in nitrates, which is the more readily available
form of nitrogen for plants. These studies have revealed that vermicompost is the potential sources of
nutrients for field crops if applied in suitable ratios with / without synthetic fertilizers”. “Also,
vermicompost may contain some plant growth-stimulating substances. The plant-hormone-like
substances extensively reported in worm-processed materials are possibly due to higher microbial
populations” (Krishnamoorthy and Vajranabhaian, 1986; Tomati et al., 1987; Fatahi et al., 2014).
Suthar et al. (2005) reported “a hormone like effect of earthworm body fluid on seedling growth of
some legumes”. “The earlier workers who have reported a positive effect of vermicompost application
on growth and productivity of cereals and legumes” (Benik and Bhebaruah, 2004; Suthar, 2006),
“ornamental and flowering plants” (Nagavallemma et al., 2004; Campbell, 2007), “vegetables”
(Edwards and Burrows, 1988; Atiyeh et al., 2000) etc. Atiyeh et al. (2001) concluded that
“vermicompost, whether used as soil additives or as components of greenhouse bedding plants or as
container media, had showed improved seed germination rate, enhanced seedling growth and
development and increased plant productivity. Vermicomposting is one of the recycling technologies
which will improve the quality of products”. Hence, the present study was undertaken to explore the
potentials for converting the kitchen waste (un-cooked food waste) into value added vermicompost.

Why Food and Food Services?

“According to the FAO’s report on global food losses and food waste, an estimated one-third
of all food produced for human consumption in the world is lost or wasted” (FAO, 2013). “In addition,
by 2050, food production will need to be 60 % higher than in 2005/2007” (Alexandratos and Bruinsma
2012), to meet the anticipated demand of the increasing world population. “Making better use of the
food already available and to help meet future demand in agricultural production” (FAO, 2013)
nutrient recovery for campus food production is recommended. This concept was inspired by many
workers on the issues of sustainability, agriculture and food system, in particular Orr (2004), “who

64
wrote an article on ‘what is education for?’ Campus food system serves as microcosms of the global
food system”, pointed out by Rojas (2007). Action research in this field has initiated a transition
towards the sustainability of the university/ IHE campus (Rojas, 2007).

“Allegheny College’s Food for Sustainability project is carried out to demonstrate the inter
connectedness of living organisms by integrating principles of sustainability into the process of food
production” (Eatmon, 2015). “University of Illinois, The Student Sustainable Farm and The University
of Montana’s Dining Lommasson Garden have the main mission to provide sustainably grown foods
to residence and mess kitchen and also acts as a ‘living laboratory’ to educate students and community
members on regional, small-scale food production. The garden is a working model of sustainable
closed-loop food production systems from saving seeds for spring planting, to composting waste
material into a nutrient-rich soil amendment” (Illinois, 2014; CASE, 2015; UMT, 2015; UWRF, 2015)
“while offering food that are certified as sustainably grown through sustainable food production”
(HFS, 2015).

Why Climate Resilient Organic Farming?

Since Puducherry region is prone to periodical cyclones and heavy seasonal precipitation, the
food production will be severely affected and also the ready to harvest crops will be totally damaged.
Under such conditions there will be short supply in vegetables (hence high market price) for the hostel
kitchen mess. “In the context of emerging climate change challenges, we need to ensure that
agriculture contributes to addressing food security (availability, access, utilization,
stability/sustainability issues), development, livelihoods, health and climate change issues (adaptation
and mitigation)” (McIntyre et al., 2009). “One such innovative approach is climate-smart-agriculture
(CSA), an emerging paradigm” (World Bank 2010; IFAD, 2012; Scherr et al., 2012; Tahir, 2015).
“Examples of some of the key specific strategies of sustainable CSA” (Stabinsky and Ching, 2012)
are: “bio-intensive organic farming” (FAO, 2011), low external input, and agro-ecological and bio-
dynamic production systems” (Altieri, 1995). “While garden-based nutrition-education programs for
youth are gaining in popularity and are viewed by many as a promising strategy for increasing
preferences and improving dietary intake of fruits and vegetables” (O’ Brien and Heim, 2009) we have
tried to emulate such hidden opportunities in the JNV campus by adopting such practices on a pilot
scale to grow vegetables needed for the school kitchen and also as roof top garden at SNGGHS to
create awareness (Chapter 5). Such strategies are also planned for PU campus.

4.1.5.3. Theme III – Energy Management and Sustainable Operations

“Since 1970, worldwide population had grown to 6.97 billion by 2011, increase of about 83%
with the vast majority of that growth occurring in emerging economies (i.e. developing world)”
(Global Financial Data, 2013). “The UN estimates that this growth will continue, reaching a global
65
population of 9.31 billion by 2050 and over 10 billion by 2100” (UNDESAPD, 2011). “Similarly
since 1970, a combination of increased purchasing power and shorter product life cycles have
contributed to about 138% increase in the per capita consumption in developed economies, while
increased earnings and greater access to consumer goods had helped to drive a 231% increase in per
capita consumption in emerging economies” (World Bank, 2013; Drake and Spinler, 2013). It is
therefore not surprising that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated
that “ ‘warming of the climate system is unequivocal’ and that ‘most of the observed increase in global
average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in
anthropogenic [greenhouse gas] concentrations’ ” (IPCC, 2007). “The major root cause for the
widening of energy ‘demand–supply gap’ is mainly because of uncontrolled and inefficient energy
consumption by the ever increasing population. At a local level, the population growth in Puducherry
had increased by 28% during the period 2001-11, much higher than the national decadal growth rate of
17%. With urban population growth at about 31%, it remains the major contributor to the increase in
the annual per capita electricity consumption of 45%” (http://www.indiastat.com). Similarly the
university also had shown a steep rise of 300% growth rate within four years (PU Statistics, 2016).
Hence sustainable operation and management, therefore, potentially has an important role to play in
contributing to solutions for the sustainability challenges that we currently face. “Energy Management
and Sustainable Operations (EMSO) plays a leading role not only in the advancement of country’s
sustainability but also within the portfolio of facilities and operations and throughout the university as
a whole” (Alberta, 2015) “helping to reduce its environmental impact, by supporting the campus
commitment to be a good environmental steward” (Stanford, 2015). Under this theme, we have
identified strategies that are categorized under the following sub themes:

 Energy production (e.g. anaerobic bio-digester, solar campus, Jatropha etc.)

 Energy conservation (e.g. green building, green purchasing, etc.)
 Sustainable transportation (e.g. bio-diesel for vehicles, solar powered vehicles, etc.)

Why Energy Production from Food Waste?

“In recent years ‘Anaerobic Digestion (AD)’ technology has been well established in kitchen
waste management and also for stabilization. Among the cost effective treatment methods, anaerobic
digestion of biodegradable organic wastes is most popular, due to its high energy recovery and low
environmental impact” (Mata-Alvarez, 2000; Vandevivere et al., 2003). “Food wastes (cooked and
uncooked) have potential to recover methane by anaerobic digestion, and many studies have been
carried out worldwide” (Lai et al., 2006), proving that, “thermophilic AD process could increase the
methane recovery rate of biogas yield” (Lai et al., 2006). “AD of assorted organic fraction of
generated solid wastes, especially food/ organic wastes”, (Bolzonella et al., 2005; Bouallagui et al.,
2005; Rao and Singh, 2004) “along with the treatment of wastewater and other organic wastes”

66
(Jantsch and Mattiasson, 2004) “is the easily available attractive alternative and the most cost-effective
technology, for pollution reduction and energy production” (Frankin, 2001 and Kullavanijaya et al.,
2007).

“The organic waste materials that can be used as feed includes vegetation (Kalia et al., 1992),
manure (Cuellar and Webber, 2008), kitchen waste (Hessami et al., 1996), macrophytes (O’Sullivan et
al., 2010) and human waste (www.werkgroepterlinden.be)”. “In the mono digestion or single feed
method, the microorganisms have a tendency to use carbon at rates that are 25 to 30 times higher than
that of nitrogen, hence, the proportions of C to N should be maintained at a ratio of 20-30:1”
(Sreekrishnan et al., 2004). This can be anticipated through a process called co-digestion method,
which provides a more balanced array of nutrients, enabling better digestion with higher gas yields.
“Co-digestion is used to increase methane production from low-yielding feedstocks” (Agstar, 2012)
“by detoxifying the toxic compounds via co-metabolic degradation pathways” (Bond et al., 2012). In
this AD system however, the pathogens present in the food waste will be either killed or reduced to a
negligible amount. In general, published data indicate that “a digestion time of 14 days at 35o C is
effective in killing (99.9% die-off rate) the enteric bacterial pathogens and the enteric group of
viruses” (http://werkgroepterlinden.be; www.usepa.gov); “typhoid, paratyphoid, cholera and dysentery
causing bacteria in one or two weeks” (Muthu et al., 2012; 2015; Sasse, 1988); other enteric pathogens
eliminated after two weeks of digestion (Anupama et al., 2008); “thermophilic digestion reduce 5.07
log for E. coli and 4.0 log for Enterococci” (Banks, 2002); “Salmonella sp. found in the kitchen waste
will be eliminated by the ninth day of digestion whereas, Salmonella typhi sp. even though eliminated
after 12 days of digestion, yet 26 to 30 days are needed for complete elimination” (Kunte et al., 2000;
Anupama et al., 2008; Malakahmad et al., 2009; Muthu et al., 2012).

Why Energy Conservation?

Energy conservation can be done at many levels, for example, “purchasing green products
result in lesser energy footprint; constructing green building or retrofitting old buildings could result in
a long term benefit of saving a lot of energy compared to conventional buildings. At a different level,
the staff and students can be encouraged to unplug unused appliances as most idle appliances continue
to consume energy when switched off and account for up to 5 % of total energy consumption”.
Turning off lights, monitors, replacing desktops with laptops, closing blinds in summer to reduce
radiation heat and in winter to retain heat, using energy efficient lights and other electrical appliances,
solar water heating are some of the measures recommended for the GCI. “However Energy
Conservation is much more than turning off lights and installing energy-efficient equipment. It should
also be comprehensible and be a priority in ‘Facilities Management’. It is a continuous cycle with no
beginning and no end. The energy conservation process should include the four stages such as control,
maintenance, measurement and analysis, and all four play integral roles in reducing the energy bottom
67
line. This process will not only reduce energy consumption and costs but also reduce the University’s
carbon footprint” (Pittsburgh, 2015).

Why Sustainable Transportation?

“Air pollution is the world's biggest environmental problem with New Delhi having one of the
highest levels of all cities around the globe”, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).
According to the recent WHO report, “India has 13 of the 25 most-polluted cities in the world. For
every 100000 people, 155 die in India of chronic respiratory disease, the highest rate in the world. A
separate study concluded that air pollution has reduced India's life expectancy by 3.2 years”. “UNEP is
working closely with the Indian government to promote sustainable mobility, by implementing a
project on ‘Promoting Low Carbon Transport’. ‘This will not only mitigate climate change through
low carbon solutions, but also help to reduce climate risks through building adaptation capacity’, said
UNEP's Naysán Sahba, adding, it could become an example for other developing countries also. At
institutional level, the universities should adopt Low-carbon Comprehensive Mobility Plans (LCMP)
and encourage carpooling, cycling, use of electric vehicles and public transportation at the minimum
to support the nationwide effort” (UNEP, 2015).

4.1.5.4. Theme IV - Communication and Outreach

The Communication and Outreach is the most important theme as this is the only theme that
helps sustain all the efforts fostered in the other themes. The following are the key sub themes
identified for the ICSM.

 community outreach and curriculum

 disaster and risk – preparedness and management
 office of sustainability

Why Community Outreach and Curriculum?

“Graduating students who are interested in international education, cultural exchange, public
relations, and higher education administration” (REP, 2015) can focus on the outreach themes that
have emerged in SHE declarations since the early 1990s and also emphasized by NCERT (2015).
“This includes the ethical and moral responsibility of the university/IHE/school to contribute to: local,
regional and global sustainability; the need for public outreach; universities/IHE/schools to become
models of sustainability in their own communities; encouraging sustainable physical operations;
fostering ecological literacy; development of interdisciplinary curriculum; encouraging research
related to sustainability; forging partnerships with government, non-governmental organizations and
industry; and cooperation amongst other universities/ IHE” (Wright, 2004). “The university/IHE
community should encourage inquiry and support dialogue and activity that focuses on sustainability
and provide solutions for a resource challenged world” (The Princeton Review, 2010) “and these
68
themes and patterns will further the understanding of what universities believe are the key priorities to
becoming sustainable institutions, and what paths universities believe, they should take on the journey
to sustainability” (Wright, 2004). This became more important in the local context, because of the
recent selection of Puducherry (one among the other selected cities) for the smart city project, by the
Government of India.

Why Disaster and Risk – Preparedness and Management?

Since Puducherry is a coastal city that lies in the tropical area, it is prone to cyclone and floods.
In fact in the recent decades such incidence has increased in frequency and magnitude, necessitating
the need for disaster and risk preparedness. “More over Government of India also initiated that every
school should take necessary measures to enhance disaster preparedness of its students and the staff”
(NCERT, 2015; Sharma and Pandya, 2015) and the same is also emphasized in the reviewed foreign
campuses, for instance Allegheny College, USA. According to the Punithavathi et al. (2012), “the
Thane cyclone in 2011 was the severest in the history of Puducherry, apart from this erratic or
untimely monsoon rainfall because of raising temperature may also wash away or otherwise ruin
crops”. “The variations in land temperature have gone up by 2 to 4 %, which will bring more heavy
rains, said Prof. (Emeritus) O.S.R.U. Bhanu Kumar” (Bhattacharjee, 2015). “For instance, regarding
the resent flood in Chennai (Nov-Dec, 2015), the officials at the India Meteorological Department
have said that, ‘the exceptionally strong El Niño, along with a rare “coincidence of various factors”,
has resulted in the heavy rain’ ” (Pereira, 2015). “Prof. S.S.V.S. Ramakrishna stresses that, the
monsoon will become more erratic and will be replaced by category four or five cyclones, with the
climate change” (Bhattacharjee, 2015). Hence, “to develop an effective prevention strategies and
coordinated responses to natural disasters” (Gutmann, 2011), “a cost-effective disaster preparedness is
of paramount importance” (Kahn, 2005) at all levels of institutions.

“The Disaster Management Committee draws up the plans encompassing prevention,

mitigation and preparedness measures, and recommend the government to provide people, the basic
needs for a normal life” (Punithavathi et al., 2012) “requiring a concerted and integrated approach that
will not only improve the natural assets, but will make them better prepared for future disasters”
(Srinivas, 2015). Apart from the various physical and infrastructural measures taken by the
government, the ICSM model recommends a quick and environmentally sound disposal of the debris
and waste, particularly in exploring its eligibility for up-cycling and potential reuse. “Usually,
National Disaster Management Force will be sent to the coastal districts and people living in low-lying
areas have been shifted to safer places” (Punithavathi et al., 2012), along with a variety of other
entities coming together to provide different kinds of aid and services. University/IHE/school should
provide relief and recovery efforts on humanitarian aspects through recovery of environmental assets,
such as water, land, forests and agricultural produce. “Contamination of soil and water was the second

69
key environmental impact next to impact on human either by Tsunami – 2004/ Thane cyclone, 2011/
recent flood, 2015” (Srinivas, 2015), hence remediation and nutrient recycling are recommended in the
ICSM approach.

Why Office of Sustainability?

PU and other university/ IHE/ school essentially requires an Office of Campus Sustainability
that could informs, inspires and engages the faculty, students, staff and also the community in a
voluntary, self-guided initiative that promotes best environmental practices in the campus and the
surrounding environment. The office can coordinate and support initiatives that helps reduce the
campus’s ecological footprint (water, food, energy). It also can regulate the various programs initiated
under the ICSM themes. The Office of Sustainability can help to:

 engage the campus community in activities that will strengthen the campus position as a leader
 foster experiential education and further integrate sustainability into the campus culture
 facilitate programs and initiatives related to campus environmental sustainability
 educate participants and visitors about how and why to take such initiatives
 undertake environment related site visits to educate students on various options available for a
more sustainable way of living

70
 CHAPTER 5

5 PILOT SCALE IMPLEMENTATION OF ICSM

Pilot scale at JNV Empirical

Chapter 5 (Integrated approach) WUIA
study

FWIA

Pilot scale at SNGGHS Microclimate study

Empirical
(Fragmented approach) study
Biogas production

Compost production

WUIA

FWIA

NCSC as indicator for

attitude change and
motivation (JNV and
SNGGHS)

71
 Several workers as early as 2004 have indicated the barriers for adopting green campus
strategies at IHEs. For instance, Jerman et al. (2004) pointed out “that the implementation of
sustainability initiatives for green campus will be problematic at large state universities/IHEs where
funding tends to be low in comparison to the goals of the institution”, while Edelstein (2004) noted
that “there is no motivation for decision makers and administrators to accept paradigm shifts:
‘they tend to be comfortable in their positions, and conservatism allows for continued funding and
staffing’ ”. “However, that trend has changed since then, as the concepts of sustainability and green
campus has been generally accepted as a broad new concept and a fashion trend” (Leal, 2011b). This
is largely true for the Western countries, while the developing countries lag behind. “Whereas, the
existing environmental status in schools with respect of water, air, land, energy and waste are currently
audited in various parts of the world” (Jerath et al., 2011), with fewer studies coming up in India. As
discussed in the review part in Chapter 2, various initiatives have been taken in India, among them,
“ ‘Green Schools Program Manual’ developed by the Center for Science and Environment” (CSE,
2009) and “a resource book ‘Towards a Green School on Education for Sustainable Development for
Elementary Schools’, developed by the National Council of Educational Research and Training
(NCERT)” (Sharma and Pandya, 2015) are mile stones in the advancement of sustainability at school
levels in India, both of them covering most of the components suggested in ICSM.

As part of this study, outreach projects were initiated in two high school campuses to test the
ICSM model at a pilot scale before implementing it full-fledged in PU. This chapter discusses the pilot
scale implementation of ICSM at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (JNV), a residential central school and
Savarayalu Nayagar Government Girls High School (SNGGHS), a non-residential State Govt. School
in Puducherry, India. The ICSM at JNV was implemented within 100 working days and tested with an
integrated approach. The National Children Science Congress (NCSC) that is organized every year by
the Government of India is used as a motivational tool and also as an indicator to measure the progress
of GCI. After the implementation of the ICSM at JNV, there was a steep rise in the number of student
participation in science projects and competitions organized at state, national and international level.
Apart from the NCSC competition, JNV also bagged several national awards including the
“Sustainability Campus Challenge Award” for the year 2013 and the “Change Maker” for the year
2014. ICSM at SNGGHS, instead of an integrated approach, a fragmented or non-integrated approach
was emphasized, because of the time constraint identified in that school for extracurricular activities.
The same NCSC competition is used as a motivational tool to strengthen the GCI.

5.1. Why Sustainability Projects Need to be Small?

“Some researchers criticized that, the small sustainability projects will lack a systemic focus”
(Creighton, 1998; Weenen, 2000; Shriberg, 2002b; Thompson and Green, 2005; Henson et al., 2007),
but others such as Clugston (2000), Sharp (2002), Mason et al. (2003) and Wilkie et al. (2015) pointed
72
out that, “the small projects have validity and in most cases they help focus and act as the idea of
‘picking the low hanging fruit’ ”. In many instances, these small projects are the only ones that prove
to be manageable for University/IHEs/schools and may demonstrate that change toward sustainability
is possible. “Apart from this many people believe that being environmentally responsible is ‘as
laudable as it may be and also will be expensive’, and this myth must be dispelled if real progress
towards campus sustainability is to be made possible” (Chernushenko, 1996). Moreover, “small
projects also resulted in the improvements of sustainability and many times in cost savings” as
indicated by Gladwin et al. (1995) and Breyman (2000). Leal (2000) and Finlay (2010) also supported
this view, “by highlighting that, when the resource management is undertaken to promote conservation
and efficiency, as a suitable and encouraging starting point for the greening process, it will be
relatively easy to implement and earn financial payback”. Even though nothing will happen quickly, as
precisely stated by Bowers (1997) “changes don’t have to happen all at once”, yet, “the
implementation of sustainability initiatives will definitely uncover the presence of ‘good practices’ ”
(Birnbaum, 1988; Cummings, 2009). “Many scholars also believe that deep cultural changes are a key
component in moving toward campus sustainability” (Shriberg, 2002b). Hence, components/ ideas
having a strong cultural base from various parts of the world (for example: Indore method of
composting from India, Colorado method of Xeriscape, etc.) were selected and implemented as small
testable projects at JNV and SNGGHS and also proposed for PU (Chapter 6).

5.2. Why School Students?

In big universities/IHEs like ours, initial funding comes as priority and moreover as Leal
(2011b) reported, “the committees and faculties have a general misconception that campus
sustainability efforts are not a subject per se, too theoretical, too broad, too recent a field of science
and is just fashionable”. To overcome this barrier, the green campus initiative is implemented in the
present study on a pilot scale as a student centered approach in school to start with. The lessons
learned provided a platform for scaling up in PU. The sustainable development can be truly achieved
only “when many educational institutions have established the green campus” (Isiaka and Siong,
2008) or “by promoting its implementation” (Ryan et al., 2010) or “by making sustainability a priority
in the campus planning and development” (Alfieri et al., 2009). “This is because there are many
benefits that can be achieved through the development of a sustainable campus” (Alfieri et al., 2009)
“when there is a balance in the three aspects ‘economical, social and environmental’ ” (Norton et al.,
2007; Isiaka and Siong, 2008).

The heart of ICSM is resource recycling, precisely “up-cycling” and the pilot project sites
identified are JNV and SNGGHS, which are public schools (representing students from middle/ below
middle income and lower income groups) falling under the jurisdiction of the central and state school
boards respectively and both the schools provide food for the students (three meals a day for the

73
former and only mid-day meals for the later). Hence, a critical review of food waste reduction and
recycling programs through on-campus awareness campaign organized by the students and for the
students in the selected schools is called for. Firstly, “unified educational campaign is required not
only to reduce liquid and solid food waste at a campus level but also as a coordinated food waste
recycling program with an aim to improve the cost effectiveness” (Wilkie et al., 2015). Secondly,
“educational environmental campaigns when incorporated into the existing curricula is expected to
minimize food waste, to divert this food waste from landfills, and to transform this waste resource into
energy and soil amendments through anaerobic digestion and composting. Moreover this will offer a
unique educational opportunity in resource conservation, environmental stewardship, and
sustainability that are most critical for our future citizens, especially for the evolving leaders among
them” (Wals and Jickling, 2002; Wilkie et al., 2015). Thirdly, “as several workers around the world
had confirmed that, the students have a dual role to play: as students within the campus and as
communities outside the campus, such educational environmental campaigns will have even greater
impacts, as these students, becoming aware of food waste and learning resource recycling techniques
to reduce or recycle food waste, take these lessons to home and influence their parents to reduce their
household food waste and the studies also revealed that majority of participants considered recycling
as an acceptable method” (Sharp, 2002; Desa et al., 2012; Istead and Shapiro, 2014; Wilkie et al.,
2015; http://agcchicago.org).

5.3. Data Analysis

“Statistical analysis of data derived from the questionnaires through formal and informal
interviews with key stakeholders was done to establish themes, patterns, categories and to examine
and judge the effectiveness of the project. By combining ‘multiple theories and mixed-methods’, the
green campus initiatives were found to better able to overcome the weaknesses and intrinsic biases
inherent from a single method, single-theory study” (Patton, 1990; Finlay, 2010). Descriptive statistics
was used for analyzing and consolidation of data, which provided not only an explanation of the key
variables of the research, but also allowed further analyses and presented as illustrative Figures and
Charts. Frequency distributions were converted to percentages and were used in order to provide a
standardized comparison between and among the categories. The interpretation of data thus obtained
highlighted the current and emerging trends and patterns within student understanding and
commitment to campus sustainability. All data sets obtained from the empirical studies were subjected
to one way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Statistical significance was determined using Tukey-
Kramer minimum significant difference. Significance levels were compared at p < 0.05.

5.4. Pilot Project Site 1 (JNV)

JNV is a fully residential co-educational institution established in the year 1986 – 1987 under
Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Government of India, with a total strength of
74
495 students as on 2015. The project is also a part of the “Green Campus Initiative Co-operative
Movement” (GCICM) originally founded by the researcher(s) and initiated by the NGO, Association
for Promoting Sustainability in Campuses and Communities (APSCC), an organization committed to
promote sustainability in every area among the educational institutions and local communities (Muthu
et al., 2015; APSCC, 2016). The stared categories in Figure 5.1 shows the integrated components of
ICSM implemented at JNV.

Figure 5.1 The components of ICSM implemented with integrated approach at JNV

Among the twelve recommended components of ICSM, ten components (excluding curriculum
and transportation which are not related directly with the campus) were identified based on a need
based approach and were implemented within 100 working days with a specific action research
methodology covering quantitative and qualitative analysis, and providing recommendations based on
the outcome for policy planning and community outreach. The locations of the 10 components are
highlighted in Figure 5.2. APSCC has a vision that “every school, college, and university in the region
should stand up and be counted now on the issue of campus sustainability and climate change by
75
developing plans to reduce and eventually eliminate or offset the emission of heat-trapping gases by
the year 2020 as suggested by several earlier workers” (Orr, 2000; Shriberg, 2002b; Muthu et al.,
2015).

Constructed Wetland

Integrated Xeriscape

Anaerobic Biodigester

Windrow Composting

Hügelkultur

Biofertilizer&Biopesticide

Organic Green house

Women in Farming

JCL and Pollution

Control
Office of Sustainability

Figure 5.2. Google map showing the location of the ten components of GCI at JNV, 2013

5.4.1. Theme I - Sustainable Management of Water Resources

“The Puducherry region is under severe water scarcity since the annual per capita water
availability is roughly around 200 cum per person per year” (Reddy, 1999; Muthu et al., 2011, 2012;
Edwin and Poyyamoli, 2012; CSE, 2013; Golda, 2015; Puducherry Hydrology Project II, 2007). The
Government of India and Government of Puducherry are keen to ensure that the best use of all forms
of water is made to protect public health and also to encourage development in a sustainable manner.
“Waste water can no longer be considered as a ‘waste’ product to be discarded, but, it should be
considered as a ‘resource’ having potential value if used in a ‘fit for purpose’ manner, for a variety of
agricultural/ horticultural end uses. More importantly if we reuse waste water, we can conserve high
quality water for drinking purposes and for other specialized high value end uses. Efficient wastewater
treatment and reuse is critical for sustainable development” (Edwin and Poyyamoli, 2012) and “using
constructed wetlands can be an affordable treatment option” (NEERI, 2009; Paulson, 2013; Kumar,
2013; Golda, 2015). Under this theme, following water use inventory analysis, constructed wetland for
water resource management; xeriscape and hügelkultur for soil based water conservation (established);
hydroponics for water based water conservation (under progress) are the major components
implemented which will be discussed in the following pages.
76
Water Use Inventory Analysis (WUIA) at JNV

JNV relies fully on the ground water under its own pumping and distribution system, governed
by the JNV management. JNV has two bore wells one within the campus and the other outside the
campus adjacent to PU campus. The bore well depth, the level of the pump, motor capacity,
operational condition, water pumping (duration) and distribution are shown in the Table 5.1. The
timings to operate the bore pump were fixed by the JNV management (i.e. during break, dining hours,
recreation hours and alike) to prevent shortage and distribution loss. On an average 4 hours 45 minutes
is the total running hours per day apart from special days (functions, alumni meet, etc.). The bore well
1 supports all the activities while bore well 2 is used only during emergency condition. Severe water
shortage was observed during the months of February – July, 2014 and March – June, 2015, reported
from bore well 1, which led to further deepening of the bore well. During this period the bore well 2
which was located outside the campus was used. Apart from this two other bore wells also exist within
the campus which was used before for the same purpose. By 2004-05, due to ground water pollution
by the surrounding industries these two bore wells were shut down as it was considered unfit for
human consumption (source – Office of the Principal). Severe water related issues are anticipated in
the future, since Puducherry falls under water scarce region. To further and deepen our knowledge in
this regard and to provide recommendation to the Government, we developed this water use inventory
analysis (WUIA) with different (site specific) methodological steps (Annexure B) and structured
format (Annexure C). Initially the WUIA is done for residential sectors classified under different
zones (Figure 5.3). Figure 5.4 provides an ariel view of the sectors and zones for WUIA at JNV.

The average consumption recommended by Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), is 200 liters per
capita per day (lpcpd) (for brushing, bathing, hand washing, toilet, urinal, cloth washing, room
cleaning, vegetable and cooking raw material washing, cooking, cooking vessel washing, hand
washing, plate washing, kitchen cloth washing, kitchen and house cleaning, car and vehicle washing,
gardening, terrace and veranda washing, leaks, etc.) for quarters residents (under high income life
style); 135 lpcpd (for brushing, bathing, hand washing, toilet, urinal, cloth washing, room cleaning,
gardening, leaks, etc.) for hostel students and 70 lpcpd (for vegetable and cooking raw material
washing, cooking, cooking vessel washing, hand washing, plate washing, toilet/ urinal attached to
hostel kitchen, kitchen cloth washing, kitchen and dining hall washing, waste bin washing, leaks, etc.)
for mess is considered and extrapolated for the total number of students staying in that hostel and also
the same is accorded for other hostels as suggested by several workers (BIS, 2010; WHO, 2003;
Howard and Bartram, 2003). Stratified random sampling was done for the 42 staff quarters and
approximately 4 persons per house are considered, assuming 4 persons as minimum for consideration.
Attendance based sampling is done for students, distributed in two separate zones as boys hostel zone
and girls hostel zone. Boys are grouped under Aravalli, Nilgiri, Shivalik houses, falling under two
major categories senior and junior occupied in old and new dormitories, respectively. Similarly the
77
girls are grouped under Aravalli, Nilgiri, Shivalik, Udayagiri houses, under two major categories as
senior and junior. However currently due to more intake of girl students, there is no demarcation of
senior or junior, rather accommodation is provided as one group spread in both the girls dormitory
(new and old).
Table 5.1. Location of main bore wells and their water supply for the entire JNV campus
(Source: Office of the Principal, JNV)

06.15 am – 07.00 am
05.00 am – 05.30 am

01.30 pm – 02.45 pm

05.30 pm – 06.15 pm

08.30 pm – 09.30 pm
09.00 am – 09.30 am
Bore Pump
Sl.
Type Location Depth Depth HP Status Supply Speed
No
(m) (m)

Behind girls 30 45 30 75 45 60
Bore dining hall 166 107 Opera min min min min min min
1 15 Main High
well (within the m m tional
campus) Total running hours per day
4 hours 45 minutes

30 45 30 75 45 60
Behind Opera min min min min min min
Pondicherry tional
Bore 49 49
2 University 15 (emer Main High Total running hours per day
well m m
(outside the gency (only during the malfunctioning of the bore
campus) only) well No.1 )
4 hours 45 minutes

Note: Over Head Tank Capacity 100000 l (With underground sump capacity of 50000 l) and services to
entire campus

Water Use Inventory Analysis (WUIA) at JNV

Residential Sectors Service Sectors

Quarters Boys Hostel Girls Hostel Common Mess

Zone Zone Zone Zone

Old (A)
Old (A) Senior and
Principal (1) Senior junior Boys Dining Hall
9th-12th 6th-12th
(Mixed)
Type III (28) Girls Dining Hall
New (B) New (B)
Type II (1) Junior Senior and
6th-8th junior
6th-12th
Type I (12) (Mixed)

Figure 5.3. Schematic representation of the sectors for water use inventory analysis at JNV
78
 Girls Hostel Zone

Kitchen (Mess) Facility

Staff Quarters Zone

Boys Hostel Zone

Figure 5.4. A google map showing an ariel view of the sectors and zones for WUIA at JNV

The quantum of water consumed at the Boys and Girls hostels (brushing, bathing, hand
washing, toilet, urinal, cloth washing, room cleaning, gardening, sanitation, leaks and alike) amounts
to 65475 lpd (Table 5.2). The kitchen consume 37240 lpd (@70 lpcpd) (vegetable and cooking raw
material washing, cooking, cooking vessel washing, hand washing, plate washing, toilet, urinal,

Table 5.2. Quantum of water consumed at the Boys and Girls hostels
(Source: From JNV Office - 2015 and through key informant)
Tank Total
Total No. of water
Valve Tank No. of No. of No. of
Hostel volume Bathroo consumed
Nos. Volume occupants Toilets Urinals
Yes No
(l) ms @ 135
lpcpd
Boys Hostel A 4 ✓ - 2000 8000 200 24 0 24 27000
Boys Hostel B 1 ✓ - 2000 2000 48 6 6 6 6480
Girls Hostel A 4 ✓ - 2000 8000 147 32 0 32 19845
Girls Hostel B 1 ✓ - 2000 2000 90 12 6 12 12150
Total 10 8000 20000 485 74 12 74 65475

kitchen cloth washing, kitchen and dining hall washing, waste bin washing, gardening, leaks, etc)
considering the total as around 532 persons on a daily basis including 485 students, 28 faculties, 11
non-teaching staff and 8 kitchen staff. The staff quarters consume 33600 lpd (brushing, bathing, hand
washing, toilet, urinal, cloth washing, room cleaning, vegetable and cooking raw material washing,
cooking, cooking vessel washing, hand washing, plate washing, kitchen cloth washing, kitchen and
house cleaning, car and vehicle washing, gardening, terrace and veranda washing, leaks and alike)
considering an average of 200 lpcpd. The overall water consumption at JNV for residential purpose
stands at 99075 lpd, whereas for kitchen mess as 37240 lpd (37.6%).

79
Constructed Wetland: “A constructed wetland (CW) is basically a bio-filtration system which
mimics the natural pond/lake ecosystems, capable of removing a considerable amount of physio-
chemical and biological pollutants from waste water” (Brix, 1994). “Horizontal sub surface flow/
vertical flow/ hybrid constructed wetland treatment systems serve as a sustainable solution for waste
water treatment and reclamation due to their salient features of less maintenance, less space
requirement and high efficiency” (NEERI, 2009; Poyyamoli et al., 2013; Edwin et al., 2015; Golda,
2015). This will promote a healthier ecosystem and more importantly it destroys pathogens/ bacteria,
and non-biodegradable toxins as reported by the earlier workers. The waste water from girl’s
dormitory at JNV is economically and efficiently treated and reused to not only enhance the landscape
quality and local ecology but also to serve as a living laboratory for the students and faculty.

Plate 5.1.(A) Conversion of the barren land into a (B) constructed treatment wetland
Through a collaborative approach, the students provided volunteered support to build and
establish the system. “Native macrophytes such as Arundo donax and Typha latifolia species were
used in the treatment wetland (Plate 5.1)” (Edwin et al., 2015; Golda, 2015).

The grey water (GW) from the washing area is stored in a two layered settling tank to
eliminate most of the suspended solids through settling process, and then fed to the CWs through
gravity. The effluent is collected to a compartmentalized storage tanks where free floating
macrophytes (Eichornia crassipes and Azolla pinnata) are placed. This is to provide an aesthetic
appeal as well as to ensure further polishing of the treated greywater before using it for landscaping
and gardening purposes. Laundry water reclamation and reuse is an easy alternate source of non-
potable water that directly reduces the sewage flow rates and indirectly reduces the cost of treating
sewage at a centralized facility. Besides the water saving advantages these systems offer, they also
close the water and nutrient cycles within the campus itself. Results from the first three months (April-
June, 2013) of operation showed that the ability of the system to remove BOD, COD, TSS and
coliform from influent greywater was much higher (67-80%) than that for the nutrients (25-40%).
80
Based on the observation of a working model, it may be concluded that around 30-40 percent of the
fresh water requirement at the JVN campus could be reduced by utilizing a small scale Constructed
Wetland System to treat and reuse greywater.

Xeriscape: “Xeriscape is a landscape method that is irrigated with reclaimed water, which reduces or
eliminates the need for potable water” (Clerico, 2007), “originated in Colorado and eventually the idea
spread throughout the world as water efficient landscape design” (Hilaire et al., 2008). Theoretically,
“the xeriscape activity reduces the consumption of ground water by 100%; facilitate moisture
retention/ water holding capacity; reduces the need for fresh water; the organic inputs (from Theme
III) eliminates the need for synthetic alternatives by restoring the top soil; enhance soil beneficial
micro flora and fauna; conserve campus biodiversity and restores habitat; attract butterflies, honey
bees, migrants and native species; sequesters carbon and mitigate climate change” (UNEP, 2013;
Muthu et al., 2015).

Plate 5.2. Motivated students and volunteers contributing plants for integrated xeriscape as a
cooperative movement

Plate 5.3. Site 3–Restored area (A) By March, 2013 and (B) By August, 2014

The students were informed about the importance of such green technologies and the motivated
students and volunteers contributed plants for integrated xeriscape as a cooperative movement (Plate
5.2). The waste land adjacent to the girl’s dormitory was converted into integrated xeriscape project
81
site, and the site by inception and after 18 months is shown above (Plate 5.3 A and B) and the
empirical study follows.

Empirical Study on Microclimate Variation at JNV (Theme I).

“India being geographically disconnected over time and space have different seasons of the
year, categorized as winter (Jan to Feb), pre-monsoon (Mar, Apr, May), monsoon (June, July, Aug,
Sept) and post-monsoon (Oct, Nov, Dec)”, according to India Meteorological Department (IMD)
(IMDPUNE, 2014). “There is an observed increase of the mean annual temperature in Puducherry by
+ 0.53o C during 2014, which seems to be above the 1961-1990 average, by making 2014 as the fifth
warmest year on record since nation-wide records commenced in 1901” (IMDPUNE, 2014). An
empirical study was conducted in 2014 to assess the impacts of xeriscape activity in establishing
microclimatic conditions that favors reduction in the ambient temperature. “Vegetation modify the
climate near the ground and resent work has shown that climate differences between different habitats
can be on the same scale or larger” (Suggitt et al., 2011) “with a strong influence from canopy cover”
(Ashcroft and Gollan, 2012) and “leaf area index” (Hardwick et al., 2015). “However, a full
understanding of the relationship between vegetation and microclimate is currently lacking, and
usually variability in climate on the micro-scale is driven by topography and vegetation cover”
(Hardwick et al., 2015).

To study this empirically, three sample sites (Plate 5.4 A, B and C) within the campus were
identified to measure the temperature variance under different microclimate. This includes a barren
site 1 (A) with no vegetative cover, moderate site 2 (B) with vegetative cover less than 50% and a
restored site 3 (C) with 80 – 90% vegetation, integrated with organic soil amendments, xeriscape and
water bodies (treatment wetland system). Two sample months (August and September) during
monsoon and one sample month (October) during post monsoon were selected. With the help of a
thermometer, the temperature at the selected sites is recorded at specified times (9.30 am, 1.30 pm and
4.30 pm) for the three sampling months. Figure 5.5 shows the maximum and minimum average
temperature in the three sampling sites. Figure 5.6 A, B and C shows the temperature variation among
barren land (A), weather station park (B) and restored area (C). The results indicate a significant
difference in the temperature between barren land with weather station park and restored area (p<0.05).

In the discussion below the sampling site sequence will be from barren land, weather station
park and restored area. The mean temperature observed in the sample sites during the month of August
was 33.27o C, 31.28o C and 30.27o C, whereas for the month of September it was 33.91o C, 32.13o C
and 30.53o C and for the month of October was 31.33o C, 29.63o C and 28.25o C respectively with
the standard error of 0.14. The sample variance for the three sample sites A, B and C for the month
of August is 1.44; 1.42; 1.44 and 2.09; 2.03; 2.09 respectively with a minimum and maximum
level of temperature decrease observed as 30-27o C and 36-33o C in the sample sites A, B and C.
82
Whereas for the month of September it was 2.09; 2.19; 2.29 and 4.35; 4.79; 5.36 respectively with a
minimum and maximum level of temperature decrease observed as 28-25o C and 37-35o C in the
sample site A, B and C respectively. Finally for the post monsoon month of October it was 4.04; 3.79;
3.50 and 16.33; 14.38; 12.28 respectively with a minimum and maximum level of temperature
decrease observed as 25-22o C and 40-35o C in the sample site A, B and C respectively, with the
Confidence Level of 95.0% in all the sample sites during the three sampling months.

Plate 5.4. (A) Site 1 – Barren land Plate 5.4. (B) Site 2 –Weather station park

Plate 5.4. (C) Site 3 –Restored area

41 25.5
40 25
39 24.5
Temperature (C)

Temperature (C)

38 24
37 23.5
36 23
35 22.5
34 22
21.5
33
21
32
20.5
Max of Barren land Max of Weather Max of Restored
Min of Barren land Min of Weather Min of Restored
(1) park (2) area (3)
Site (1) park (2) area (3)
Site

Figure 5.5. (A) Maximum and (B) Minimum average temperature recorded in the sampling sites
83
 Figure 5.6. (A, B and C) Temperature variation among Barren land, Weather station park and
Restored area

Since the national annual mean temperature during the year 2014 was +0.53o C warmer,
maximum temperature of 36o C; 34o C; 33o C and 37o C; 36o C; 35o C was observed during the
monsoon months of August and September respectively. According to IMD, the mean temperature for
the monsoon season (i.e. Jun-Sep) was highest since 1901, (with anomaly +0.77o C above average),

84
thus making it the warmest monsoon season with August (+0.70o C) as second warmest. Whereas
40o C; 39o C; 35o C was observed for the post monsoon month October. “According to IMD warmer
temperature is also observed during the post monsoon season (i.e. Oct-Dec, +0.53oC) mainly
contributing to the warmer annual temperature” (IMDPUNE, 2014), even in our observation post
monsoon month (October) showed a considerable increase to about 40o C among all the sample sites.

“Around half of Puducherry’s increase in temperature corresponds to the increase in the

average global temperature, while the other half could be related to rapid urbanization, buildings and
transport collectively providing ‘urban heat island effect’ as suggested for other places by several
workers” (Dwivedi et al., 2015; More et al., 2015; Santamouris et al., 2015). According to Srinidhi,
program manager, climate change, CSE: “urban heat island effects can make ambient temperatures
rise by 3o C to 4o C more than what they are” (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com). “The variation in
land temperature have gone up by 2 to 4 %, which will bring more heavy rains, said Prof. (Emeritus)
O.S.R.U. Bhanu Kumar, whereas Prof. S.S.V.S. Ramakrishna stresses, the monsoon will become more
erratic and will be replaced by category four or five cyclones, with the increasing climate change”
(Bhattacharjee, 2015). Since, “developing an efficient and cost-effective prevention strategies is of
paramount importance” as suggested by Kahn (2005) and Gutmann (2011), this integrated xeriscape
activity proves to be better suited especially for low income countries to provide regional/global
benefit by acting locally within a campus.

This empirical study concludes that, the warmer post monsoon month (October) exhibited a
significant decrease (p < 0.05) in maximum level of ambient temperature between the barren and the
restored site. It was observed that the decrease in the maximum levels of ambient temperature from
40o C (control site-1) to 35o C (restored site-3) and minimum levels of ambient temperature from
25o C (control site-1) to 22o C (restored site-3) “is because of the considerable contribution from the
canopy” (Ashcroft and Gollan, 2012), “densely established tree” (NBRIENVIS, 2015), “leaf area
index” (Bonan, 2008), “water retention, soil biodiversity restored by compost/vermicompost and
wind” (Hardwick et al., 2015). “Microclimate also influences a wide range of important ecological
processes, such as plant growth and soil nutrient cycling” (Bonan, 2008; Hardwick et al., 2015). This
empirical study confirms that “integrated xeriscape with treatment wetland will not only conserve
water but also restores biodiversity and establishes a micro climate by keeping the air and soil beneath
the canopy cool during the day” (Bonan, 2008; Hardwick et al., 2015) “thereby reducing the ambient
temperature and improving air quality” (NBRIENVIS, 2015). “Human modification of land use
change within the campus will result in a change in climate, and this is an area that needs further
experimental studies” as reported by Hardwick et al. (2015). Such an initiative “when embraced by a
cluster of green campuses in the region will yield better results contributing to National Action Plan on
Climate Change (NAPCC) (NAPCC-INDIA, 2015) and Puducherry Climate Change Action Plan
(PCCAP)” (NAPCC-PDY, 2015).
85
5.4.2. Theme II – Energy Management and Sustainable Operations

Anaerobic Digestion: “Anaerobic digestion (AD) of sorted organic fraction of generated solid
wastes, especially food wastes is the utmost attractive alternative and the most cost-effective
technology too” (Rao and Singh, 2004; Bolzonella et al., 2005, Bouallagui et al., 2005). “In the mono
digestion or single feed method, the microorganisms have a tendency to use carbon at rates that are
25 to 30 times higher than that of nitrogen, hence, the proportions of C to N should be maintained at a
ratio of 20-30:1” (Sreekrishnan et al., 2004). “This can be attained through a process called co-
digestion method, which provides a more balanced array of nutrients, enabling better digestion and
providing higher gas yields from low-yielding or difficult to digest materials” (Agstar, 2012).
“Moreover co-digestion of various organic feedstocks may enhance the biogas and methane
production by detoxifying the toxic compounds via co-metabolic degradation pathways” (Bond et al.,
2012; Cesaro and Belgiorno, 2015; Menardo et al., 2015).

An empirical study for biogas production using anaerobic digestion method was carried out at
JNV. As part of the methodology, a suitable site was selected for the installation of the biogas plant. A
kitchen waste audit was conducted by the team members to assess the composition and quantity of the
wastes and the feasibility to run the plant. Following this, the AD was installed under the guidance of
the researchers and with the help of school students. The centralized kitchen, located at the rear end of
the campus, was selected as a sampling site for this empirical study. This kitchen provide catering
services to students and staff (teaching, non-teaching and kitchen staff) and the menu plan was decided
by the mess committee and purchasing of raw materials for cooking is done as per government norms,
through public and private vendors. Two servings of coffee/tea (morning and evening), breakfast,
lunch, evening snacks and dinner were self-served to the campus dwellers from this facility, through
two separate dining halls (boys and girls).

A food waste inventory analysis (FWIA) with different (site specific) methodological steps
(Annexure E) and structured questionnaire and format (Annexure F and G) “was performed to act like
a baseline so as to reduce the environmental impacts of the operations and foster a more sustainable
future for the campus” (Cortese, 1999; Shriberg, 2002b). “Even though various approaches are
available, direct waste analyses or waste characterization studies through audit, offer the most
effective process for examining the various types of wastes generated” (Thompson and Wilson, 1994;
Thompson and van Bakel, 1995; Pop et al., 2015; Götze et al., 2016).

“All the food waste generated in the activity area over two 7-day waste audit period” as
suggested by Smyth et al. (2010) “was investigated and the sampling was done by using the back end
approach by the audit team comprising of the volunteering students” as recommended by the school
administrator (2012-15), CCME (1996) and Dowie et al. (1998). “As advised by the research team the
facility manager with the help of kitchen staff have segregated the samples and kept aside in the

86
primary collection point for analysis” as recommended by Smyth et al. (2010). From the primary
collection point, the bags were separated to activity area and by considering the date collected and
contents within each sample, the team characterized and quantified the sample (Plate 5.5 and Plate 5.6).

Plate 5.5. (A) Informal interview by team members (JNV) and (B) Team members scoping before
audit (JNV)

Plate 5.6. Auditing with awareness at JNV (A) Wet waste and (B) Dry waste

“Auditing by the team members took place immediately, with the help of a 50 kg digital fish
scale with graduation d=10gm (accuracy ±0.05 kg). The plastics and other non-food disposal material
such as milk packet, carry bags, sauce bottles, etc. present along with the pre-cooked waste were hand-
sorted by the student team and faculty volunteer, in the activity area (Plate 5.6). The samples were
analyzed in detail before the condition of samples was compromised” (Smyth et al., 2010). The wastes
were specifically sorted and weighed according to 13 primary categories (variables) under 2 secondary
categories (Table 5.3). Completed waste audit data forms were checked for errors and placed into
standard spreadsheet data files. The wet-weight based percentage composition for each primary and
secondary category was calculated. Subsequent analyses were performed by the team leader which
included computing and analyzing the mean waste composition of the sample in the JNV campus.

87
 The mean average weight (Standard Deviation) of food waste generated from the JNV school
mess facility in the present study was 0.117 (0.052) kg student−1day−1 (Table 5.3). These
measurements are significantly lower than school food waste generation values estimated by CDEEP
(2012) and Griffin et al. (2009) “that ranged from 0.159 to 0.227 kg student−1day−1 respectively”, “but
are higher than the level of 0.056 kg student−1day−1” (MPCA, 2010) and “0.052 kg student−1day−1” as
reported by Wilkie et al. (2015).

Table 5.3. Average kitchen food waste generated (kg/per person per day) at JNV centralized kitchen

Kitchen facility for

Type of waste Variables Girls, Boys, Staff
(Kg) Mean (SD)
For Energy
Vegetable (Trimmings) 15 (1.2)
RecoveryFruit peel * (Banana) 8(1.5)
Precooked waste

(Biogas)**** Total 23
Egg shells** 1.5(0.03)
Citrus waste (Lemon) 0.75(0.04)
For Nutrient Coconut shell 1(0.01)
Recovery (Compost) Fibrous waste (Drum stick) Rarely
Meat waste -
Total 3.25
Table waste *** 25(3.5)
Post cooked waste

For Energy Excess food 10(1.1)

Recovery (Biogas) Spoiled food -
Total 35
For Nutrient Meat bone 0.5(0.005)
Recovery (Compost) Tea dust 0.6(0.002)
Coffee powder -
Total 1.1
Total Food Waste generated per person per day 0.117 kg
Total Waste per day for Energy Recovery 35 kg
Total Waste per day for Nutrient Recovery 27.35 kg
Total food waste generated per day 62.35 kg

Note: * Selective - Morris species only (approximately on an average 0.050 kg/ peel ); **egg shell
(approximately 0.010kg) *** Spilled and Plate waste; **** Included for nutrient recovery rather than
energy recovery

Anaerobic Digester and its Feasibility: An anaerobic digester was installed within the school
premise using small-scale digesters operated through partnerships with anaerobic technology provider
(local NGO, APSCC) and jointly operated with the help of the school administration. “Biogas, thus
generated from the anaerobic digester is used for cooking in the kitchen, offsetting fossil fuel use”
(Wilkie et al., 2015). “ ‘ABCD- Hybrid Bio-methanation plant’ (Anaerobic-antirotatory Bio-baffled
Co-coupled Double-digester) having the capacity of 7 m3, jointly developed by the researcher, APSCC
and M/s Gazing Glory, Puducherry, India, was installed and maintained fully with the help of students
along with the researcher (Plate 5.7). The ABCD anaerobic digester has multiple components to
overcome the associated operational issues such as acidification, inefficient biogas production,
88
choking, etc.” (Muthu et al., 2014). Each component has a specific role to hold and transfer the
biodegradable feed (food waste) to the next stage. “The following are the components associated with
this plant and installed fully by the students (Muthu et al., 2014):

 front end treatment reactor (FETR)

 feed holding hydrolysis reactor (FHHR)
 the phase separated anaerobic double digester (PSADD)
- mesophilic
- thermophilic
 inbuilt mechanical reciprocating device (MRD)
 anti-rotary floating gas holding reactor (ARFGHR)
 coupled spent slurry inoculator (CSSI)
 rear end spent slurry junction reactor (RESSJR)”

Plate 5.7. Biogas installation by the students of JNV

“Since then the biogas produced by this plant substituted approximately 6 cylinders per month
with the potential reduction in petroleum gas by 10.34 %. The other environmental benefits of this
initiative includes elimination of pathogenic loads by 90 %; prevention of cross contamination during
monsoon; sustainable management of spent slurry resulting in bio-fertilizer production” as suggested
by various workers and Muthu et al. (2015). “More importantly, a sum of INR 7864/- per month was
saved on the cooking gas and the spent slurry further replaced INR 5000/- per month worth of
chemical fertilizer” (Muthu et al., 2015), “notwithstanding the associated ecological benefits” as
reported by Duan et al. (2014).

5.4.3. Theme III – Sustainable Food Production

“The concept of organic farming through compost/vermicompost is gaining importance world-

over to mitigate the damage caused by the increasing and indiscriminate use of synthetic fertilizers and
pesticides which often resulted in soil fatigue, and gradual deterioration of soil health and
productivity” (Padmavathy and Poyyamoli, 2013; Doan et al., 2015; Lim et al., 2015). “The biogas
spent slurry mixed with the campus biomass, in the ratio 1:1 and composted by windrow composting
increases improved soil porosity, balanced pH, attracting and feeding the earthworms; increased soil
fertility and soil health by increasing organic matter in soils; supporting vigorous growth of beneficial

89
microflora and fauna thereby increasing productivity and creating a better environment by reducing
ecological risks” as reported by Sinha et al. (2010) and Muthu et al. (2015).

Co-Composting: Most of the installed anaerobic digesters for the treatment of organic solid
waste provide a post treatment of the remaining sludge before it can be reused as soil amendment in
agriculture. “Aerobic windrow composting (post-treatment) allows both nitrification and the
degradation of lignin, which is not possible under anaerobic conditions” (Holliger, 2008). “The
nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium (NPK) content of farm yard manure (FYM) is about 0.5, 0.2 and 0.5
percent respectively and on the other hand, the biogas spent slurry is more than four times rich in NPK
than FYM. Such practice will help to get better returns from fertilizers, minimize the loss of fertilizers
from the soil and provide balanced nutrition to crops, while simultaneously improving the condition of
the soil” (Anwar et al., 2015; Awasthi et al., 2015). Hence wherever possible co-composting was/can
be done.

Vermicomposting: “Biogas spent slurry/ conventional farm compost will have low nutrient
content and hence need supplement” (Padmavathy and Poyyamoli, 2013; Muthu et al., 2015). To
mitigate this situation, vermicomposting (Pandey et al., 2016) of composted biogas spent slurry with
campus organic wastes such as leaf litter, which could be done, provide invisible ecosystem services
by serving as versatile natural bioreactors to harness energy and destroy soil pathogens, even
assimilating heavy metals during their life cycle. “The driving forces is to recover and return the
nutrient back to the field for maintaining the natural cycle, leading towards habitat restoration and
biodiversity conservation” (Garg et al., 2006; Suthar 2010; Muthu et al., 2012; 2015). The garden at
JNV is a working model of sustainable closed-loop food production systems from saving and planting
seeds, to converting waste material into nutrient-rich compost. Plate 5.8, Plate 5.9 and Plate 5.10
portray the team preparing the soil media, setting up of the nursery tray and planting of saplings.

All the crops such as tomato, okra and gourd varieties were of 90 days duration, supplied with
farm yard manure and food waste compost, watered twice a week. During this period no pesticide was
applied, however incidence of pests attack was not noticed. This may be because of the reason, there is
no intensive farming within a radius of 1-2 km. Since 45th day onwards the organic vegetables from
the farm started to enter the kitchen facility. On an average 20 kg of assorted vegetables (Solanum
lycopersicum (Tomato), Abelmoschus esculentus (Okra), Solanum melongena (Eggplant), Capsicum
annuum (Chilli pepper), Trichosanthes cucumerina (Snake gourd), Lagenaria siceraria (Bottle gourd),
Lufa acutangula (Ridge gourd), Momordica charantia (Bitter gourd) per day was produced over a
period of 45 days (i.e. 900 kg in total), excluding the spoiled ones due to bird and rodent picking.
10-20% more of organic vegetable is anticipated if drip irrigation coupled with fresh vermicast is
applied (the same is planned for the academic year 2016-17). At JNV above 90% of girl students were
involved in the organic horticultural activities (Plate 5.11).

90
 Plate 5.8. JNV Team preparing the soil media (A) and (B)

Plate 5.9. JNV Team members preparing the nursery tray

Plate 5.10. JNV team involved in (A) Eggplant sapling (B) Tomato sapling and (C) Chilly
sapling

91
 Plate 5.11. (A-D) Student centered outdoor activities for organic farming

Greenhouse for Organic Horticulture: “Shade houses (simple version of green house) covered in
woven materials was set up at JNV to allow sunlight, moisture and air to pass through. This covering
material was used to provide a particular environmental modification, such as reduced light, reduced
evaporation, protection from severe weather conditions. Green house farming was evolved to create a
favorable micro-climate, for food production in marginal environments” (Olsen et al., 1999; Bseiso et
al., 2015; Nayeem and Qayoom, 2015). As a component of GCI, heat sensitive/ shade loving plants
like Brassica oleracea (Cauliflower), Daucus carota (Carrot), Brassica oleracea var. capitata
(Cabbage), Raphanus sativus (Radish) “are grown under the greenhouse through application of bio-
fertilizers and bio-pesticide resulting in 100 % organic produce” (Muthu et al., 2015), and also it could
be used for outdoor hydroponic systems for leafy vegetables (under progress, 2016-17).

5.4.4. Theme IV – Communication and Outreach

There is a great controversial argument between the existing campus environment management
systems versus green campus initiative versus sustainable development which the Office of Campus
Sustainability at JNV tries to address. “It serves as one of the most important components of this
program that inspires and engages the faculty, students, staff and also the community in a voluntary,
self-guided initiative that sustains and promotes best environmental practices in the campus and the
surrounding environment” (Muthu et al., 2015). “The office coordinates and supports initiatives that
helps reduce the campus’s ecological footprint. Stakeholders within schools, colleges and universities
exhibit allegiance to multiple professional and managerial cultures” (Rothblatt, 1995). Hence, based
on their acquired skills and motivation, they can be more effectively involved in GCI.
92
5.5. Pilot Project Site 2 (SNGGHS)

Savarayalu Nayagar Government Girls High School (SNGGHS) is located in the heart of
Puducherry Municipality. The school provides education to nursery, primary and high school students
with a total strength of 455 students as on 2015. Ground floor is dedicated to nursery and primary
level children while the first and second floors were dedicated for the high school level children. Free
food was provided for the nursery and primary school children under the government’s midday meals
scheme. The meals were prepared at the centralized kitchen located at Lawspet, Puducherry and sent
to the schools in and around the urban limits by means of four wheelers. The stared categories in
Figure 5.7 shows the fragmented components of ICSM implemented at SNGGHS. Since this type of
initiative is an upcoming field that need more awareness, this fragmented initiative and empirical
study was done on a pilot scale to raise awareness and also to study the feasibility of GCI in urban
setting (few studies were highlighted in this dissertation while still others are ongoing).

Figure 5.7. The components of ICSM implemented with fragmented approach at SNGGHS
93
5.5.1. Theme I - Waste Water Treatment Feasibility Study

Water Use Inventory Analysis (WUIA) at SNGGHS

SNGGHS is a non-residential school situated in the heart of Puducherry Municipality, and

relies fully on the municipal water supply, gathered in an underground sump, from where the water
was later pumped to the roof top tank and then distributed for various end uses, such as toilets, urinals,
drinking (by recently fixed RO system) governed by SNGGHS. The school also has a bore well with
shallow depth (old) within the campus and the level of the pump, motor capacity, operational
condition, water pumping (duration) and distribution are shown in the Table 5.4. The timings were
fixed by the SNGGHS based on the necessity (i.e. early morning before the school starts, dining hours,
and recreation hours) to prevent wastage and distribution loss. On an average 2 hours 30 minutes is the
total running hours per day apart from special days. The ‘municipal water’ supports all the activities
while ‘bore well 2’ is used only during emergency condition (very rarely). Moreover the bore water
remains saline because of sea water intrusion. Water use inventory analysis (WUIA) was conducted to
get a better picture of the water use situation at SNGGHS and to provide recommendations to improve
on the same. For WUIA, the water requirements for day-school was assumed as 45 lpcpd, based on the
recommendations given by Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS, 2010) covering only non-residential
demand. For the purpose, the WUIA is categorized as Nursery and Primary sector and High school
sector as shown in Figure 5.8. The quantum of water consumed at the SNGGHS is presented in Table
5.5. It was estimated that an overall of 22050 l per day were consumed by the various end uses in
SNGGHS during 2015-16.

Table 5.4. Location of the main bore wells and their water supply for the entire SNGGHS campus

Bore Pump
Sl. 07.00 am – 01.00 pm – 03.00 pm –
Type Location Depth depth HP Status Supply Speed
No 08.00 am 02.00 pm 03.30 pm
(m) (m)

Municipal Eastern side

water of the 60 min 60 min 30 min
Operat
1 supply campus - - 1 Main High
ional
(Sump) (within the Total running hours per day
campus) 2 hours 30 minutes

Operat 60 min 60 min 30 min

Behind the
ional
sump 20 feet 20
2 Bore well 1 (emerg Main High Total running hours per day -
(inside the * feet *
ency 2 hours 30 minutes
campus)
only) (only during the malfunctioning of the
sump No.1 )

* It is the old bore well, about which poor knowledge exists, moreover since the school is within the
Boulevard (Puducherry Municipality I), the water level will be shallow,
hence the bore well depth is minimal
Note : Total tank capacity is 20000 l and services to entire campus.

94
 Table 5.5. Quantum of water consumed at the SNGGHS
(Source: From SNGGHS Office - 2015 and through key informant)

Tank Total
Tank Total No. Total Total Drink Water water
Valve
Volu volu of Teachi Non - No. of No. of ing Dispe consum
Category
Nos Y N
me me Stud ng teaching Toilets Urinals Water -nser ed @ 45
e (lts) (lts) ents Staff Staff Taps lpcpd
o
s liters
Nursery RO
and 132 7 1 6 6 5 syste 6300
Primary 2 10000 20000
✓ - m
High (500 l+
323 20 7 11 20 15 15750
school 300 l)
Total 2 10000 20000 455 27 8 17 26 20 800 l 22050

Water Use Inventory Analysis (WUIA) at SNGGHS

Nursery and Primary Sector High School Sector

Figure 5.8. Schematic representation of the sectors for water use inventory analysis at SNGGHS

Constructed Wetland for Water Reclamation

Experimental microcosm constructed wetlands were set up to study the water purification
potential of native plant species such as Arundo donax and Typha latifolia. The inlet and outlet water
samples were collected periodically and tested for key physical, biological and microbial parameters
such as pH, EC, Total Dissolved Solids, Total Suspended Solids, Chlorides, Sulphates, Nitrate, Total
Nitrogen, Total Phosphorous, Boron, COD, BOD5 and Fecal Coliform using standard APHA
methods. Plate 5.12 and Plate 5.13 portrays the students preparing and maintaining the experimental
setup.

Plate 5.12. Preparation of experimental treatment wetland (microcosm) – (A) Typha latifolia and
(B) Arundo donax

95
 Plate 5.13. (A) Trimming and (B) Watering the treatment wetland under the guidance of
Headmistress

5.5.2. Theme II - Food Waste Inventory Analysis

“The auditing at educational campus for pollution prevention will potentially accelerate the
‘greening’ of the institutions that participated in the initiative, by identifying areas for improvement
and raising campus awareness” (Nixon, 2002) and “also will provide students with hands-on
investigative and problem-solving experience” (Agstar, 2012).
Table 5.6. Average food waste generated per day at SNGGHS
Mid-day meals
Type of waste Variables Nursery and High School Total
Primary school (Kg) (Kg) (Kg)
For Energy Vegetable (Trimmings) - - -
Recovery Fruit peel * (Banana) - - -
Precooked waste

(Biogas)**** Total - - -
Egg shells** 0. 6 0.8 1.4
Citrus waste (Lemon) - - -
For Nutrient Coconut shell - - -
Recovery Fibrous waste - - -
(Compost) Meat waste - - -
Total 0. 6 0.8 1.4
Table waste *** 8 15 23
Post cooked waste

For Energy Excess food 2 4 6

Recovery Spoiled food - - -
(Biogas) Total 10 19 29
For Nutrient Meat bone - - -
Recovery Tea dust - - -
(Compost) Coffee powder - - -
Total - - -
Total food waste generated student−1day−1 0.081 0.098 0.091
Total waste student−1day−1for energy recovery - - -
Total waste student−1day−1for nutrient recovery 10.6 19.8 30.4
Note: * Selective; **egg shell (approximately 0.010kg) *** Spilled and Plate waste

96
 As recommended by the earlier workers Thompson and Wilson (1994), Thompson and van
Bakel (1995), CCME (1996), Dowie et al. (1998) Smyth et al. (2010), Pop et al. (2015), Götze et al.
(2016), “waste audit was carried out as a first step for a period of 60 days in both sample site nursery
school and high school, through back end approach. Plate 5.14 portrays the students collecting and
weighing the food wastes”. The mean weight of food waste generated from the SNGGHS (only lunch)
in the present study was 0.091 kg student−1day−1, more precisely the nursery and primary section
students generated 0.081 kg student−1day−1 and high school students generated 0.098 kg student−1day−1
(Table 5.6). Comparatively these measurements were significantly lower than school food waste
generation values estimated by CDEEP (2012) and Griffin et al. (2009) “that ranged from 0.159 to
0.227 kg student−1day−1 respectively”, but are closer to the level estimated by MPCA (2010) “of
0.056 kg student−1day−1” and “0.052 kg student student−1day−1” (Wilkie et al., 2015) (similar type of
studies in India are under way/ yet to be published).

Plate 5.14. Collecting and weighing the table waste

5.5.3. Theme III - Compost/ Vermicompost Production

Based on the audit, 70 – 80 % of the total campus waste stream is found to be food waste.
Hence, on a pilot scale all of the food waste is collected for a week and composted, here on campus as
a student centered approach. “As a stabilized material, compost is more useful for improving long-
term soil quality and nutrient supply than as an immediate source of nutrients for crops” (CSANR,
2015). “Soil scientists report that for every 1% of organic matter content, the soil can hold 62500 l of
plant-available water per acre of soil down to 0.3 m deep” (Gould, 2015). In addition, “co-composting
was practiced to break down odor and contamination problems” as suggested by CSANR (2015).
Right now the campus priority is to move toward a zero-solid waste goal, from conserving to recycling
and composting, while offering food that are sustainably grown in urban setting (roof top).
Plate 5.15 – 5.17 portray students activities related with composting.
97
 Plate 5.15. (A) Compost making process and (B) Gardening process

Plate 5.16. (A) Mixing slurry, (B) Making compost and (C) Identification of macro organisms
through observation

Plate 5.17. (A) Weighing of raw materials for vermi-compost, (B) Preparing and (C) Maintaining
the vermi-reactor

98
Roof Top Garden
“Currently, India is the 2nd largest producer of fruits and vegetables in the world and to
promote this further, the Government of India had launched National Horticulture Mission in 2005-06
to promote holistic growth of the horticulture sector through an area based regionally differentiated
strategies. In addition, the Government of Puducherry started to implement horticulture in the urban
setting of Puducherry as Phase I” (AGRI-PDY, 2015). In tune with these initiatives, we are developing
“a roof top garden in the urban setting as a working model of sustainable closed-loop food production
systems composting waste material into a nutrient-rich soil amendment” (UMT, 2015) and to reduce
urban heat island effect. For setting up of the roof top garden the old discarded class room benches and
desks were used for this purpose and the students involved in the greening project selected and
transferred the resource to the project site (Plate 5.18. A and B). Similar to JNV, but, except for the
concept ‘urban roof top garden’, the SNGGHS students (100% of girls) were involved in preparing the
soil media (sand + filed soil + red soil + compost + coir pith + biochar), seed sowing and sapling
planting (Plate 5.18 to 5.21).

Plate 5.18 (A and B) – SNGGHS team students selecting benches for reuse from the discarded
material – resource recycling

Plate 5.19. (A) Mixing of raw material for soil media and (B) Filling up of the experimental
Potting bag (PP) - SNGGHS

99
 Plate 5.20. (A and B) SNGGHS team planting seeds indoor for better germination

Plate 5.21. (A and B) Transplanting the matured saplings and (C) setting up of roof top garden
- SNGGHS

5.6. Indicator for Attitudinal Change and Sustenance

In many educational debates at national and international levels, active methods in teaching
and learning have been suggested by Stern and Huber (1997), Randi and Corno (2000). The workers
Niemi (1997), Boekaerts et al. (2000) and Alexander (2012) confirm that “learning does not stem from
any particular unified theory group, but rather from a large variety of different approaches with
emphasis on learner’s activity”. As suggested by Kolb (1984) “students learn more effectively ‘by
doing than by listening’, and field related projects are often claimed to improve student learning, with
better retention of acquired knowledge” (Mackenzie and White, 1982; Nundy, 1999); “enhanced
motivation and higher-order learning; development of practical skills” (Kent et al., 1997) and “major
strength on environmental projects, data collection and analysis” (Alexandar, 2012).

100
 Nisbet and Zelenski (2011) and Krasny and Delia (2015) suggested that “the positive moods
associated with experiences in nature could potentially motivate people to participate in more outdoor
campus sustainability activities and bring about a happy path to sustainability”. Other philosophical
studies have also demonstrated that “university/college/school students who score higher on the nature
relatedness scale, which integrates constructs from biophilia, ecological identity, and environmental
knowledge, spend more time in nature, experience greater happiness, and display more
environmentally sustainable attitudes and behaviors” (Nisbet et al., 2008; Nisbet and Zelenski, 2011;
Krasny and Delia, 2015). In view of this, we have made it necessary for every volunteering student to
spend time with nature and work on sustainability projects outdoor. The students themselves record
and experiment outdoor thereby transforming the campus into a living laboratory. As part of this
study, the voluntary participation of students in science projects was considered as one of the main
indicators for attitude and behavioral change. Both JNV and SNGGHS have shown considerable levels
of increase in attitudinal change. Post the implementation of the ICSM food waste is recycled as
compost and applied to school gardens, students are actively involved in projects related to
reclamation of grey water; the voluntary expression of interest from students (bottom up) and
Faculty/Headmistress (top down) catalyzed by the experience of the researcher of this dissertation
have significantly increased the number of science projects submitted for National Competitions
during the academic years from 2012-13 to 2015-16 for JNV and from 2014-15 to 2015-16 for
SNGGHS.

Since the inception of green campus program, the students have transformed themselves from
always passive recipients of information to a more participatory, engaging, and exciting collaborators
in which they are committed to making changes towards sustainable development. This is evident
from the number of science projects increasing from none to eight during the academic years 2012-16
in JNV (Figure 5.9), whereas from none to five at SNGGHS (Figure 5.10) during the academic years
2014-16. “Students have not only contributed to, but also benefited from the processes of greening the
campus, through audits and other participatory programs which not only serve as an integrating
context for sustainability but also influence an individual’s attitude toward sustainability” (Leal,
2011b; Coops et al., 2015; Eatmon, 2015).

101
Figure 5.9. The number of science projects submitted for NCSC, after the initiation of GCI at JNV
(Integrated approach)

Figure 5.10. The number of science projects submitted for NCSC, after the initiation of GCI at
SNGGHS (Fragmented approach)

Number of NCSC science projects was used as an indicator, to check the progress of
sustainability and also to institutionalize the implemented green campus project. Till today (2016)
even after the completion of the project at JNV by early 2013, 100% of the food waste is composted,
micro climate is established in the project area, 100% organically grown food is produced, and also the
management and the partnering researchers jointly with the local NGO, have planned and executed
awareness (Plate 5.22, Plate 5.23 and Plate 5.24) campaign to promote the GCI to other campuses such
as Kendriya Vidyalaya, Pondicherry University, and to the public which is a good sign.

102
 Plate 5.22. Scholar providing awareness to the (A) students and (B) authorities

Plate 5.23. (A and B) Knowledge transfer of field level awareness among students of JNV

Plate 5.24. (A, B and C) Student driven green campus awareness campaign targeting fellow
students and teachers of SNGGHS

103
 CHAPTER 6

6 GCI AT PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY – THE NATURAL STEP

FRAMEWORK

Green Campus Empirical

Chapter 6 Initiation at PU WUIA
study

FWIA

Other
Talloires Declaration
Initiatives

SLT

Policy for PU

Ten point action plan

Achievement

Conclusion

104
 This chapter deals with the implementation of GCI at Pondicherry University. “The Natural
Step (TNS), Four-Phase Analytical Approach (ABCD - Approach)” (TNS, 2015) methodology was
used in this action research implementation of GCI at PU. As part of the first phase, a general
awareness about the campus environmental sustainability and sustainable development was provided
among the PU campus communities and beyond (JNV and SNGGHS) by aligning all the campus
stakeholders towards a common understanding of sustainability and the whole-systems context.
Following this, an extensive baseline data mapping of the PU campus was conducted. This exercise
included recording vital statistics about the University, conducting a water quality assessment for
Physical, Chemical, Nutrients, Heavy Metals and Microbial parameters. A Water Use Inventory
Analysis (WUIA) was also conducted to understand the present level of water usage in selected areas
of the campus followed by a Food Waste Inventory Analysis (FWIA) at all hostel kitchen facilities
with supporting empirical studies to gain an insight into the current status of how sustainable the
campus is in key areas such as water and food wastes and what are the threats and challenges.
Subsequently, PU’s campus environmental sustainability framework was envisioned “on the
‘Principles of Backcasting’ ” (TNS, 2015) and a 31 point policy recommendation was provided to
transform the campus into a model sustainable, living laboratory. Taking into consideration the
examples of several institutions that are facing similar issues, the Pondicherry University Office of
Campus Sustainability (PUOCS) (proposed) is suggested as the governing body and a driving force in
the implementation of the recommended policies to bring a established green campus that everyone
dream of. Finally the Down to Action at PU started with the symbolic commitment of the University
in signing the Talloires Declaration (TD), a ten-point action plan for incorporating sustainability and
environmental literacy in teaching, research, operations and outreach at colleges and universities. This
chapter ends with the future plan of action.

6.1. Methodology

Mixed-Methods approach as suggested by Patton (1990), Commander and Ward (2009) and
Finlay (2010) “was employed during this investigation which harnessed both quantitative and
qualitative methodologies including structured questionnaires administered to students and
administrators and semi-structured interviews with key informants of residences and administration
and a focus group session with student sustainability leaders”. “The Natural Step (TNS) framework”
(Robert, 2000; Stanford, 2000; Janet and Peter, 2007; Chambers et al., 2008; Lozano, 2008;
UWSUPER, 2008; Nattrass and Altomare, 2013; TNS, 2015) was applied in the process of
implementing the ICSM model for GCI. “The mixed-methods approach to evaluate the experimental
sustainability education programs not only allowed for a rich and in-depth analysis but also enabled a
deeper exploration” (Commander and Ward, 2009). These methods were selected because they
allowed participants to express their personal experiences and opinions about the residential activities
and sustainability initiatives in general at Pondicherry University. The methods were also able to
105
analyze the student participant response in increasing student’s awareness and commitment to
sustainability. Finally, “the mixed-methods approach expanded the breadth and range of inquiry as the
findings from one method were used to elaborate, illustrate, enhance, and clarify results from the other
methods” (Commander and Ward, 2009).

Individual interviews through structured questionnaire (Annexure H) were conducted with the
key PU administrators such as Vice Chancellor(s), Director, Registrar, Director Research, Director
Sports, Finance Officer, Public Relation Officer, Asst. Registrar – Planning and Development, Junior
Engineer -Electrical Wing, Head- Horticulture, Executive Engineer, Junior Engineer and Asst.
Engineer - Civil Engineering Wing, Hostel –Warden(s), In-charge hostel office (Boys and Girls),
Manager Mess Facility (Boys and Girls), Sanitation Inspector, Post Graduate students and Scholars.
The interviews provided in-depth and comprehensive information regarding operational facilities and
their ongoing programs for development, including their expression of interest in switching to
sustainable development paths. “The method was well suited to understand the experience and
perspective of the university community members through opinions and explanations” as suggested by
Lindlof and Taylor (2002) and Finlay (2010). Data collected from structured questionnaire were
reviewed with the inputs received from key stakeholders in the campus through focus groups.
“Through the face-to-face interview, the researcher was able to establish trust and rapport with the
respondents, as well as observe the participant’s body language and facial expressions” as suggested
by Crang (2002) and Finlay (2010). Clerical staffs were recommended by their section head to provide
information either in the office or at the site. To facilitate their understanding and easy response, the
researcher employed “a semi-structured interview format that was less rigid than the structured
questionnaires, thereby allowing for a greater diversity of responses and outcomes” as suggested by
Finlay (2010). “The participants were able to explore more complex questions and elaborate on any
areas of particular interest or importance” as advocated by Lindlof and Taylor (2002). “The question
format enabled the interviewees to become informants by providing data from their own perspective
and words” as suggested by Commander and Ward (2009).

“In tune with the General Research Ethics Procedures (GREP) (Finlay, 2010), participants
were first approached through a letter of information explaining the purpose and the interview
format”. They were selected as department specific (administrative/academic) key informants because
of their key involvement in the campus activities, and the interview with the help of structured and
semi-structured instruments were conducted over a period of one month and subsequently extended
throughout the study period (from 2011 to 2015). The qualitative data gathered from the interviews
and focus group complemented the quantitative data of the questionnaires to provide a comprehensive
analysis of the campus activities. Descriptive statistical analysis were done to examine and judge the
successes and effectiveness of the interviews and then the data is compared to the qualitative
interpretations of the interviews by establishing themes, patterns, and categories. “By combining
106
‘multiple theories and mixed-methods’, it was possible to overcome the weaknesses and intrinsic
biases inherent from a ‘single method or single-theory’ study” as advocated by Patton (1990),
Commander and Ward (2009) and Finlay (2010). Results from the statistical analysis were reported as
Tables and presented as illustrative Figures and Charts.

6.2. Why ‘The Natural Step’ (TNS) Framework?

“The TNS Framework is a well-developed planning methodology used for assessment,

visioning and action that encourages dialogue, consensus-building, and systems-thinking and creates
the conditions for profound change to occur” (Robert, 2000; Janet and Peter, 2007; Chambers et al.,
2008; Lozano, 2008). “TNS framework is a methodology that was originally developed by a Swedish
Oncologist Dr. Karl Henrik Robert in 1989 for successful organizational planning in a scientific,
system wide approach” (Gruder, 2008) “based on systems thinking” (Stanford, 2000). “It provides a
robust definition of sustainability – to enable a vision to be developed of a sustainable future (for
whatever is being designed), and gives a planning process to do it” (TNS, 2009). “The ‘four-phase
A-B-C-D analytical approach’ recommended by TNS” (Robert et al., 1997; Chambers et al., 2008;
Lozano, 2008; Thatcher, 2014) was used for the GCI at PU. They are described as below:

 Phase I - Awareness creation among the PU campus communities - by aligning all the
campus stakeholders towards a common understanding of sustainability in a whole-systems
context

 Phase II - Baseline mapping of the PU campus - to gain an insight into the current status of
how sustainable the campus is and what are the threats and challenges

 Phase III - Creating a vision for PU’s campus sustainability – based on the recommendations
from the SAQ (Chapter 3) and pilot projects implemented at JNV and SNGGHS (Chapter 5), a
vision strategy and action plans were developed based on the ‘Principles of Backcasting’

 Phase IV- Down to action at PU - consists of the execution of purpose oriented initiatives by
providing appropriate training, techniques, and tools for implementation, followed by
measuring progress towards achieving goals and suggesting modifications for improvement as
and when needed

6.3. TNS Funnel

“TNS funnel (Figure 6.1) was unanimously described as follows: ‘imagine humanity being
poured into the funnel, where the sides of the funnel represent the way in which we encounter natural
and social limits. One side is the ‘supply’ axis: the declining ability to provide products and services
as a result of damage caused by pollution and the destruction of habitats, while the other represents
demand of the increase in population, and with it the rate of resource consumption’ ” (Robert, 2000;
Stanford, 2000; Janet and Peter, 2007; Chambers et al., 2008; Lozano, 2008; UWSUPER, 2008;
Nattrass and Altomare, 2013; TNS, 2015).
107
 Figure 6.1. The Natural Step (TNS) funnel framework
(Source: Robert, 2000; Janet and Peter, 2007; Chambers et al., 2008; Lozano, 2008;
Stuck, 2012; Nattrass et al., 2013)

“The funnel provides a comprehensive framework to move towards sustainable societies

through backcasting”, a term originally coined by Robinson (1982). “Backcasting is a method to
develop normative scenarios and explore their feasibility and implications and is often used as a tool to
connect desirable long term scenarios (50 years) to the present situation by means of a participatory
process. After creating a vision of a desirable future, alternative solutions are explored, and
bottlenecks identified, where an option was chosen and an action plan set up through participatory
process by taking into account ‘the time dimension’ ”(Robinson, 1982; Lozano, 2008).

Figure 6.2 shows how a compelling vision for sustainability can be derived through ABCD
process. “Each and every university/IHE/school campus is endowed with a measurable stock of
environmental assets such as top soil; flora and fauna; fertile and non-cultivable land; ground and
surface water; clean air, etc., however many campuses have already lost the quality of basic life
support systems like water, soil and air mainly attributed to the largely unplanned growth rate” (Muthu
et al., 2015). By creatively applying the 4 basic Principles of TNS, PU envisions the process of
achieving sustainability by ‘expanding the funnel’ (Figure 6.3), that is presently constricted by
growing demands and declining resources.

108
 Figure 6.2. Compelling vision for sustainability through ABCD process
(Source: www.naturalstep.org; http://web.stanford.edu)

Figure 6.3. Expanding the funnel through green campus initiative

(Source: http://www.sustainablescale.org)

6.3.1. Phase I - (A) Awareness Creation Among the PU Campus Communities:

“The Campus Sustainability Movement (CSM) in US and Canada and the creation of
declarations committed to Sustainability in Higher Education (SHE) triggered the ‘Campus Greening’
efforts worldwide” (Henson et al., 2007). “Such efforts currently experience rapid growth in
developing countries like India, as more and more campuses seek to take responsibility for their
physical and intellectual footprints” (Henson et al., 2007). Desa et al. (2012) suggest that, “awareness
creation is the very basic step towards change-oriented communication with an explicit purpose of
establishing a change in the knowledge, attitudes and ultimately, the behavior or practices of the
receivers” (FAO, 2011). Hence, Phase I of the ABCD framework was started during the academic year

109
2010-11 (and progressed throughout the study), where several initiatives were organized with an aim
to create awareness about the campus sustainability and the strategies involved for green campus
initiative. The awareness creation programs were designed specifically to target the following 10 areas
and were done in person, through one-to-one and group discussion, to the key PU administrators.

1. Environmental education and outreach

Awareness program, environmental education, inter disciplinary approach
2. Green purchase
Purchasing environment friendly, recycled, energy star standard products
3. Sustainable solid waste management
Existing practices, impact assessment, evolving best practices
4. Sustainable waste water management
Effluent quality, impact assessment, various treatment option
5. Hazardous waste management
Lab chemicals, medical waste from Health Center, sanitary waste from residence and
hostels
6. Energy efficiency/generation
Benchmark (sub meter), bio waste to biogas/ energy, solar energy
7. Ground water resource management
Water footprint, irrigation through reuse, rainwater harvesting
8. Sustainable management of food and food services
Kitchen garden, seasonal food production, promoting indigenous/ organic foods
9. Biodiversity conservation and habitat restoration
Ecological landscaping, restoring original indigenous species, organic inputs
10. Sustainable transportation
Pedestrian, bicycling, implementing usage of bio-diesel (Jatropha Crucas)

Simultaneously, awareness was also provided periodically for I and II year Master of Science
(MSc) students of the Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences from 2010-15 and the
results were drafted in the Figure 6.4. A structured questionnaire was framed to capture their interest
and commitment. The response among all the PU administrators interviewed was very good and they
were all interested and committed for full cooperation in terms of campus sustainability (focused
mainly on pollution prevention through sustainable solid waste and liquid waste management and
energy management). Whereas initially the response was poor, over a period of time, gradual
acceptance of the concept of sustainability was observed among the students (M.Sc.). The Sustainable
Development (2009-11 batches) students showed more interest when compared with the other M.Sc.
students of the same batch, probably attributed to the reason that they were already aware of the
concepts of sustainable development and campus sustainability. There has been a steady increase in
the students acceptance in the sustainability programs and appreciated the initiatives by voluntarily
participating in various initiatives. In spite of 10 times improvement in the acceptance level, there is
still room for growth and more targeted awareness and motivation for all stake holders, is needed to
cover all campus issues.

110
 Figure 6.4. Awareness given and response level for PU administrators and students of the
Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences

Figure 6.5 shows the Awareness (personal/ group discussion) given and response level at JNV
during the period 2012-13, prior to initiating the ICSM pilot project as part of the outreach activities of
PU. As a first step, the awareness was given to the administrator(s), student volunteer, teaching staff
and non-teaching staff. 100% of the administrators and student volunteers interviewed showed interest
while non-teaching and teaching staff showed 80 % and 30% respectively.

Figure 6.5. Awareness (personal/ group discussion) given and response level at
JNV (2012-13)

111
 Based on the interviews with the teaching staff, it could be deduced that the poor response
among them (with a few exceptions) could be attributed to the preconceived notion that sustainability
is too broad and just fashionable and has nothing to do with the curriculum or faculty (reason – lack of
awareness). The school students exhibited more interest than the M.Sc. students because of the fact
that sustainability was recently included in their curriculum as part of the environmental education and
also because of their self-motivational interest to do extra-curricular activities.

6.3.2. Phase II - (B) Baseline Mapping of the PU Campus

The first critical step in baseline mapping is to conduct a sustainability audit/inventory of the
present scenario of the waste/ water/ energy/ environment. This audit/inventory not only provides a
baseline for goal-setting and action, but also translates sustainability issues into a language that the
decision makers can understand. The audit also serves as a vehicle to celebrate and publicize past
accomplishments and commitments to future improvements. Building from an audit/inventory,
campus sustainability advocates (the promoters of GCI) create and seek consensus on documentation
that can direct us towards campus sustainability, “based on declarations that call for sustainability in
higher education (for instance 10 point action plan of Talloires Declaration)” (Shriberg, 1999; 2000;
2002b). “The baseline mapping is a continuous process of data collection and reporting on the
sustainability action plan, from which the university can continue to innovate plans by using the
campus as a living laboratory to develop the next generation of sustainability solutions. This will help
to communicate the environmental sustainability message across the University to staff, students,
visitors and stakeholders and encourage people to do their part to help the University to continually
improve its environmental performance” (Oxford, 2011). Preceding baseline mapping is the strategic
planning, which is more important for intentionally shifting from being reactive to proactive in order
to achieve operational excellence and contribute to the University's success, by building a culture of
involvement. Hence, based on the current institutional dynamics, water, food, energy is identified as
the primary focus for the baseline mapping at the identified sites located along the ring road at PU
campus since it intersects every one in every walk of campus life.

6.3.2.1. Vital statistics of Pondicherry University

Pondicherry University (PU) is a Central University located in Union Territory of Puducherry

(UT), founded in 1985 by the Government of India; it has emerged as India's fastest growing Central
University and is an affiliating University with a jurisdiction spread over the UTs of Puducherry,
Lakshadweep, Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Figure 6.6 shows the aerial view of the university. “The
University has 2 Directorates, 15 schools, 37 Departments and 10 Centers, an Institute of Community
Development and 90 affiliated colleges. The university has 373 staff, 6058 students on campus,
52,450 students through affiliated colleges and 8,756 through distance learning” (PU statistics, 2016).
The growth trend of students, hostel strength, faculty, non-teaching staff are presented in Figure 6.7,
112
Figure 6.8, Figure 6.9 and Figure 6.10 respectively. PU exhibit a steep increase of students from
2007-10, and currently (2015) housing around 40% of the faculty and 64% of the student population
on-campus, which is expected to increase by 2020 based on the inclusion of various courses and
certificate programs. The hostel strength is on the rise because of new courses and expansion of
hostels (Figure 6.8) whereas non-teaching staff strength showed considerable decrease comparatively
with teaching faculty (Figure 6.9 and Figure 6.10) mainly because of unfilled new posting and
vacancies based on retirement. PU is credited with innovations like Choice Based Credit System and
on-line admission for postgraduate studies.

PU as a liberal educational and research institution in the region is committed to the

environmental mindfulness and stewardship in the sense of citizenship and moral duty with a desire to
teach and lead by setting an example in all its activities for sustainability and outreach. Under the
Environment Protection Act (EPA-1986), the Central Government has given wide power to the
University and State Government to take any measures as it deemed necessary for protecting and
improving the quality of the environment by initiating the concepts for sustainability in the residential
sectors/ service sectors/ entire campus/ industrial sectors/ regional level. “Pondicherry University has
started recently to set a high priority for the campus environment by integrating environmental
awareness, personal responsibility, respect and care for the environment, sustainable living,
intergenerational responsibility, health and safety into every walk of life” (Muthu et al., 2015). In this
context it also has established a Pondicherry University Renewable Energy and Sustainability Cell
(PURE&SC) by 2013.

113
 PU Silver Jubilee Campus

Entire PU Campus

Ravine within PU Campus

Figure 6.6. Ariel view map showing Pondicherry University

(Source: Google map)

Figure 6.7. Growth of student strength- 2001-15

(Source: Planning and Development Section, PU, 2015)

114
 Figure 6.8. Growth of hostel student strength - 2001-15
(Source: Planning and Development Section, PU, 2015)

Figure 6.9. Growth of faculty strength 2001-15

(Source: Planning and Development Section, PU, 2015)

Figure 6.10. Growth of non-teaching staff strength - 2001-15

(Source: Planning and Development Section, PU, 2015)

115
6.3.2.2. Water Quality Assessment

Water has become a precious commodity especially in water scarce areas like Puducherry and
therefore “its protection for water conservation” (UCSC, 2015) and “effective water management”
(Cornell, 2015) is considered as of paramount importance. To assess the quality of the available water
resources, water must be tested for various physical, chemical and microbial quality parameters. The
present investigation is aimed to assess the characteristics of greywater generated from the residential
areas such as staff quarters (A) and hostels (B) and kitchen facility (C) within the campus (Figure
6.12), with that of the potable water (as control) supplied to them, and to keep this as baseline for
future recommendations. The control sample was collected from the drinking water supply. The
collected samples were analyzed for pH and EC using the respective meters whereas, the other
parameters were determined through the standard laboratory methods (APHA, 2005) and the heavy
metals were assessed by using Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy. “Effluent samples were collected in
Teflon plastic containers that are cleaned in metal-free non-ionic detergent, rinsed with tap water and
later soaked in 10% HNO3 for 24 hours and finally rinsed with de-ionized water prior to the usage.
The samples were then labeled appropriately and transported to the laboratory where it was stored in
the refrigerator at about 4o C prior to analysis” as suggested by NEERI (2009).

Five physical parameters, five chemical parameters, seven nutrients, eight ground elements and
seven heavy elements (Table 6.1) were selected for in-depth study based on their relative importance
in the local context. The total Coliform and E.coli were also assessed in all the samples and presented
in Table 6.2. The results were compared to the prescribed standards and published literature data.

Table 6.1. Qualitative characteristics of greywater generated at selected sites within the campus

Parameter Control Combined Combined Combined Combined GW

(Tap Water) GW GW GW (Literature Data)
Type

(Staff (Students (Mess)

Quarters) Hostel) - B -C
-A

Turbidity (NTU) ND 143.2 (32.8) 124.2 (35.8) 394.2 (37.15) 122(78)a; 20-120b
TS 26.5 (3.4) 712.2 (204.5) 702.2 (184.0) 1308.4 (415.2) 876(201) a
Physical

TSS 22.2 (4.8) 260.4 (72.5) 220.4 (53.1) 458.7 (226) 15-84 b
TDS 153.1 (28.5) 652.1 (91.4) 534.1 (72.2) 753 (307.1)
Oil & Grease ND 99.5 (36.7) 74.2 (42.8) 342.6 (84.2)

pH 6.9 (0.06) 7.3(0.3) 7.2(0.3) 6.5 (1.0) 7.6(.2) a

EC (µS cm-1) 0.26 (0.05) 0.76 (0.05) 0.77 (0.15) 0.43 (.21) 1.06(0.185) a
Chemical

BOD5 230.6 (29.2) 460.2 (126.8) 340.2 (113.2) 916.3 (206.7) 149(46) a ; 10-41 b
COD ND 1121.4 (411.2) 1010.6 (301.7) 1232.2 (407.4) 551(202) a ; 27-102
b

DO 69.2 (9.3) 25 (8.4) 20 (7.4) 9.9 (4.5)

116
 Tot-N 2.2 (0.3) 19.8 (7.6) 24.7 (4.6) 30.2 (14.3) 10(14) a
Total KJN 1.9 (0.4) 15.1 (7.9) 12.5 (5.4) 24.6 (13)
Nutrients Ammonia-N ND 1.8 (1.2) 1.6 (1.1) 4.4 (2.1)
(NH3-N)
Nitrate (NO3-) ND 0.6 (0.3) 0.5 (0.3) 0.9 (0.3)
Nitrite (NO2-) ND 0.5 (0.3) 0.5 (0.3) 1.7 (1.1)
TP ND 17.6 (9.1) 18.5 (8.0) 58.3 (14.2) 7(7) a
Phosphate 0.03 (0.02) 2.6 (1.4) 3.6 (1.5) 22 (5.9)
(PO43-)
Cl- 28.3 (6.2) 194.4 (17.6) 164.4 (14.2) 76.5 (14.2) 141(22) a
B ND 0.1 (0.07) 0.1 (0.02) ND
Ground elements

Ca 1.6 (0.4) 21.4 (4.5) 16.7 (1.5) 15 (4.5) 58(17) a

K 46.3 (8.4) 9.7 (2.3) 10.8 (3.4) 19.9 (5.3) 10(2) a
Mg ND 2.3 (0.4) 2.5 (1.4) 3.1 (1.5) 29(9) a
Na 1.85 (0.3) 31.2 (9.3) 35.1 (10.3) 62.2 (30.1) 143(24) a
S ND 1.62 (0.59) ND ND
Si ND ND ND ND

Cd < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 ND

Cr ND ND ND ND
Heavy metals

Cu 0.02 (0.01) 0.04 (0.03) 0.04 (0.02) 0.02 (0.01)

Fe 0.03 (0.02) 0.55 (0.26) 0.4 (0.2) 0.68 (0.18)
Mn 0.12 (0.04) 0.05 (0.01) 0.04 (0.02) 0.13 (0.02)
Pb 0.02 (0.01) 0.012 (0.07) 0.011 (0.02) 0.04 (0.03)
Zn ND ND ND ND

Table 6.2. Microbial characteristics of greywater generated at selected sites within the campus

Sl. Parameters Tap Combined Combined Combined Combined GW

No water GW GW GW (Literature
(Staff (Students (Mess) Data)
Quarters) Hostel) - B -C
-A
1 Total 1.68 - 1.82 6.39 - 7.41 4.30 - 5.22 7387(9759)a
3.73 - 6.01
Coliform cfu/100ml
2 E. coli
0.55 - 1.09 3.22 - 5.96 2.12 - 3.77 ND 2022(5956)a
cfu/100ml 3.8b
*All units are in log10.100ml unless mentioned specifically aJefferson et al., 2004 b Lin et al., 2005

The characteristics of GW indicate high variability in the physical, chemical, biological

parameters among the different sources. The GW from kitchen source contains a lot of pollutant load
which is expected as per the literature. Higher values recorded for TDS, TSS, BOD, COD and trace
elements indicate, additional treatment is required to meet the effluent standards for non-potable reuse.
The higher concentrations of Phosphate in kitchen GW was attributed to the choice of detergents used.

117
Physical Properties

The concentrations of all dissolved minerals in water are represented by the TDS, which is also
indicative of the general nature of salinity of water and it can originate from natural sources, sewage,
run-off and wastes. Whereas the solids in water that can be trapped by a filter are represented by TSS
and it can comprise of a wide variety of materials such as silt, decaying plant and animal matter,
residential wastes, and sewage. TS, TDS, TSS and oil/ grease are found to be higher in site C due to
the high organic content from kitchen waste. High concentrations of suspended solids cause the
lowering of dissolved oxygen (DO) levels due to blocking of sunlight and decay of organic contents.

Chemical Properties

pH is one of the most important factors of waste water characteristics. While treating
contaminated water it is necessary to maintain proper pH level else the treatment is affected and it
takes longer than usual as the acidity or alkalinity of waste water affects both waste water treatment
and the environment. As per CPCB guidelines, the pH of waste water needs to remain between 6 and
8.5 for agricultural reuse. Alkalis and acids can alter pH thus inactivating waste water treatment
processes. The pH of the grey water generated at the mess was found to be inclined towards acidic.
“The electrical conductivity (EC) measured indicate the total soluble salt contents in water and is a
reliable indicator of the total dissolved solids (salts) and the presence of metallic ion content of the
water” (Rhoades et al., 1992). The EC of site A (staff quarters) and B (hostels) are found to be higher
compared to site C (mess).

The BOD test measures the oxygen demand of biodegradable pollutants whereas the Chemical
Oxygen Demand (COD) test measures the oxygen demand of biodegradable pollutants and the oxygen
demand of non-biodegradable oxidizable pollutants. High level of COD affects the environment due to
its biological stabilization which leads to depleted oxygen levels and in turn septic. Sulphate is
generally dissolved from rocks and soils containing gypsum, iron sulfides, and other sulfur compounds
and it naturally occurs in all kinds of water. As anticipated the water analysis report reveals that BOD
and COD were several times higher, especially in site C and potential enough to impact the
environment if discharged untreated.

Nutrients and Heavy Metals

The urea, amines and proteinaceous compounds in the raw waste water break into ammonia on
standing. The Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) is indicative of all forms of nitrogen as it represents the
sum of organic nitrogen compounds and ammonium nitrogen (TKN = org-N + NH4-N [mg/L]).
Nitrogen mainly occurs in waste water in this form. Total Phosphorous originate from a variety of
sources including agricultural fertilizers, detergents, domestic process wastes. Phosphorus is evaluated
as total dissolved phosphorus and it can cause oxygen depletion problems if high. Heavy metals are
118
found in traces and are in accepted levels for grey water. Site C samples showed higher values of all
nutrients analyzed compared to the other sites. The ground elements and heavy metals are mostly
within acceptable limits and can be further reduced by adopting suitable treatment measures.

Microbiological Properties

Fecal coliform bacteria are found wherever the water is contaminated with fecal waste of
human or animal origin and also from bathrooms. The distribution of Coliform Bacteria was
widespread as they were detected throughout the whole study area. The coliform count is high in the
samples taken from the residential quarters probably due to the presence of children and old aged
people using bathroom over the toilets. “The treatment process should be evaluated to meet the current
standards for unlimited irrigation, which range between 0 to 200 CFU 100mL–1 in most western
countries” (Halperin and Aloni, 2003).

6.3.2.3. Water Use Inventory Analysis (WUIA)

“A number of factors like climatic condition, culture, food habits, work and working
conditions, level and type of development and physiology determine the average requirement of water
per person” (Shaban and Sharma, 2007; GOP, 2008). The United Nations Organization (UNO) (1992)
“issued a document entitled “Universal Declaration of Water Rights” (Ifrah, 1992), which declares
that: “water should neither be wasted, nor polluted, nor poisoned”. However, in reality most of the
developing regions of the worlds are under water stress while several others heading for water
scarcity”. To meet out this challenge, “the university/ IHE campuses across the world are
implementing a number of water conservation initiatives throughout campus facilities” (Creighton and
Rappaport, 2007) “by utilizing grey water and reclaimed water for reuse” (Bardaglio and Putnam,
2009) “by capturing storm water to infiltrate into the soil and ground water aquifer and by capturing
rain water for on-site reuse” (Creighton, 1998) and also using the storm water for washing/
backwashing the water treatment systems.

“Many Universities in the developed world have already set the benchmarking by successfully
implementing programs to reduce water consumption” (Zhang, 2010). “The methodology for WUIA at
PU involves collection of data from input and output for all unit processes included in the scope of the
assessment” as suggested by Boulay et al. (2011), “through water audit and water use habits
questionnaire” as describe by Polaris (2013), “through open ended informal interviews and by
reviewing the existing records”. Despite the uncertainties associated with available statistical data to
track patterns and growth of groundwater use for various purposes, the inventory presented here is a
major step towards a more informed assessment of water use. This inventory is expected to provide a
better understanding about water consumption in selective areas and potentials available for water
conservation. “It was not possible, however, to accurately analyze and compare the WUIA at PU with

119
similar inventory elsewhere because not all universities/IHEs report water consumption and also not
all use the same protocol for reporting usage, in addition, there has been limited analysis on broad
water usage patterns in higher education, providing better scope for further research in this field”
(Zhang, 2010).

According to Silva (2004), “the micro level water management that concentrates on water
usage patterns and sanitation systems of specific buildings is more coherent with the precepts of SD”.
“The on campus housing and dining constitute the largest water consuming sector and it is significant
to address water related challenges in these areas” as pointed out by UCR (2014) and UBC (2014).
“For all the other operations water is supplied within PU either on continuous (day time) or
intermittent (night time) basis to all buildings and the water demand management can be best
understood by keeping a permanent monitoring on the volume of water consumed through the control
parameters such as per capita consumption, on daily/weekly/monthly consumption rates, flow profiles,
etc.” as suggested by Silva (2004) and CBCS (2015). As indicated by other workers: “given the
financial structure for utilities, water metering has been extremely scarce on many campuses further
complicating any analysis of usage patterns and cost benefits for water use efficiency” (UCR, 2014).
Since PU is at an initial stage of implementing GCI, the hydrometers are not available at the individual
buildings, making it difficult to compare the data building wise, hence we used the recommended per
capita water use set by Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS, 2010). ‘Indian Standard for Water Supply,
Drainage and Sanitation’ was evolved by the BIS, after the draft finalized by the ‘Water Supply and
Sanitation in Building Sectional Committee’ and had been approved by the ‘Civil Engineering
Division Council’. In this revised version (Fourth Reprint - December 2010. IS 1172: 1993. UDC
628.1/.3: 006.76. © BIS), requirements of water supply for residences have been listed based on the
total number of residents”.

“The National Commission on Urbanization (1988) recommended that per capita water supply
of about 90-100 lpcpd is needed to lead a hygienic existence” (Ramachandraiah, 2001) whereas “the
World Health Organization recommends an average of 100 - 200 liters per capita per day (lpcpd)”
(Knight, 2003; Howard and Bartram, 2003). Average water use in India, according to UNDP (2014)
“is 135 liters per capita per day (lpcpd)” (Data360, 2015; http://hdr.undp.org). According to BIS, “a
residence means dwellings with individual conveniences having at least the following fitments: one
bath room provided with a tap; one water-closet and one sink with a tap, and the water requirements
for Lower Income Groups (LIG) and Economically Weaker Section of Society (EWS) is given as
135 lpcpd which is also recommended for Indian urban households” (Modi, 1998; Shaban and
Sharma, 2007) and Puducherry Municipality (Prasad, 2015) and “for ‘others’ category it is
recommended as 150 to 200 lpcpd”.

120
 BIS (IS: 1172-1993), Shaban and Sharma (2007) and GOP (2008) recommends that “a
minimum water supply of 200 lpcpd (upper end) should be provided for domestic consumption with
full flushing systems”.

Since inception, PU relies fully on the ground water by its own pumping and distribution
system, with staff living in upper class life style (i.e. neither Lower Income Group nor Economically
Weaker Section) indicating that “higher income people tend to use more water when there is
no incentive to reduce water use and in the absence of a water metering system” as reported by Ricato
(2010) and also based on open ended discussion with the PU’s Civil Engineering Wing (CEW) and
PWD (Govt. of Puducherry) the researcher has fixed “the upper end of the minimum level 200 lpcpd”
as recommended by BIS (IS:1172-1993); Knight (2003); Howard and Bartram (2003) for staff
quarters, whereas “135 lpcpd for hostels (boys and girls)” based on the recommendation given by BIS
(under section 5.2.1 Table 1, sl.no. 1- sub section (v) IS 1172:1993, Fourth Revision, 2010) and “70 l
per person (i.e. attendance based) for kitchen mess facility”, based on the recommendation provided
by BIS for dining/restaurants, as per person (under section 5.2.1 Table 1, sl.no. 1- sub section (viii) IS
1172:1993, Fourth Revision 2010) was considered (BIS, 2010).

Steps Involved for WUIA

Civil Engineering Wing (CEW) of the university is solely responsible for the water supply
throughout the campus. The baseline data collection for WUIA was carried out through personal
interviews with the help of semi structured questionnaire. After fulfilling the GREP, the key
informants (Junior Engineer – JE and Asst. Engineer - AE) from the CEW as advised by the Senior
Engineer (SE) they explained the management practices regarding the pumping station, abstraction,
storage facility, distribution, and waste water disposal along with the emergency backup plan.
Accordingly, the researcher accompanied by the key informant visited and investigated various
activities related to water resource management. During this visit the key informant is interviewed
with the help of semi structured questionnaire.

The Table 6.3 shows the location of the main bore wells and their services for the university
campus. The abstracted water from the aquifer is first sent to the sump and then from there
it is pumped to the overhead tank (OHT). The entire campus is supplied by two overhead tanks, with a
capacity of 200000 liters, with an underground sump of 100000 liters capacity, running continuously
during day shift (6 am to 2 pm and 2 pm to 10 pm) and around some 2-3 hours of running during night
shift (10 pm to 6 am). As reported by the key informant of the CEW, the overhead tank number one
with a total capacity of 200000 l located opposite to the health centre supplies to the southern side
of the campus and also to the campus territory like Vice Chancellors Residence,
University Guest House, and Cultural cum Convention Centre, located on the other side of the

121
East Coast Road (ECR) outside the campus. Tank number two with a total capacity of 200000 l
supplies to the Northern side of the campus including the administrative block.

This study is an attempt to organize the current state of water use and management at PU and it
is intended to support the Civil Engineering Wing (CEW) and Planning and Development Section
(P&D) of PU “by providing guidance for framing future water use/management policies by taking into
account the SD principles” (CBCS, 2015). “Initially it is applied here for the selected residential units
(Quarters, Boys hostel, Girls hostel, Mess facilities) of the PU” as suggested by standard methods
(UCMERCED, 2015). Plate 6.1 and Plate 6.2 portrays the various locations of bore wells and the
interviewing sessions of key informant from CEW throughout the study period.

Table 6.3. Location of main bore wells and their water supply for the entire campus as of 2015
(Source: key informant and Civil Engineering Wing, PU)

Bore Tube
Sl. Capa 6am- 2pm- 10pm-
Well Level Service
N Type Location city Status Supply Speed 2pm 10pm 6am
Depth Depth To
o (HP) (Hours) (Hours) (Hours)
(m) (m)
Opposite. Oper
Bore
1 to Health 43 34 20 ation Main High
well
center al
Southern
Quarters Oper *8 *8 **2-3
Bore side
2 pump 43 34 10 ation Main High hours hours hours
well of the
house al running running running
campus
To be
Bore Sathyam Emerg Medi
3 43 34 10/20 commi-
well oorthy ency um
ssioned
Oper
Bore Sub-
4 43 34 20 ation Main High
well station
al
Oper
Bore Sub- Emerg Medi
5 43 34 7.5 ation Norther
well station ency um **4.5 **4 **2.5
al n side
hours hours hours
Oper of the
Bore Pasic Emerg running running running
6 43 34 20 ation High campus
well bore ency
al
Oper
Bore Kamban Emerg Medi
7 43 34 10 ation
well hostel ency um
al

NOTE: * Never over flows ** overflows after specified hour *** 100000 l underground sump is also
available**** Every building has a separate bore well for gardening/ horticulture apart from the above
mentioned high speed bore wells. Sl.No. 3 – Sathyamoorthy bore well (yet to be commissioned as of
2015); Sl.No. 4 – Substation: near overhead tank; Sl.No. 5 – Substation: at the rear side of the new
gents hostel mega mess (near Kamban hostel); Sl.No. 6 – Pasic bore: opposite to old academic staff
college building

122
 Plate 6.1 (A) and (B). Formal and Open ended interview with CEW staff, PU

Plate 6.2 (A) Overhead tank (OHT) near quarters (B). Pump set near new shopping complex

Data Analysis and Discussion

“The sectored WUIA will not only provide a demand management perspective but also will be
used as a control center to monitor sectoral water consumption on the campus and can correlate with
the demand supply or abstraction rate” (CBCS, 2015). Figure 6.11 and Figure 6.12 shows the
schematic representation of the sectors and zones for water use inventory analysis (WUIA). For
WUIA, the buildings are categorised as residential sectors and service sectors. “The sector specific
WUIA will provide a demand management action and also will be used as a control center to monitor
sectoral water consumption on the campus on a daily basis as suggested by the Brazilian Sustainable
Construction Council” (CBCS, 2015) and can correlate with the demand supply or abstraction rate.
“Since housing and dining seems to be the largest growth sector as it was the case for other similar
cases” (UCR, 2014), the sectors are further categorizred into zones (quarters/ boys hostel/ girls hostel/
and common mess).

123
 The audit team comprising of student volunteers led by the researcher was formed and were
educated about the purpose of the work and a ‘walk through approach’ was done for three days,
studying and recording the current management practices at the selected site, and identifying the ideal
time to conduct the building wise audit after consulting with the stakeholder/ key informant of the
building concerned or with CEW staff. General safety guidelines were followed throughout the
process. CEW staff, building in-charge and hostel officials are formally and informally interviewed
with the semi structured questionnaire and the data were recorded and consolidated for the
recommendations.

Water Use Inventory Analysis (WUIA) at PU

Residential Sectors Service Sectors

Quarters Boys Hostel Girls Hostel Common Mess

Zone Zone Zone Zone

Type IV (18) Paventhar Cauveri Amudham (B)

(18)
Type V (8) Subramania
Saraswathi Mega (B)

Type V (5) Kamban

Yamuna Ilangoadigal (B)
Type IV (6) Tagore
Ganga Paventhar (B)
Type III (4) Kalidas

Ilangoadigal Kalpana Subramania (B)

Type II (4)

Type V (5) Valmiki Madam Curie Madam Curie (G)

Type IV (5) Kannadasan

Mother Theresa (G)
Type III (8) Kabirdas

Type II (8) Moulana

2BHK (24) Servapalli

CV.Raman
1BHK (16)

2BHK (40)

Figure 6.11. Schematic representation of the sectors and zones for WUIA
Note: Numerical within bracket indicate the number of house in the type quarters
(B) - Boys Hostel and (G) - Girls Hostel
124
 Boys Hostel Zone

Girls Hostel Zone

Residential Zone

Figure 6.12. Study area zones chosen for water use inventory within the university campus

Data Collection
“Total water usage by university/ IHEs varies substantially by size, location and climate”
(Zhang, 2010). “It was not possible to accurately analyze water consumption due to inconsistency in
water usage pattern coupled with other factors such as, non-availability of water consumption data and
no uniform protocol” as it was found by Zhang (2010). “Without hydro metering facility, complete
historical consumption data could not be attempted and furthermore, all individual functions/ locations
currently do not have working water meters, making it too difficult to understand the usage and trend.
Such difficulties were not uncommon (Zhang, 2010). “Despite the unavailability of statistical data on
groundwater use for various purposes, the inventory presented here is a major step towards a more
informed assessment of water use” (Siebert et al., 2010) and is prepared in collaboration with PU’s
Civil Engineering Wing and Puducherry Hydrology Department. As per the Campus Sustainability
Assessments (2011-12), annual consumption by the selective residential sectors (comparatively less
numbers than this study, 2015) “is estimated to be 5.5 lakh liters of water per day” (Golda and
Poyyamoli, 2012) which is kept as the baseline year for this WUIA (2015-16). The sampling period

125
for the year is spread over 90 days (August – October, 2015) considering the academic schedule,
project work, festival holidays and weekends for students and availability of the CEW staff, hostel
staff and key informant.

There are three main categories of data studied: “CEW water supply accounts, hostel office
accounts, data collected through informal interviews from CEW and key informants in hostel and
kitchen mess was estimated using an attendance-based analysis method wherein the attendance
registers logged by the students using the kitchen facilities are considered for arriving the number of
students using such facilities on an average” (Zhang, 2010). “The average per capita consumption
adopted was 200 lpcpd for quarter’s residents; 135 lpcpd for hostel students and 70 lpcpd for mess”
(BIS, 2010) and the same is extrapolated for the total number of students staying in that hostel and
also the same is adopted for other hostels.

The data was collected by the audit team and the water use inventory statistics at the Boys
Hostel, Girls Hostel and Kitchen Facilities are represented in the Figure 6.13, Figure 6.14 and Figure
6.15 respectively. Since this WUIA is in the initial stage and few buildings have broken or unused
units that are being audited, these data may be considered as an approximation. Figure 6.13 and Figure
6.14 show various categories for hostel inventory where ‘A’ represents no. of occupants; ‘B’ tank
volume; ‘C’ water dispensers; ‘D’ bathrooms; ‘E’ Toilets; ‘F’ Urinals, for Boys and Girls Hostels
respectively. Figure 6.15 shows the hostel mess inventory where ‘A’ represents no. of students and ‘B’
no. of kitchen staff respectively.

“Waste water is often categorized into black and grey water. In general, ‘Black water’ is any
waste from a toilet or urinal. It contains disease causing organisms that can result in human illness by
direct contact or by consumption of affected fish and shellfish. It also contributes to the build-up of
unwanted nutrients in ecosystems. ‘Grey water’ means waste water generated from domestic activities
such as bath, hand basins, washing machines, dish washing, laundry and kitchen. It is considered to be
the largest potential source of water reuse option at point source, accounting for around 50-80% of the
total water use” (Christova-Boal, 1996; Eriksson, 2002; Jamrah et al., 2006; Kujawa-Roeleveld and
Zeeman, 2006; Morel and Diener, 2006; Kujawa-Roeleveld et al., 2008; Edwin and Poyyamoli, 2012;
Edwin et al., 2015; Golda, 2015).

126
Figure 6.13. Boys Hostel inventory. A. No. of occupants; B. Tank Volume; C. Water Dispensers; D. Bathrooms; E. Toilets; F. Urinals
(Source: From Sanitary Inspector (CEW), Hostel Office and Key Informant)

127
Figure 6.14. Girls Hostel inventory. A. No. of occupants; B. Tank Volume; C. Water Dispensers; D. Bathrooms; E. Toilets; F. Urinals
Source: From Sanitary Inspector (CEW), Hostel Office and Key Informant

128
 Figure 6.15. Hostel Mess inventory. A. No. of Students; B. No. of Kitchen Staff

Random sampling was done with an assumption that all possible samples of size ‘n’ are equally
and likely to occur for staff quarters with the approximation of 4 persons per house, irrespective of few
selected sample households having one/two occupants, where the life style came under ‘others’
category (i.e. neither Lower Income Group nor Economically Weaker Section) according to BIS. The
total estimated water consumed at Boys Hostel, Girls Hostel, Kitchen Facilities and Staff Quarters are
presented in Figure 6.16 A, B, C and D respectively. It is estimated that the total water consumed at all
boys hostel and girls hostels was 308745 liters/day and 236790 liters/day respectively, assuming an
average of 135 lpcpd (for brushing, bathing, hand washing, toilet, urinal, cloth washing, room cleaning,
gardening, leaks etc.); total water consumed at all kitchen facilities is 268940 liters/day assuming an
average of 70 lpcpd (for vegetable and cooking raw material washing, cooking, cooking vessel washing,
hand washing, plate washing, toilet/ urinal attached to kitchen, kitchen cloth washing, kitchen and
dining hall washing, waste bin washing, gardening, leaks and alike and miscellaneous such as water
used for instant cooling of milk) and the total water consumed at all staff quarters is 120800 liters/day
assuming an average of 200 lpcpd (for brushing, bathing, hand washing, toilet, urinal, cloth washing,
room cleaning, vegetable and cooking raw material washing, cooking, cooking vessel washing, hand
washing, plate washing, kitchen cloth washing, kitchen and house cleaning, car and vehicle washing,
gardening, terrace and veranda washing, leaks and alike). The overall water consumption in all the
selected residential buildings (staff quarters and hostels) was 666335 liters/day. Approximately 935275
liters/day of fresh water is consumed from the units under investigation.

129
 Figure 6.16. Total estimated water consumed at A. Boys Hostel; B. Girls Hostel;
C. Kitchen Facilities; D. Staff Quarters

6.3.2.4. Sustainable Water Management Strategies

The anticipated impact of unsustainable water use at PU would vary from reduced fresh water
percolation, increased infiltration of fertilizer, pesticide and pathogens, declined levels of ground water
and increased sea water intrusion from the Bay of Bengal and also the pollution of freshwater bodies
caused through drainage and monsoon. Data was collected from the residential buildings of PU campus
and an estimate for the current ground water withdrawal rate, potential for rainwater harvesting,
greywater reclamation and reuse, and reduction rate in the withdrawal of ground water were prepared.
The estimates are prepared separately for boy’s hostel(s), girl’s hostel(s), and staff quarter(s) based on
the model provided by the Global Water Tool (WBCSD, 2007). Figure 6.17 illustrates the overall
potential saving in groundwater withdrawal that can be achieved at all hostels and quarters at the
130
campus. Current rate of ground water extraction to satisfy the needs of the residential activity is
estimated to be 7996020 m3 / year which constitute the main blue water footprint of the university,
excluding service sectors and other horticultural demand. Out of this 6396816 m3 / year constitutes
overall waste water, with 70% of it being grey water and with proper treatment system in place, around
60% of blue water (2686663 m3 / year) can be produced (i.e. reclaimed) from the generated grey water
per year as suggested by Kujawa-Roeleveld and Zeeman (2006) and Golda (2015).

Figure 6.17. Estimated potential saving in groundwater withdrawal for hostels and quarters at
Pondicherry University

With a total building plinth area of over 45000 m2 (source, CEW) and annual rainfall of
998 mm in Puducherry (GOP, 2008), there is a tremendous potential for harvesting of rainwater around
19822 m3 per year (i.e. 54306 l per day). When this water is used in a ‘fit for purpose’ manner, will help
to offset the ground water withdrawal and the corresponding electricity demand /GHG emission
on/offsite (diesel based genset onsite/coal based off site) to a great extent. Therefore the potentials for
blue water that can be generated/ produced within the campus through reclamation and rain water
harvesting were assessed to be 2706485 m3 per year which could potentially reduce the ground water
extraction by 33.85%. The potential savings could have been several folds higher if the kitchen,
administrative, academic and other public service blocks are also included. By treating the grey water
and reusing it for non-potable uses will also eliminate contamination of soil, aquifer, ocean and other
surface water bodies.

Limitations and Practical Implication

The limitations identified in this study are in tune with the limitation identified by Rauch and
Newman (2009) such as: “this initial phase of WUIA for developing a sustainable metric target is only
outlined for selective residential sectors; this is only a preliminary investigation and this can help the
131
Office of Sustainability, with a better view of implementing sustainability initiatives”. “Moreover, these
statistics needs to be further enhanced by metering each inlet and outlet of a building and creating a
database to log them on an everyday basis, like ‘smart water metering system’ ” (Ankith et al., 2015)
and the future generation of researchers can correct, adopt, reflect on this study.

6.3.2.5. Food Waste Inventory Analysis (FWIA) at PU

“Comprehensive solid waste management program (CSWMP) is one of the greatest challenges
in achieving university/IHEs sustainability” (Smyth et al., 2010; Muthu et al., 2015; Sangamithirai et
al., 2015). “From the early 1970’s to the 1990’s, campus recycling programs became very popular
globally in general and more so in the developed world as campus infrastructure and culture changes to
green/ sustainable campus” (Keith and Tchobanoglous, 2002). “Effective programs requires a complete
understanding of the composition of the waste stream as well as the activities that determine its origin
and generation as the characteristics and composition of solid waste vary according to its source and
time” (Tchobanoglous et al., 1993; Farmer et al., 1997; Smyth et al., 2010). “CSWMP based on its
origin at source are far more successful than mimicked programs that have been implemented
elsewhere” (Armijo de Vega et al., 2008; Smyth et al., 2010). This is because, “site specific direct waste
characterization and quantification studies in the form of inventorization, will offer the most effective
process for examining the various types of wastes generated and thereby identifying opportunities for
waste reduction/ reuse/ recycling/ recovery” (Thompson and Wilson, 1994; Thompson and van Bakel,
1995; Smyth et al., 2010). “Even though numerous waste characterization studies have been conducted
at the household or municipal level” (Zeng et al., 2005; Parizeau et al., 2006; Hristovski et al., 2007;
Chang and Davila, 2008; Zhuang et al., 2008; Chowdhury, 2009; Gomez et al., 2009) “only a small
number of studies exist for the institutional sector” (Farmer et al., 1997; Mohee, 2005; Smyth et al.,
2010) “and even fewer published studies within the university/IHEs” (Felder et al.,2001; Mason et al.,
2003; Armijo de Vega et al., 2008; Smyth et al., 2010).

Skourides et al. (2008) “highlighted behavioral factors (consuming immediately)” and Yatima
and Arshad (2010) “highlighted lifestyle factors (eating habits and dining out) as responsible drivers for
food waste generation”. “Costello and her research team from University of Missouri created a detailed
inventory of the specific types of food waste and recommended that people and institutions be more
conscious of not only the amount but the types of food being wasted” (Costello et al., 2015) “and the
same points were emphasized by other workers” (Basi, 2015; IANS, 2015). “An inventory and
generation rate for the kitchen food waste were determined in the selected residential areas of PU, to
quantify total materials, energy recovering costs and environmental flows for kitchen waste
management system (collection followed by compost, waste-to-energy)” as recommended by
Thompson and Wilson (1994); Thompson and van Bakel (1995); Smyth et al. (2010); AlMaliky and
AlKhayat (2012) “to reduce food waste through better inventory control and to maintain the FAO

132
pledge ‘zero-food-waste-to-landfill’ ”(FAO, 2011). Source segregation of waste at campuses will reduce
the amount of residual waste by sending the recyclable materials to recycling centers and biodegradable
materials to either nutrient recovery (compost) or energy recovery (biogas). Hence a dedicated site
specific steps (Annexure E), structured questionnaire (Annexure F) and inventory data sheet (Annexure
G) was developed for this study.

Steps Involved for Food Waste Inventory Analysis (FWIA)

“When carefully planned and implemented, campus waste characterization studies are proved to
be relatively inexpensive and also will generate economy from waste by shrinking landfill space, in
addition, university/IHE will become green/sustainable by generating administrative support,
cooperation among students, faculty and staff and further inspiring involvement” (Noeke, 2000; Sharp,
2002; Beringer et al., 2008; Smyth et al., 2010). FWIA is an attempt to organize a diagnosis of the
current state of food waste generation and management and to provide sustainability options. It is also
intended to support the Planning and Development, Hostel/ Warden Office, Catering Facility (mess/
dining/ canteen) of our university by providing guidance for future catering facility waste management
policies. The same specific steps (Annexure E) used in the pilot testing at JNV and SNGGHS is applied
here for the hostel kitchen facilities of the PU campus as suggested by many workers and also based on
the recent study from the University of California (UCMERCED, 2015).

Initial steps were related with identification of the sites and obtaining the preliminary clearances
from the Planning and Development Section and Hostel Office for conducting this research study.
“Since, dining seems to be the largest growth and waste generation sector” as pointed out by UCR
(2015) “sectorization of the identified sample site, is done, for it will provide a proper management
action and also as a demarcated control center to monitor on a daily basis” as suggested by CBCS
(2015). Initially for the purpose of the implementation of the green campus activities and also by
considering the time constraints, boys and girls kitchen facilities (hostel messes) were identified for this
FWIA (Figure 6.18). The sectorization is grouped under private catering services and scholars run
catering services (Figure 6.19). Since the university campus is a vast area, zonation is necessitated as
boy’s hostel zone and girl’s hostel zone for a comprehensive waste management (Figure 6.19).

During the analysis period, the boys (12) and girls (6) hostels have seven separate mess facilities
governed by three service providing caterers namely Diet Express, Santosh Caterers, Zenith Food
Solutions and two Scholars run mess. “Based on the zoning of the current collection of kitchen waste as
well as the sectorization of the different collection zones, sampling was done at the primary collection
point before the dump truck arrive” as suggested by Naïma et al. (2012). As Mekaikia (2007) suggested,
“the sampling represents the decisive stage in the reliability of the results of the characterization and it
depends first of all on the objective aimed in the study”.

133
 Boys Hostel Zone

Girls Hostel Zone

Figure 6.18. Study area zones for kitchen waste management within PU

As suggested by various workers “the information is also collected from the catering service
through structured formal interview; from the key informant through the semi structured - informal
interview, and through visual inspection by the audit team”. “The source segregated wastes (waste-
separation and weighing system)” as suggested by USEPA (2013), UNEP (2013), Taylor (2013), Alicia
(2014), STARS (2016) from the dining hall, kitchen and washing area, were collected and kept outside
by the facility provider (Plate 6.3B). From this primary collection point the waste were manually
transferred to the truck within 20 hours, and transported to landfill site or disposed of in an open area or
provided as feed for pigs. Based on the information gathered, it was interpreted that the waste disposal
by the mess facility was done at four levels, namely:
1) directly disposed at the dock area behind mess
2) transported to the land fill site within PU campus
3) transported to the open area (through away) outside PU campus
4) transported outside the PU campus to provide as supplementary feed for livestock (pigs)

134
 Catering Facilities/Services

Private Catering Service Scholars Run Mess

Girls Hostel Boys Hostel Boys Hostel

Mess Mess Mess

Paventhar
Mother Theresa (a) Amudham Mess (c)
Bharathidasan (f)

Madam Curie (b) Mega Mess (d)

Subramania
Ilangoadigal Mess (e) Bharathi (g)

Figure 6.19. Schematic representation of the sectors and zones for kitchen waste management

“Kitchen food wastes that are mainly dumped in landfill sites/ buried will produce (also
happening) various issues like putrid smell and contaminating ground water, that also will pose serious
threats to human and environment” as reported by several workers Bhalla et al. (2011), Aderemi and
Otitoloju (2012), Nagarajan et al. (2012), Muthu et al. (2015). Hence recycling either as livestock feed
or for nutrient/ energy recovery is highly recommended in/by this study.

“A variety of approaches have been adopted by universities/ IHE’s for assembling detailed data
on the quantity, location, and characteristics of waste generated” (Thompson and van Bakel, 1995; Yu
and Maclaren, 1995; Dowie et al., 1998; Felder et al., 2001; Mason et al., 2003; Dahlen et al., 2007)
“through interviewing the key informant/ kitchen staff/ waste management staff (hauler), reviewing
waste management records (optional) and visual waste assessments” (Wood et al., 1995; Yu and
Maclaren, 1995; Creighton, 1998). “Among these options, direct waste characterization and
quantification studies offer the most effective process for examining the various wastes generated and
also could identify opportunities for waste reduction/ reuse/ recycling/ recovery programs” (Thompson
and Wilson, 1994; Thompson and van Bakel, 1995; Smyth et al., 2010).

“The location of interior and exterior waste collection receptacles were mapped and distinct
flows of waste, such as pre cooked, post cooked, table waste from the kitchen, were documented” as
suggested by Smyth et al. (2010). “All food waste generated in the 7 sample sites were characterized
and quantified, spread over two 7-day waste audits” as suggested by Smyth et al. (2010) “and the
sampling was done by using the back end approach” as recommended by CCME (1996) and Dowie et
al. (1998) at all the seven kitchen facilities by the audit team. As suggested by Smyth et al. (2010),

135
“waste sample were selected at all kitchen facilities by using a random design. From the primary
collection point the bags were separated to activity area and approximately 50% of the waste bags (by
weight) were selected at random by considering the date collected and contents within each sample. As
advised by the team the facility manager sorted and bagged separately the characterized waste in the
primary collection area. Waste auditing by the team members followed immediately, during which the
waste was weighed using 50kg digital kitchen scale with graduation d=10gm (accuracy ±0.05 kg)”. The
plastic and other non-food disposal material present along with the pre-cooked waste were hand-sorted
by the student team and faculty volunteers (including girls hostel residence warden), in the activity area
(Plate 6.7 and Plate 6.8). “The number of bags that were to be analyzed in detail was limited by the
length of the time required for sorting to analyze waste before the condition of samples was
compromised” (Smyth et al., 2010). Plate 6.3 through Plate 6.8 portray various activities carried out by
the team during the course of FWIA.

FAO (2013) “defines food waste as food appropriate for human consumption being discarded”,
whereas Campbell (2007) and Merrow et al. (2012) “refers food waste to the preparatory wastes of the
kitchen (i.e. precooked waste) and the food that remains uneaten by the students (i.e. post cooked waste)
and the researcher define as ‘the food which is lost during transit, preparation, pre and post consumption
(spillage on table/ plate waste/ excess food waste/ food spoiled) and also even lost in quality as animal
feed’. “As the available literature on university/higher educational institutions revealed that staff,
faculty and students viewed waste management and recycling as a key area of concern for ‘greening’
the campus operations” (Booth, 2007) “that directly impact their daily practices” (Biggar, 2008), as an
initial engagement exercise at PU, “FWIA is intended to connect the campus community” as suggested
by Smyth et al. (2010).

Waste samples were sorted and weighed according to 13 primary categories grouped under
2 secondary categories (Annexure G). Primary categories included vegetable trimming, fruit peel, egg
shell, citrus waste, coconut shell, fibrous waste, meat waste (dressing), table waste, excess food waste,
meat waste (table left over), spoiled food, tea dust and coffee powder. The secondary categories are post
cooked and pre cooked waste for energy and nutrient recovery. For the purpose of potential future
campus waste reduction programs and education, the auditing of synthetic and packaging materials,
including disposable hot beverage cups, milk packet, oil tin, corrugated boxes were also initiated. Based
on the informal interview with the key informant and the kitchen manager, it was noted that eggs and
fruits were served once a week at Paventhar Bharathidasan and Subramaniya Bharathi, and the rest of
the five kitchens serve them twice a week. Also meat is served thrice a week at Amudham mess, Mega
mess and Ilangoadigal mess facilities, and the rest of the kitchens serve them twice a week.

136
Plate 6.3. Girls hostel - (A) Kitchen staff transferring the food waste into sacs and (B) Ready for
disposal

Plate 6.4. Girls hostel - (A) Coconut Shell used per day per mess (B) Burnt coconut shell

Plate 6.5. Boys hostel - (A) Bio-digestible waste (excess food), (B) Compostable waste
(trimmings) and (C) Recyclable waste
137
 /

Plate 6.6. Formal interview with (A) Residence warden and (B) Kitchen in charge

Plate 6.7. (A) Segregation of comingled waste (B) On site open ended discussion with warden

Plate 6.8. (A) FWIA Team Members (B) Loading of waste sacs for disposal

138
Data Recording and Analysis

“Completed food waste inventory data sheets were checked for errors and placed into standard
spread sheet data files” (Smyth et al., 2010). The wet-weight based percentage composition for each
primary and secondary category was calculated. Subsequent analyses by the team leader include
computing and analyzing the mean waste composition and standard deviation within each sample area,
across the entire PU campus. “The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to examine significant
differences across activity areas and between waste classification categories” (Zar, 1984). “This test was
also used to check for significant differences between the total mass of waste collected between the
samples” as suggested by Smyth et al. (2010).

The average food waste generation (+SD) was estimated as 0.465 (+0.33) kg person-1 day-1 for
Amudham mess having the highest rate whereas 0.152 (+0.042) kg person-1 day-1 for Subramaniya
Bharathi having the lowest rate among the seven facilities. Figure 6.20 represents the average food
waste (+SD) generated person-1 day-1 in kg in the descending order: Amudham mess (boys) 0.465
(+0.08) kg person-1 day-1; Mega Mess (boys) 0.365 (+0.061) kg person-1 day-1; Mother Theresa (girls)
0.336 (+0.095) kg person-1 day-1; Ilangoadigal Mess (boys) 0.323 (+0.085) kg person-1 day-1; Madam
Curie (girls) 0.306 (+0.02) kg person-1 day-1; Paventhar Bharathidasan (boys) 0.159 (+0.048) kg person-
1
day-1; Subramaniya Bharathi (boys) 0.152 (+0.065) kg person-1 day-1.

Figure 6.20. Average food waste generated in different facilities (kg person-1 day-1)

139
 Two earlier studies Kumar et al. (2010) and Vaid and Garg (2013) reported “as 0.230 kg person-
1
day-1 and 0.230 kg person-1 day-1 respectively”. When the PU values are compared with these studies,
the two hostel mess run by the scholars such as Paventhar Bharathidasan (boys) and Subramaniya
Bharathi (boys) showed a considerably lesser quantum of food waste generation person-1 day-1.
Similarly the same is true when compared with the other mess facilities (sampling sites) at PU.

As indicated earlier in this chapter (section 6.4.2.3), this difference in waste generation is
because of the ‘life style’ habits (eating out) of the students, and also because of the win-win situation
that exists between the facility provider and students. The highest generation rate exhibited by
Amudham mess is not only based on the facility provided to their students, but also to the other
facilities (owned by the same caterer) such as Mega mess and Ilangoadigal mess. Figure 6.21 represents
the mean volume of wastes with SD generated at each kitchen facility categorized as either pre or post

Figure 6.21. The mean volume of wastes generated at each kitchen facility (Kg/day) categorized as
pre/post cooked wastes and whether it is suitable for nutrient or energy recovery
140
cooked wastes and whether it is suitable for nutrient or energy recovery under both the categories.
Among the pre cooked waste, the wastes suitable for energy recovery (vegetable trimming, fruit peel,
etc.) constitutes the bulk portion (>90%) followed by the wastes suitable for nutrient recovery (egg
shells, citrus wastes, coconut shell, fibrous and meat wastes). The post cooked waste (tea dust, coffee
powder and meat leftover) suitable for nutrient recovery is found to be significantly negligible (<1%)
compared with other wastes generated.

This is due to the fact that the kitchens serve an average portion of meat per meal twice a week;
while around some 30-40% remain vegan. The post cooked waste (table wastes, excess and spoiled
food) suitable for energy recovery constitutes the bulk of all wastes (84.7 %) generated due to greater
quantum of table wastes in the form of uneaten food. Figure 6.22 portrays the mean composition of the
primary wastes with SD generated at each kitchen facility.

These kitchen facilities share not only a major portion of food waste but also associated
water/energy/ecological foot prints compared with other facilities. The results of the survey
questionnaire (Annexure F) further indicate that except Paventhar Bharathidasan and Subramaniya
Bharathi, all other caterers pay fixed monthly rate (irrespective of the quantity of wastes) for the waste
disposal ranging between INR 2000-5000 per month, through different haulers. Only the waste
collected by the hauler from the three kitchen facilities (Amudham, Mega and Ilangoadigal) resort to
recycling efforts by sending it for feeding the wastes to piggeries. The hauler from the Mother Theresa
and Madam Curie facilities bury their wastes within the campus premises and the remaining two
facilities throw them away in the dock area behind the kitchen (since it is negligible amount of 1.4% of
total wastes generated) as indicated in the Figure 6.22 within the campus. It is also observed that, the
leachate that drains from the sample bags deteriorate/decompose in the area with possibility of germs
and smell (Plate 6.3 - B).

The results of the survey and the audit clearly indicate that there is a need for an awareness
campaign among the students and the caterers to reduce food wastage as this category of waste
constitutes the bulk of 85% of all wastes generated in the selected facilities. This will eliminate a major
portion of the waste generation in the first place and eases the burden of disposal.

141
 Figure 6.22. Mean composition of the wastes generated at each kitchen facility (kg /day)
Note: * Selective (approximately on an average 0.025 kg); **egg shell (approximately
0.010kg) *** Spilled and Plate waste

Health Issues Associated with Unsustainable Waste Management Practices and Mitigation Plan

“Health risks” (Hospido et al., 2010) and “water borne diseases like diarrhea, viral hepatitis, and
typhoid are much higher in Puducherry region when compared to the neighboring state of Tamilnadu”
(MOHFW, 2006; APSCC, 2016; http://www.apscc.org/). “Drinking water is getting contaminated as
stagnant rain water was seeping through the pipes due to lack of proper drainage” (Narasimhan, 2010).
“Exposure to fecal (human/non-human origin) contamination can occur at community scale (campus

142
community) for example via contaminated water sources or food supplies or originate within the home/
from household/ kitchen facilities through contaminated hands, fomites, prepared food, or storage of
drinking water” as indicated by Schriewer et al. (2015) and “many sources were reported with human
fecal matter and with animal fecal matter in India” (Schriewer et al., 2015). “During monsoons, diarrhea
has been a very normal health problem” (Prasad, 2015). “Absence of proper disposal of solid and
liquid waste is the major route leading to vector borne diseases such as Diarrhea, Cholera, Typhoid,
Dysentery, Worm diseases, etc.” as reported by several workers (Lingan and Poyyamoli, 2014; Kalia et
al., 2015; Chengula et al., 2015).

“Globally university/ IHE consider waste reduction, recycling and composting among the top
three priority planning areas” (Alfieri et al., 2009; USEPA, 2013; UNEP, 2013; Taylor, 2013; Alicia,
2014; Sangamithirai et al., 2015; SWMR, 2015; STARS, 2016) “more precisely biological treatment as
one of the most advantageous methods for maximizing recycle and recovering its nutrient components.
Anaerobic digestion of sorted food wastes, is the utmost attractive alternative and the most cost-
effective technology too” (Mata-Alvarez et al., 1992, Rao and Singh, 2004, Bolzonella et al., 2005,
Bouallagui et al., 2005, Forster-Carneiro et al., 2008). As discussed under the section 4.1.8.3, the
environmental advantages of using anaerobic digestion for biodegradable wastes not only reduce odors
and pathogens but also decrease GHG and other undesirable emissions.

“The quantum of the gases produced from residual food waste can be calculated based on the
Buswell equation (1), where the waste organic compound (CnHaObNd) is completely biodegradable
into CH4, CO2 and NH3 by the anaerobic microbial consortia (sludge yield is assumed to be zero)”
(Buswell and Mueller, 1952; de Mes, 2003; Banks, 2013; Ricato, 2010; Valorgas, 2015). According to
Banks (2003), “1000 kg of organic fraction will yield 180.6 m3 biogas comprising of 55% Methane
(CH4) and 45% carbon dioxide (CO2) based on the Buswell equation”. Whereas de-Mes (2003) reported
that “the organic fraction of the solid waste coupled with animal manure yields biogas of about 200 m3
per 1000 kg, because co-digestion is an important factor for improving reactor efficiency and economic
feasibility” (Ricato, 2010). Based on the recommendations by Banks (2013) and de Mes (2003) and also
similarly, on an average, as rule of thumb in Indian scenario, 1 m3 is produced from 4-5 kg of organic
waste, we consider 5 kg of organic fraction of waste would yield 1 m3 of biogas. This is explained in the
following equation:

“CcHhOoNnSs + 1/4 (4c – h – 2o + 3n + 2s) H2O 

1/8 (4c – h + 2o + 3n + 2s) CO2 + 1/8 (4c + h – 2o – 3n – 2s) CH4 + nNH3 + 2H2S” ---- (1)

Table 6.4 highlights the approximate values of food waste generated from the various sample
sites at PU, followed by the estimated size of the biogas plant at each facility. The Girls Hostel Mess
facilities require approximately 80-100 m3 and 60-80 m3 plants to convert all their wastes into biogas.

143
Plate 6.9. Boys Mess - (A) Discarded egg shell and other waste (B) Left over waste after disposal

Plate 6.10. Boys Mess - (A) and (B) Choking and over flowing of sewer system by kitchen waste,
leaf litter and hostel waste water (black and grey)

Plate 6.11. (A) Burial site behind Boys Hostel (B) Dumping yard behind Girls Hostel

144
 Table 6.4. Anticipated biogas production from various hostel mess
(Approximate values based on co-digestion)

Organic Assumed Size of the

Hostel Mess fraction weight Biodigester in m3
(Kg) (Kg)
Girls Mother Theresa 281.2 300 80-100
Hostel
Mess Madam Curie 169.3 200 60-80
Amudham 505.4
Mega 305 900 220-240
Ilangoadigal 82.5
Boys
Wastes can be
Hostel Paventhar
8.3 Not Feasible pooled with
Mess Bharathidasan
Amudham facility
Wastes can be
Subramaniya
8.3 Not Feasible pooled with
Bharathi
Amudham facility

The three Boys Hostel Mess (Amudham, Mega and Ilangoadigal) as they are closely located,
can be clubbed together for a common 220-240 m3 biogas plant. This facility can be used for double
purpose either as biogas for direct usage or can be converted into energy for various end uses or two
separate digesters measuring 120 m3 each can also be established to serve the purposes simultaneously.
Since the other two Boys Hostel facilities such as Pavendar Bharathidasan and Subramaniya Bharathi
yields very little amount of waste, it is suggested to pool the wastes generated in these facilities to the
other facility for biogas production or can be composted in their own facility.

Limitations of the Study

Despite a moderate success of this initial phase of FWIA, there are also notable limitations that
need to be regarded as discussed by Smyth et al. (2010): “In order to conserve and utilize the limited
time during the present study, waste sampling and labeling was partially completed by the kitchen staff
as part of their regular waste collection responsibilities. Prior awareness and training was provided to all
kitchen staff with quality control checks, however, even though the audit team had complete control
over the auditing process, they did not have complete control over the waste segregation process. As a
result, certain improper and unclear samples were excluded from the study. Limited time availability,
team member’s busy academic schedule, festival holidays and financial resources also restricted the
assessment of food waste at cafeterias, cultural cum convention center, transit hostel, guest houses,
child care centre and staff quarters which together represent a significant and distinct portion of the
university’s waste. Thus, this study is expected to provide a base line for further work. More over the
primary waste categories will fluctuate, based on the season and menu plan, and never be constant”.

145
6.3.2.6. Solar Campus Initiative (Phase I) at PU

The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), GoI, has launched a scheme on
‘Development of Solar Cities’ under which a total of 60 cities/towns and 50 townships/campuses are
proposed to be supported for development as ‘Solar Campus’ (aiming to reduce 10% of the energy
demand). Since PU is a vast area having 100s of buildings scattered throughout the campus, offering
several courses (Figures 6.23 and 6.24) had shown a considerable increase in the total energy
consumption rate (Figure 6.25) in the recent decade. Proposing for 100% solar campus is not feasible in
the beginning stage (even though PU is in the tropics), hence it was phased out and in the first phase
‘Silver Jubilee Campus’ was identified for this strategy. Silver Jubilee Campus is a new 110 acres
pocket within PU housing about 12 buildings and 2500 plus students, which was completed under 12th
Five Year Plan (2012-17). Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences and Green Energy
Technology of PU, jointly prepared the detailed project report through the consultant, Alternatives and
Global Sustainable Energy Solutions for the newly developed PU Silver Jubilee Campus, along with the
researcher being the key personnel and catalyst for data collection and support. The proposal was
forwarded to MNRE through Renewable Energy Agency, Puducherry. Incidentally MNRE has
approved the proposal and it was the first solar campus in India.

Figure 6.23. Number of Schools, Departments, Centers and Chairs at PU

(Source: PU Information Chart, 2016)

146
 Figure 6.24. Number of programs offered at PU
(Source: PU Information Chart, 2016)

Figure 6.25. Total energy consumption rate at PU during 2010-15

(Source: Electrical Wing, PU)

The estimated energy consumption by the Silver Jubilee Campus is 1324.84 MWh per year and
it is anticipated to grow. The major share of 87.54% was supplied from the grid, followed by 8.65%
generated by diesel generators along with the consumption of diesel for transportation and liquefied
petroleum gas as 2.49% and 1.32% respectively. According to the detailed project report, the proposed
620 kWp (kilo Watt peak) Photo Voltaic Power Plant is expected to generate around 939.99 MWh
(Megawatt Hour) of electricity per year, which will be directly used as captive power, by saving
INR 31.96/- lakh per year at the rate of INR 3.40/- per unit of grid power (as of 2013 tariff). Besides,
the photo voltaic systems will totally offset the usage of generators by saving 11200 liters of diesel
147
every year. On the other hand 1000 liters per day (lpd) capacity of solar water heating systems will save
50 MWh (Megawatt Hour) of electricity and INR 1.70/- lakh per year. Similarly by using 500 lpd in
canteen for 200 working days will save 4.72 Giga Calorie per year, followed by 465 kg of LPG and
INR 36000/-. Apart from this, the anticipated energy consumption with energy savings coupled with
GHG emissions and reduction at Silver Jubilee Campus is shown in the Table below:

Table 6.5. Showing the anticipated energy consumption, savings, GHG emissions and reduction at
silver jubilee campus
(Source: Detailed project report prepared by the consultant, Alternatives and Global Sustainable
Energy Solutions, 2013)

Year Energy Energy GHG emission GHG reduction per

consumption savings per per year in year in MtCO2
per year year (MWh) MtCO2 equivalent
(MWh) equivalent From Through
Electrical Renewable
Energy Energy
2015 3975 596 3339 501 1439
2016 13250 1988 11130 1670 2968
2017 26500 3975 22260 3339 5516

Note: GHG emission and reduction per year in MtCO2 equivalent by considering emission factor for
Southern India as 0.84 (MtCO2 – metric ton carbon-dioxide equivalent)

Though MNRE has come forward to support the project with about one third subsidy, the
university could not mobilize the rest of the funds to the tune of a few crores. However, this proposal is
being revisited as there is renewed interest from the part of the university administration considering the
UGC’s emphasis on resource conservation and sustainable development and the possibility to link it
with the “solar city” or “smart city” project on the pipeline for Puducherry. National/ international
funding opportunities have to be identified with possible support from MNRE, Ministry of Earth
Sciences and Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change. Such a project will open new
windows of opportunities for the entire community on renewable energy based sustainability literacy,
action research on campus and community outreach.

6.3.3. Phase III - (C) Creating a Vision for PU Campus Sustainability

In this Step – C of the TNS framework, a session is conducted to brainstorm potential solutions
to the issues highlighted in the baseline analysis related with “water – food – energy nexus” without any
constraints, and to evolve an organizational structure and a vision for campus sustainability. “Visioning
is ‘creating a picture of what success will be at a particular time in the future’. A hallmark of great
leaders/ universities/ IHE’s is that, their vision includes ‘big ideas’. Big ideas get people excited and
leaders want to feel motivated about coming to work, because what they do matters” (BATES, 2015).
“The creative process of developing a visionary statement consists of four steps such as Observe,
148
Reflect, Write, and Speak” (BATES, 2015). “A powerful vision when well-articulated, attracts people
to a University/ IHE’s focus groups, motivates them to take action toward progress, and drives business
results. For PU’s strategic GCI, ‘backcasting’ approach is envisioned, in the lines of Harvard’s
decentralized campus holistic vision coupled with a clear University-wide goals and priorities”
(Harvard, 2015). “Backcasting is defined as generating a desirable future, and then looking backwards
from that future to the present in order to strategize and to plan how it could be achieved” (Quist and
Vergragt, 2006) (Figure 6.26).

Figure 6.26. Backcasting using the TNS framework (Source: TNS, 2015)

“Natural physical systems, like climate or the ocean are complex and non-linear, and we cannot
predict what outcomes they will produce and even more complex are the social systems. To fit a social
system like University / HEI into models we can ‘understand’ and ‘predict’, we are forced to make
assumptions which often make the models reductionist, simplistic and absurd. This tendency of ours to
make simplistic, reductionist models comes from an academic tradition of compartmentalized
disciplines, where social scientists have pushed a quantitative, value-neutral approach to studying these
systems in the misguided pursuit of establishing concrete laws similar to the laws of nature” (TNS,
2015). In view of this, the strategies evolved for GCI at PU looks backward from the vision to develop
actions toward sustainability. The following steps are carefully considered while formulating vision and
organizational structure for an effective implementation of GCI at PU;

- “People are encouraged to set ambitious goals which may require radical changes in how the
institution operates irrespective of whether the goals may take few months or many years to
achieve” (TNS, 2015).

- Choice based application is factored to provide a platform to take part and act for example: scalable
components in the ICSM along with provision for future inclusion.

149
- Incorporating this choice based selection and application into the awareness and visioning process
unleashes innovation and releases the University / HEI from pre-conceived limitations.

6.3.3.1. Evolving a Visionary Policy Framework for GCI at PU

Materials and Methods

The leadership of PU provides a clear vision and mission statement to the institution that
addresses the functions of the institution and its academic and administrative units. However the current
vision and mission does not address sustainability directly. In view of this, this investigation is aimed at
creating a vision and framing a policy for campus sustainability by assessing the environmental
challenges that are currently faced by the University. “Scenario planning, with aspects of systems
thinking was applied for the integration and advancement of sustainable development concepts at PU.
Numerous organizations have applied scenario planning to a broad range of issues, from relatively
simple, tactical decisions to the complex process of strategic planning and vision building” (Schwartz
1991; Ringland 1998). The method also allows the inclusion of concepts that are difficult to formalize,
such as insights about the future environmental crises, unprecedented disasters, upcoming new
regulations and inventions. For example, in times of crisis, not only the leadership becomes important
but also some degree of preparedness. As a result, a structure of the Permanent Governing Body of the
PU’s Office of Campus Sustainability (PUOCS) is proposed to implement the various strategies of the
ICSM framework over the coming years for promoting campus environmental sustainability and
outreach.

The scenario planning is followed by the crafting of flexible strategies and appropriate
monitoring systems. When it is integrated with a systems thinking approach, causal relationship
between factors and actors of sustainable development can be established. The campus community
should empower themselves to protect the campus environment and ecosystems. In view of this, the
departments should maintain a continuously-updated series of strategic plans to cope with well-known
problems of the campus in relation to the life supporting systems such as water, soil, air, ecosystem
services, energy and biodiversity. The following steps are recommended as part of planning:

1. Decide on the key questions to be answered by the analysis (Cavanna and Abkula, 2009). This will
make it possible to assess whether scenario planning is preferred as the best method to adopt or not.

2. Conduct a SWOT analysis and understand the current trends and the driving forces. This includes
variables like space availability, economic viability, social acceptance, educational qualification,
number and type of stakeholders. Assessing such variable to what degree, how and why they will
affect the research or implementation is required.

3. Identifying and educating the major stakeholders to make up a decision on who is affected and who
will be benefitted based on the possible outcomes, without the current interests getting changed over
the time.

150
4. Finalize the time period taking into consideration about how quickly the environmental changes are
happening, and how this planning will mitigate the associated risks.

The SWOT analysis considering the internal and external factors is presented in the Table 6.6.

Table 6.6. SWOT analysis for Green campus Initiative

STRENGTHS
 Utilization of vast campus land
 Alluvial aquifer
 Situated on the coastal belt with gradient slope
 Availability of ground water resource
 Afforestation and energy generation potential
 Soil rejuvenation and erosion prevention
 Habitat/Biodiversity conservation and
restoration
 Role model for prototypes /scaling up
 International commitment for minimizing GHG
emission
 Flow of funds and projects
 Vibrant campus student community
 Enthusiastic /dedicated faculty /scholars
WEAKNESSES
 Low water infiltration rate
 Red soil- even though rich in nutrients
availability, yet low/poor in essential
nutrients and organic matter availability
 Lack of campus sustainability protocol
 Failure to comprehend the long term benefits
of sustainability
 Increased labor and maintenance
 Lack of rational cooperation and interest of a
few
 Lack of effective roof top rain water
harvesting system
 Academic curriculum not stressing the
importance on environmental sustainability
 Lack of social acceptance

OPPORTUNITIES
 Earn while you learn employment opportunities
 International cooperation, MOUs, and access to
new innovative technologies
 Government incentives for conserving energy,
water and waste
 Availability of reasonable amount of rainfall
 Compliance with LEED / GRIHA rating and
energy conservation
 Outreach of environmental education for SD
 Revitalize forest cover through afforestation
 Research and development for innovation in
environmental friendly concepts
 International commitment to environmental
challenges and climate change
 Participative governance
THREATS
 Most of the available technologies are non-
standardized or inappropriate.
 Political, government and social dynamics
 Lack of detailed studies on campus
conservation and sustainability that focus on
developing regions
 Habitat degradation/ pollution/ over
exploitation of critical natural resources
through development projects
 Lack of policies, control, and protocol for
water, energy and waste management
 Over exploitation of ground water resources.
 Frequent restructuring and change in
hierarchy and positions

6.3.3.2. Strategic Operational Action Plan Fostering Campus Environmental Sustainability

Based on the scenario planning and SWOT analysis, several strategies are proposed to be
implemented in successive phases fostering Green Campus Initiative at the University. Table 6.7, shows
the key strategies to foster sustainability at PU supported by institutional commitment, governance,
cooperation, monitoring, evaluation and outreach, and also it was built on the following four main
foundational principles:
151
 1. As a central university in India, leadership of Pondicherry University in environmental
education for SD is aiming to demonstrate and strengthen the State/ National government's
leadership for change in policies, programs and operations focusing on integrated sustainability.

2. Emphasize on the collaboration and coordination of student and staff community as the
university is rich in diverse and vibrant campus community drawn from across India and abroad.

3. The academic structure, curriculum for teaching and research should include / enhance aspects
of environmental, social and economic sustainability to inculcate green / sustainable campus
culture.

4. The infrastructural growth should take into consideration about the best practices, in material
purchasing, reuse; and focus on implementing the Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (R-R-R-R)
strategy in all related activities for promoting green purchasing and green infrastructure.

Table 6.7. Strategic operational action plan fostering campus environmental sustainability

Category Strategy Actions Benefits

Water Resource  Identify and repair leaks  Reduce dependency on
Management  Implement waterless urinals/ municipality
Sustainable management of water resources

dual flush toilets  Economic benefits

 Efficient metering
 Rain water harvesting
 Green Roofs
Water based water  Water foot-print and audit
conservation  Usage of water efficient
fixtures
 Grey water segregation,
reclamation and reuse
 Implement cost effective eco
technologies for water
treatment
Soil based water  Integrated Xeriscape
conservation  Landscape
 Organic horticulture
Food and Supply  Implement onsite organic
Chain Management kitchen garden
 Purchase locally grown food
 Increase vegetable, legumes,
Sustainable food production
 Efficient water usage
 Improve water quality
 Reduce fresh water footprint
 Temperature control
 Reduce ground water
dependency
 Reduce environmental impact
 Economic benefits
 Reduce grey water footprint
 Reduce fresh water footprint
 Better health and nutrition
 Lesser transport cost and food
miles
 Reduce food purchase from

fruit consumption outside source

 Reduce meat consumption
 Poly-cultures and
Intercropping
Sustainable SWM,  Implement refuse, reduce,
Composting and reuse and recycle concepts
Vermi Composting  Waste stream analysis and
audit
 Colored/ labeled waste bins
 Biogas generation
 Slurry composting
 Kitchen garden
152
 Improve food quality
 Reduce carbon and water
footprint
 Reduce environmental impact
and maintain campus
cleanliness
 Revenue generation from
value added composting
 Reduce expenditures
 Healthy living
 Organic landscape/farming
 Climate resilient  Improve forest cover and
organic farming and indigenous plant/ tree
Biodiversity  Ecological landscape with
Conservation
native draught tolerant species
 Seed banks and outreach
Energy  Implement database and track
Energy management and sustainable operations
Conservation energy usage
 Audit, visible metering/
monitoring
 Benchmarking
 Staff/ student collaboration
 Rewards and recognition
Power Generation  Implement waste to energy
projects
 Implement non-conventional/
renewable energy based power
plants
Sustainable  Encourage public
Transportation transportation
 Encourage car pooling
 Encourage bicycling and
walking
 Use bio fuels
Environmental  Revise curriculum to include
Education, environmental education
Curriculum and  Interactive and practical
Extra mural
learning
activities
 Practical strategies to
overcome environmental
impacts
Communication and Outreach
 E-learning portal
Office of  Usage of degradable plant
Sustainability derived products
 Recycled plastics and paper
 Recycled cartridges
 Recycled aluminum
 Recycled/ sustainable
construction materials
Disaster and Risk  Form a disaster recovery team
Management  Auditing of hazardous wastes
 Tracking of Hazardous
materials
 Chemical swapping and
sharing program
 Usage of nontoxic alternatives
 Safe disposal of biomedical /
Sanitary waste
153
 Reduce GHG emissions
through offsetting
 Prevent top soil erosion and
reduce water usage
 Conserve native species of
flora and fauna
 Better understand and reduce
energy usage
 Generate awareness
 Reduce carbon footprint
 Economic benefits
 Create goodwill
 Economic benefits and lessen
state dependency
 Reduce carbon footprint and
GHG emissions
 Reduce carbon footprint and
GHG emissions
 Reduce pollution
 Improve air quality
 Economic benefits
 Impart responsibility towards
environment and future
generation
 Create awareness
 Create goodwill and positive
learning atmosphere
 Reduce CO2 emission
 Reduce water footprint
 Conserve biodiversity
 Better waste management
 Better preparedness in times
of disaster
 Reduce hazardous wastes
 Improve waste recycling
ethics
 Preventing health hazards
 Promote better health
 Healthy campus atmosphere
6.3.3.3. Proposed Pondicherry University’s Office of Campus Sustainability (PUOCS)

Campus Environmental Sustainability is the capacity of the campus to endure sustainability for a
long-term, encompassing the environmental, economic and social dimensions in a holistic way. This
would require joint decision-making on hiring, funding and staffing priorities and mechanisms to
resolve conflicts through direct engagement with key academic and administrative units. Pondicherry
University is proud of its leadership position in university sustainability. Our regional/national strength
in the Basic and Applied Sciences (including Life Sciences, Ecology and Environmental Sciences as
well as Social Sciences), Green Energy Technology, Psychology, Mass Media Communication, etc.
provide a powerful coalition of faculty, staff and students to develop sustainability initiatives. By their
very design, these new innovative initiatives will be environmentally responsible, economically justified
and socially relevant.

In view of this, the PUOCS’s governing framework recommends to fulfill the vision of ICSM, in
its stewardship role and also in its operations and management of facilities. In its stewardship role, the
University will endeavors to:

 conserve and recycle resource to restore campus/neighborhood ecosystems, biodiversity and

environmental health through integrated conservation of soil-water-plants

 rely more on renewable energy resources and technologies (substitute fossil fuel with renewable
energy/ conserve energy resources)

 restore lost and damaged habitats due to campus development process

 coordinate, facilitate and advance sustainability efforts in university academics

 coordinate, facilitate and advance sustainability efforts in campus/city operations

154
 Campus Operational
INTERNAL RNAL
Leadership Team Head Sustainability and Collaboration Collaboration
Horticulture
Formulates Vision & Mission conceptualizing GCI

President Research Through

(Vice chancellor/
Head of the Head PWD Based on ICSM Networking
institution) and MOU’s
SBSTL&L

Research Supervisors & Coordinators / Research Scholars

Head Civil Sustainable
Vice-President management of SM
UGC/ DST
(Registrar/ Head Finance
water resources CSIR/ MNRE
Principal)
Environmental Sustainability Coordinators
Permanent Governing Body of the PUOCS

Head Electrical RSMS

UNESCO / WHO
SPC&AS PPCC
Director- SEI & Warden

Collaborators / Volunteers
RR Gents Hostel
SLS Universities from
India and abroad
Director Warden Sustainable food SH with whom the
Research Ladies Hostel Pondicherry
production
SSS&IS University has an
Head E&ES MOU in place
SPA
*GCI E&ES
SE
Outreach activities
Director/Dean/ **Green Energy through
Coordinator – Energy Tech SM&C
PUOCS
management and Partnerships and
GCI
(Setting targets, Sustainable Participative
SE&T
formulating Dean SM&C Governance
operations
policies, getting
funds and MSGET
facilitating Dean Students
coordination’s) Welfare Library  Government
 Local NGO’s
 Communities
IRD Controller of exam
 Other National
Communication Central and International
Green Campus
PUCGRF IRB and Outreach Instrumentation Organizations
Facility such as APSCC,
CSE, AASHE,
SWC
ISCN etc.

AASHE Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education RSMS Ramanujam School of Mathematical Sciences
APSCC Association for Promoting Sustainability in Campuses and Communities SE&T School of Engineering and technology
CSE Center for Science and Environment SH School of Humanities
CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial Research SLS School of Life Sciences
DST Department of Science and Technology SM School of Management
E&ES Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences SM&C School of Media and Communication
GCI Green Campus Initiative SPA School of Performing Arts,
IIT Indian Institute of Technology SE School of Education
IRB Institutional Review Board SPC&AS School of Physical, Chemical and Applied Sciences
IRD Information Resources Department SSS&IS School of Social Sciences and International Studies
ISCN International Sustainable Campus Network SWC Safety-In-The Workplace Committee
MSGET Madanjeet School of Green Energy Technologies UGC University Grants Commission
MNRE Ministry for New and Renewable Resources ULSF Association for University Leaders for a Sustainable Future
NGO Non-Government Organization UNEP United Nations Environment Program
PPCC Puducherry Pollution Control Committee UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
PUOCS Pondicherry University’s Office of Campus Sustainability Organization
PUCGRF Pondicherry University Campus Green Revolving Fund USGBC United States Green Building Council
WHO World Health Organization

Figure 6.27. Proposed permanent governing body framework of the PUOCS

Note: Departments and other organizations can be included according to the project initiatives.

155
In its operations and management of facilities, the University should seek to reduce environmental
impacts through:

 sustainable water/solid waste/hazardous waste/biomedical waste management

 augment, substitute and conserve electricity through energy efficient devices/ fixtures and with
more reliance on eco-friendly renewable energy technologies like solar, wind, waste to
electricity, etc...

 conserve and protect ground water resource and prevent saline water intrusion from the
neighboring ocean by water reclamation and storm water management

 adopt strategies like refuse, reduce, reuse, recycle (R-R-R-R) and purchase of recycled products

 minimize environmental impacts during the different phases of construction of new buildings or
renovation of old ones by using green building strategies (eco friendly) recycled water and
construction materials

 conduct EIA prior to any new development project that is likely to cause any impact

 create an acceptable standard of indoor and outdoor healthy environment for the safety of the
campus community

 strive to prevent and eliminate pollution onsite, that may cause harm to the human/other
organisms/environment, in full compliance with state and constitutional laws

 consider the short-term and long-term environmental consequences when making financial
commitments/ investments on upcoming projects

 commit to promote environmental awareness and education for SD through mass media
communication and movements inside and outside the campus and also to serve as a local and
regional resource center

 develop and include environmental, economic and social sustainability in the academic curricula
and community outreach activities

“Specific standards are laid down from Schedule 1 to Schedule 4 of the Environment Protection
Act - EPA (1986), Govt. of India, for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the
environment and preventing and abating environmental pollution, the standards for emission or
discharge of environmental pollutants from the industries, operations or processes shall be as specified
(http://envfor.nic.in). These standards are not only applicable to the industrial sector as mentioned
above but also to any ‘operation’ or ‘processes’ of similar nature. Since this legislation was enacted in
pursuance with the decisions taken at the International Conference at Stockholm in June 1972, such
legislation may override any existing state laws (Article 253 of the Indian constitution)” (EPA, 1986;
Mandal and Rao, 2007). In spite of this fact almost all educational campuses in India have forgotten
their responsibilities towards the environment. Pondicherry University until recently is no exception.

156
Hence, unless this situation is addressed in a responsible manner through environmental stewardship,
even the available natural resources will keep dwindling. Therefore developing generic campus
sustainability policies, a form of education about the change agenda, should be consensual, with the
input from all appropriate stakeholders and it should be applicable, enforceable and non-rhetorical in
order to support, justify and communicate the change goals.

Finlay (2010) suggests that “the Universities/IHEs are beginning to recognize their own
ecological footprint resulting from campus production and consumption practices”, while Wright (2002)
and ULSF suggests “implementing institutional ecology principles and practices to conserve resources,
recycle, reduce waste, will improve environmentally sound operations”. “Several Universities/IHEs in
the North have enforced operational procedures such as carbon dioxide reduction practices, emission
control devices, sustainable building construction, and local food purchasing to meet sustainability
targets and goals” (Velazquez et al., 2006; Finlay, 2010; KOÇ, 2014). Bowers (1997) “found that, green
campus project implementation, will be very slow,” whereas Velazquez et al. (2006) and Finlay (2010)
indicated that “progress can be slow and painful due to intrinsic and extrinsic factors”. “Therefore
leadership by a charismatic, visionary change maker” (Deluga, 1988; Shriberg, 2002b; Barbuto, 2005;
Ziegler, 2014) “is the key and defining element to facilitate sustainability when supported with
appropriate policy and adequate resources (financial and human), with power or direct access to
power” (Deluga, 1988; Shriberg, 2002b) “to move the organization towards long-term sustainable
transitions” (Deluga, 1988; Conger, 1999; Shriberg, 2002b).

“Such a leader should be truly transformational in that he/she must establish, communicate and
dramatize an inspiring vision of something to be sought even if it is unattainable in the short term”
(Behling and McFillen 1996; Ackoff, 1998; 1999; Shriberg, 2002b). “Transformational leaders must be
charismatic, having the ability to generate great symbolic power with which the employees want to
identify” (Deluga, 1988; Shriberg, 2002a),“self-confident, having a strong need for change” (Ross and
Offerman 1997), “and operate from deeply held personal value systems” (Carlson and Perrewe, 1995)
“with enlightened self-interest” (Gittell, 1981; Cerych and Sabatier, 1986; Dominick, 1990; Lane,
1990; Orr, 1992 and 2004; Rainsford, 1990; Wood, 1990; Berry and Gordon, 1993; Smith, 1993;
Dolence and Norris, 1995; Keniry, 1995; Creighton, 1998; Shriberg, 2002a and b; Lozano et al., 2013;
Krasny and Delia, 2015) “and a strong rationale for environmental action” (Shriberg, 2002a). “They
tend to be more heroic, morally correct, and meaningful” (Conger, 1999; Fuller et al., 1999; Shriberg,
2002a) “by approaching old and familiar problems in new ways” (Deluga, 1988; Shriberg, 2002a;
Barbuto, 2005) “and by involving all the stakeholders” (Leal, 2009; Muthu et al., 2015; Sharma and
Pandya, 2015; ULSF, 2015a; NCERT, 2015). Ideally the Director/ Coordinator, PUOCS can be such a
leader.

157
6.3.3.4. Proposed Policy Recommendations for Campus Sustainability

The proposed policy recommendations for campus sustainability are focused on the concrete
implementation of the “Ten Point Action Plan of Talloires Declaration (TPAP-TD)” (1990). The
policy is proposed to fulfill TPAP-TD while evolving and implementing GC strategies in the present
scenario and future perspective. The proposed policy were discussed in this sub section and the GC
initiations fostering TPAP-TD were also discussed in the sub sections 6.3.4.1 to 6.3.4.10

To evolve these policies, the campus environmental policies which have been adopted and
implemented by a number of leading universities is reviewed with an attempt to use the experience,
expertise and imagination of its members, as well as appropriate consultations within PU (Finance
Officer; Assistant Registrar - P&D; Junior Engineer - Electrical wing; Engineers - Civil Engineering
Wing; Head - Horticulture), to design a policy and an action plan suited for PU. “The important ones
are Strategic Sustainability Initiatives Report of Western Michigan University (WMICH, 2009);
UNEP’s Greening Universities Toolkit (UNEP, 2013); Climate Planning by AASHE (2013); USGBC,
Road Map to a Green Campus (USGBC, 2014); Harvard’s Sustainability Initiative (Harvard, 2015;
REP, 2015); Pathways to a Green Campus of Middlebury College (Middlebury, 2015); Skidmore
College’s Strategic Environmental Planning (Skidmore, 2015); Student Sustainability Forum of Yale
University (Yale, 2015); McGill University’s Environmental Policy (McGill, 2015); University of
Copenhagen’s Steering Committee Structure (Copenhagen, 2015); ISCN-GULF Sustainable Campus
Charter (ISCN, 2016) and policies/ rules/ acts developed by various Ministries of Government of
India”.

The following 31 policy recommendations are proposed for transforming PU from its current
state to a model green/ sustainable campus encompassing the four basic theme of ICSM (as discussed in
Chapter 4) and the TPAP-TD (the numerical within the bracket indicate the action plan sequence):

Policy – 3, 9, 14 (TPAP-TD 1)
Policy – 1, 4, 6 (TPAP-TD 2)
Policy – 5 (TPAP-TD 3)
Policy – 2, 13 (TPAP-TD 4)
Policy – 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15-25, 28-31 (TPAP-TD 5)
Policy – 26, 27 (TPAP-TD 6)
Policy – 5, 27, 28 (TPAP-TD 7)
Policy – 9 (TPAP-TD 8)
Policy – 8 (TPAP-TD 9)
Policy – 3, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 24-28, 30 (TPAP-TD 10)

1. A Sustainability Vision and Mission Statements should be framed by the leadership team and
distributed throughout the University to communicate the fundamental principles and objectives
governing the sustainable use of resources in campus operations.

158
2. “University should prepare a handbook emphasizing on the ‘Respect for the Environment’,
‘Respect for Campus Property’, ‘Respect for the Neighbors property’ and ‘General Rules and
Regulations’ that are generally designed to protect public health, safety and welfare as suggested
by several workers” (Collin and Collin, 2009; CAP, 2010)
3. The PUOCS should be responsible for setting targets, formulating policies, getting funds and
facilitating coordination among the campus stake holders
4. The campus sustainability policy should be evolved and amended periodically to mitigate the
challenges with a wider stakeholder consultation and discussion, facilitated by the PUOCS in a
democratic way without any discrimination of position, caste, community, hierarchy, gender etc.
5. The incorporated Campus Sustainability Mission Statement as a fundamental guide, the
Dean/Coordinator of the PUOCS should facilitate the stakeholder involvement for formulating
policies and procedures for sustainable development governing various schools, departments,
programs, projects and other activities of the campus
6. The PUOCS should consider both the existing and forthcoming International policies/
laws/conventions/agreements for making progress in the campus sustainability
7. The Pondicherry University Campus Green Revolving Fund (PUCGRF) should provide seed
money grant for projects that promote economic/environmental/social sustainability, and
positively impact and enhance the student /staff experience at the university. The PUCGRF will
allocate funds to projects that increase the use of renewable energy on campus and/or in the
local community such as green buildings, increase the energy efficiency of our facilities,
retrofits, reduce the amount of waste created and material resources used on campus, foster
value added composting, organic horticulture, promote green labs, green IT, green purchase,
soil/water/biodiversity conservation, encourage sustainable behaviors, and integrate
sustainability into teaching, research, and services.
8. PUOCS in collaboration with PUCGRF will identify and seek funds from various sources-
internal, Govt. national and international through a dedicated website that will connect
sustainability projects on the campus to potential donors, paving the way for green
improvements to University facilities.
9. The PUOCS should take responsibility to promote Environment Education, Awareness and
Training (EEAT) Campaign. Waste recycling ethic should be motivated by taking necessary
measures based on the recommendations of the Coordinator
10. The University should adopt a formal policy of using 100% post-consumer recycled paper for all
official work, publications, and posters which indirectly help conserve water and biodiversity
11. PUOCS should conduct water related impact assessment thrice every year (monsoon, pre and
post monsoons), energy auditing every year and environment impact assessment (EIA) in every
two or three years in line with the EIA Notification, 2006
12. Prior to making financial commitments/ investments, the PUOCS should consider short-term as
well as long-term environmental impacts that inherently threaten or cause serious harm to the
underground water resources and campus environment
13. The proposed PUOCS should become a standing committee not only for the campus but serve as
a model for the other institutions in the region/state/country and the Campus Sustainability
Directors/Deans/Coordinators should be established as permanent positions (only for those who

159
 are efficient and exhibit highly responsible and committed behavior, ‘not in papers but in
reality’).
14. The Dean of student’s welfare should facilitate student orientation programs, environmental
awareness program and other sustainability campaigns within the campus in collaboration with
the wardens, administrators and PUOCS.
15. Since PU campus is vast covering 323.74 ha (http://www.pondiuni.edu.in/content/campus) and
the departments, quarters, hostels, administration and service departments are scattered all over
the campus with vast re-vegetated as well as open spaces, it will be useful to apply the
geomatics tools for long term sustainability planning. “The University’s vacant lands should be
entered into a data base of the Geographic Information System (GIS)” (McLennan, 2004; Hilton
and Burkhard, 2009; Rauch and Newman, 2009) to monitor and encourage organic garden,
sustainable agriculture, horticulture and integrated xeriscape by utilizing the reclaimed
greywater and harvested rain water, thereby facilitating ground water recharge, protection and
conservation.
16. “The ecosystem services that can be restored should be based on the objectives of biodiversity
conservation and habitat restoration, where carbon sequestering is the co-benefit of such
strategies” (Paulson, 2013).
17. The procurement of locally grown organic foods, seasonal fruits and vegetables from the kitchen
gardens for the hostel should be promoted to increase the vegetative cover of the campus
favoring biodiversity and carbon sequestering.
18. The groceries and other ingredients needed for the campus food and food services should have
minimum water, energy and carbon footprints.
19. The University’s food service sector should reduce the generation of waste through proper meal
planning and also focus on adopting innovative methods like bio-methanation to generate
biogas/ energy.
20. In order to avert the worst impacts of climate change, Pondicherry University (PU) should strive
“to reduce the GHG emission intensity reduction of 33-35% by 2030, compared to 2005 levels,
triple its renewable energy capacity by 2022 and to raise the share of zero-carbon electricity
generating capacity to 40% of the total by 2030” as suggested by COP (2015) and in accordance
with “the India’s first National Action Plan on Climate Change” (NAPCC-INDIA, 2015).
21. “Energy generation from pollutants such as organic solid wastes” (Havukainen et al., 2014;
Brandon and Lombardi, 2011) and “liquid wastes” (Pandey et al., 2011) will not only conserve
fossil fuel but also destroy the pathogenic microbes and prevent the percolation of pathogens
into the aquifer, which is the only freshwater source for the entire region.
22. The University should construct and /or retrofit a model dormitory/ hostel/ faculty guest house
that is state-of-the-art in energy/environmental technology to serve as a learning center for
students, faculty and staff. This will also become an archetype for other institutions, industries
and residents who are willing to adopt and contribute to the SDG’s.
23. The University should provide hygienic drinking water in all buildings to maximize the quality
of the drinking water and to minimize/ eliminate the consumption of bottled water.
24. “In accordance with National Policy on Safety, Health and Environment at work place
(http://labour.nic.in), PUOCS should develop appropriate regulations, standards, policies, codes
of practices and manuals on environmental and occupational health and safety in all the
160
 activities consistent with international standards and implementation by the stake holders in true
spirit, by ensuring stakeholders awareness and accessibility to all of them”.
25. “In tune with the ‘Sanitation safety planning manual – WHO (2016)’, the University Health and
Safety Officer, under the guidance of PUOCS, should develop policies and procedures relating
to the sustainable management of toxic, pathogenic and hazardous wastes generated within the
campus”. “Apart from it should also comply with constitutional rules and regulations to
minimize and eliminate the direct and indirect environmental/public health issues” (Armijo et
al., 2008).
26. The quality of campus life needs to be enhanced, under the supervision of the PUOCS, taking
full responsibility for monitoring the waste (liquid, solid, hazardous and e-waste) generated from
residence quarters, student’s hostels, food and food services, cultural centre, the department labs,
civil construction sites, administration, etc. and should be characterized, quantified, and properly
managed to dispose at sight (through appropriate strategies) to avoid air, water and soil
contamination/ pollution. Subsequently they need to be transferred to the region.
27. The PUOCS should constantly increase awareness and educate the public on the water
conservation strategy by establishing a formal procedure for metering, rationed distribution,
recycling and reusing through reclamation in accordance with, “Draft National Water Policy
2012 (NWP), published by Ministry of Water Resources” (http://wrmin.nic.in).
28. The PUOCS should constantly increase the efforts “to emphasize on the waste reduction strategy
by establishing a formal procedure for recycling, composting and community education, in tune
with the recently announced Solid Waste Management Rules, 2015 (SWMR, 2015), which the
Central Government proposes to issue in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 3, 6 and
25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986) and in supersession of the Municipal
Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000”(NAPCC-INDIA, 2015).
29. E-waste, plastic waste, construction and demolition waste, bio-medical waste, hazardous and
other related waste management policies should be adopted “to sustainably manage and dispose
of the waste(s) appropriately that are generated within the campus (Dwivedy and Mittal, 2010;
Agamuthu et al., 2015; SWMR, 2015) according to the waste management rules (SWMR,
2015), which the Central Government proposes to enact in exercise of the powers conferred in
the sections of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
30. The PUOCS should “adopt the utilization of B5/ B10 biodiesel, initially for the selective
generators and set an example to promote the bio diesel usage among the present generation”
(Creighton and Rappaport, 2007). The cultivation of Jatropha curcas Linneaus sp. (bio diesel)
and Bheema Bamboo sp. (pyrolysis) should be promoted by PUOCS for renewable energy
generation through sustainable resource recovery and application and also for waste land
re-habitation.
31. Bicycling, carpooling and usage of public transportation should be encouraged. Especially,
pedestrian and bicycle mode of transportation should be encouraged within the campus to
enhance the campus air quality, reduce GHG emission and also increase the individual’s health.

“Among the many issues facing the regions/ the nations/ the world, urbanization and climate
change are at the forefront. As of 2014, 54% of the total global population lives in the cities – by 2050,
some estimates by the United Nations suggest that the urban population share will increase by at least
2.5 billion (leading to 70 % of global population living in cities). Associated with around 70 % of global
161
energy consumption and energy related GHG emissions, urban areas face complex, systemic and
societal challenges yet are also seen as essential agents in the pursuit of a more sustainable future.
Universities are well suited to help address these challenges and at the University of British Columbia
(UBC) campus serves as a societal-test bed for the design, implementation and testing of sustainable
solutions at a municipal scale. These efforts support our teaching, learning and research while at the
same time help prepare students to be the agents of change” (ISCN, 2016).

The recent agreement United Nations Climate Negotiations (COP21) in Paris (2015) defines
“the direction and ensures the engagement of nations in controlling GHG emissions. However, we need
site specific practical and applicable solutions for climate change mitigation – adaptation synergies that
will require the best of today’s knowledge, the capacity to trigger large changes in industry and public
policy, and the involvement of leaders who understand these challenges and can manage disruptive
change in a holistic manner. In this context, university/HEIs not only have much to offer through
teaching, research, and their role as living laboratories, but can also be an important engine of change
through their collaborations with other educational/research institutions, organizations, and businesses
in developing sustainability skills and building capacities, collaborating with corporate partners, and
demonstrating innovation in the built environment. Many universities in the North and a few in the
South now have several such innovative ongoing campus sustainability programs”. ISCN Secretariat
(2016) has summarized “the best practice case studies around the world and the following are the design
elements along with typical examples of institutions where they are applied:

 blending problem-based learning that transcends disciplinary boundaries into the learning
experience on campus (e.g. Aalto University, Finland; ETH Zurich, Switzerland)

 experiential learning with outside partners (Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
(HKUST); University of British Columbia; Ozyegin University, Turkey; KTH Royal Institute of
Technology, Sweden)

 collaborating to catalyze change (Harvard University, USA; Princeton University USA; Korea
Advanced Institute of Science and Technology)

 using networks and communication tools (University of Gothenburg, Sweden; Nanyang

Technological University, Singapore; University of California, Berkeley, USA)

 innovating for efficient built environments (Chulalongkorn University, Thailand; De La Salle

University–Dasmarinas, Philippines; National University of Singapore; University of Oxford)”

Although, these elements are the focus points for the listed institutions, Pondicherry University
can evolve its own design in the years to come based on the windows of opportunities. Such an
opportunity is the potential to integrate the green campus strategies with that of the smart city project of
Govt. of India. On a sustainable campus, the built environment, operational systems, research,
scholarship, and education are linked as a “living laboratory” for sustainability/climate change
education, action research and community outreach. Users (such as students, faculty, and staff) will
162
have access to research, teaching, and learning opportunities on connections between environmental,
energy, social, and economic issues. Campus sustainability programs have concrete goals and can bring
together campus residents with external partners, such as industry, government, or organized civil
society. Beyond exploring a sustainable future in general, such programs can address issues pertinent to
research and higher education (such as environmental impacts of research facilities, participatory
teaching or research that transcends disciplines). “As a consequence, sustainability education and hands
on training will be added advantages for students, as in the future, there will be a great demand for
people who can apply such skills in various business corporations and industries that are oriented to the
new demand for ‘green or sustainable products’. Institutional commitments (such as a sustainability
policy) and dedicated human resources (such as a person or team in the faculty /administration focused
on this task) contribute to long term success in any university system” (ISCN, 2016).

“In this context, campus sustainability assessments with performance indicators are needed to
evaluate the current situation and to set benchmark for the future. However, this is emerging as a new
field and has been used for more than a decade, as tools for identifying best practices, communicating
goals and experiences, and measuring progress towards achieving the concept of a sustainable campus”
(Sonetti, 2016). Shriberg (2002b) and Finlay (2010) “studied and proposed various assessment tools,
specifically for universities which was later enhanced by Sonetti (2016), who included four more tool
such as Green Metric, UNI‐Metrics, ISCN, STARS to the list”. The most used typologies among the
current campus sustainability assessments tools are: the “Green Metric” ranking (based on quantitative
metric) and the “ISCN report” (based on individual and qualitative display of sustainability initiatives)
followed by “STARS” (AASHE). The reason why the Green Metric, the ISCN and STARS have been
selected is twofold: they are not country-related sustainability report tools. They are also largely
diffused, across the world. Moreover, they stand as examples of the main functions such as: the auditing
of local initiatives, and the reporting of sustainability indicators according to a fixed set of criteria,
encompasses a list of self-elected criteria adherent to general areas of impacts (mobility, energy,
mission) and also comparing university’s performances (communicated via self-compiled
questionnaires and retrieving public data display).

“Since global rankings will have a number of positive features, like openness and accessibility,
and the contribution to academic discourse on sustainability in education and the greening of campuses,
the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) offers a
comprehensive tool for the colleges and universities to gauge their progress toward sustainability, ‘the
Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating SystemTM (STARS)’ (version 2.1, January 2016). This
tool encompasses Institutional Characteristics, Academics, Engagement, Operations, Planning and
Administration, Innovation and Leadership, constructed over several years and with the help of many
scholars, staff, faculty, and administrators drawn from a wide range of institutions (Annexure I). This is

163
a voluntary, self-assessment tool that provides a clear and thorough system by which university/IHE can
benchmark where they are today and set goals for the future” (STARS, 2016), and the same is proposed
for PU.

6.3.4. Phase IV – (D) Down to Action – Priorities Approach

After identifying the opportunities and potential in the step ‘C’ of the TNS framework, the
PU renewable energy and sustainability cell (PURE&SC) and the researcher have prioritized the actions
that propel the university towards sustainability. PU’s strategic sustainability action plan was aligned
with that of the leading sustainable universities around the world with a clear university-wide goals and
priorities in the areas of campus operations; nature and ecosystems; health and well-being; culture and
learning; and GHG emissions and energy conservation. Apart from this, “the plan allows for the
students, faculty and staff to continue piloting sustainability solutions throughout the University by
using cutting-edge research and teaching to tackle real-world challenges on campus and beyond”
(Harvard, 2015; REP, 2015; ISCN, 2016). This step, like all the others is a continuing step that needs to
be reviewed, revised and auctioned after incorporating the review feedback through ‘backcasting’ that
primarily focused on the following agenda:

 “Supporting effective, efficient, step-by-step implementation and planning for action

research. Initially, at this level, the implementers can pick the 'low-hanging fruit' - actions
which are fairly easy to implement and offer a rapid return on investment in order to build
internal support and excitement for the planning process” (TNS, 2015). For example to start
with, conducting food waste inventory analysis (FWIA), water use inventory analysis
(WUIA), nutrient recovery, energy recovery, food production, etc.. can be implemented.
 Continually assessing the actions to see whether the strategies are moving the University
toward the desired outcome identified in Step A, B and C (i.e. awareness, baseline and
visioning).
 Incorporating University’s learning methods as essential elements to empower university
community (students, faculty, and staff) with new ways of thinking and working together.

“Since the onset of this millennia, several leading international organizations focus on climate
change - FAO, IPCC, ISCN, UNEP, UNESCO, USEPA, WHO etc. have been constantly promoting and
upgrading strategies to mitigate climate change and to evolve adaptation mechanisms”. In tune with
them various Ministries of Govt. of India such as MNRE, MoWR, MoEF&CC called for the
university/HEIs/research institutes to supplement their effort in combating climate change, which
further necessitates “the presence of an on-campus charismatic transformational leader, to work as a
catalyst, with essential character traits including communication, interpersonal, listening, visionary
planning, and the capability skills to accomplish meaningful projects with enlightened self-interest”
as suggested by several workers like Gittell (1981); Cerych and Sabatier (1986); Dominick (1990);
Lane (1990); Orr (1992; 2004); Rainsford (1990); Wood (1990); Berry and Gordon (1993); Smith

164
(1993); Dolence and Norris (1995); Keniry (1995); Creighton (1998); Shriberg (2002a,b); Lozano et
al. (2013); Krasny and Delia (2015) “which is a strong rationale for environmental action anywhere”,
as indicated by Shriberg (2002b).

“The primary approach by the charismatic transformational leader is to encourage the university,
to improve on sustainability, is by signing a document supporting sustainability on campus” (Lozano et
al., 2013). “One such international document identified for Indian scenario is, the Talloires Declaration,
which reflect a symbolic/strategic commitment of PU, by clearly committing it to teaching and action
research programs on campus sustainability, develop environmental literacy among students and social
outreach to encourage sustainability in society (neighborhood) as well. Such advantages of Talloires
Declaration are reported by workers” (Creighton, 1998; Gumport, 2000; Nixon, 2002; Shriberg, 2002b;
Dade, 2010; Grindsted, 2011; Grindsted and Holm, 2012; Adams, 2013; Lozano et al., 2013; McGibbon
and Van Belle, 2015; ULSF, 2015a; Richardson and Kachler, 2016; APSCC, 2016). “Composed in
1990 at an international conference in Talloires, France, as the first official statement made by
university administrators as a commitment towards environmental sustainability in university/IHEs”
(ULSF, 2015a), the Declaration currently has 499 total Signatory Institutions (as of January 14, 2016-
ULSF, 2015a; APSCC, 2016).

“Even though several case studies exist to critique the actions of universities/IHEs who sign
such declaration(s) and do not follow through with specific actions” (Bekessy et al., 2007), “there are
also many excellent examples of committed universities/IHEs exemplifying strong sustainable practices
in various parts of the world especially in the North” (Finlay and Massey, 2012; Richardson and
Kachler, 2016) “by demonstrating improved sustainability” (Bilodeau et al., 2014; Richardson and
Kachler, 2016). Whereas, such institutional commitment is not uniformly present across India, even
in spite of the fact, two (Vice Chancellors) of the original creators and signatories of this Talloires
Declaration (1990) were from India, representing the University of New Delhi and Osmania University
(www.ulsf.org). “This is mainly because the process of changing the institutional landscape is often
considered slow, complex, and contested” as noted by Finlay and Massey (2012) and also because of
the fact that “many universities are still ignorant of campus sustainability’s principles and have done
little or nothing to incorporate them into education, research, and outreach” as stated by Lozano (2006),
while various other workers -Velazquez et al. (2006), Finlay and Massey (2012) and organizations like
National Wildlife Federation (NWF, 2008) and Sustainable Endowments Institute have suggested that
“the concept of a ‘sustainable university’ is facing political setbacks, bureaucratic roadblocks and
general unawareness and disinterest” and finally Jerman et al. (2004) “concludes it especially as
problematic”. Poyyamoli et al. (2015) have reviewed “the potentials (for integrating action research,
teaching and community outreach through campus sustainability activities) and constraints (competing
orientations/ priorities, lack of motivation/ opportunities/ encouragement, resistance from/

165
skepticism/apathy, shrinking revenues/funding support from the government) for evolving and
implementing green campus strategies in Indian universities/IHEs/schools for sustainable
development”.

“Though the concepts of green schools, eco-campus, and green university have already been put
forward, it has been difficult to be implemented fully due to the lack of specific approaches and
concrete measures especially in developing countries” (Tan et al., 2014). To overcome all these
barriers/hurdles, ‘Down to Action at PU’, was evolved with the symbolic commitment of the University
in signing the ‘Talloires Declaration’, a ten-point action plan for incorporating sustainability and
environmental literacy in teaching, research, operations and outreach, fostering World Environment
Day (WED) – 2014. During the research study (2010-15) pre and post to Talloires Declaration (2014),
technically supported by the PURE&SC and the Association for Promoting Sustainability in Campuses
and Communities (APSCC) (the official partner and national level coordinator for ULSF) with
dedication and commitment PU has marched ahead to fulfill its 10 point action plan commitments. This
is presented in subsequent sections (6.3.4.1 to 6.3.4.10) using ‘Talloires Declaration’ (shown in Italics)
as the basic framework, along with the current/future action plans:

6.3.4.1. “Increase Awareness on Sustainable Development (Action Plan 1)”

Action Plan 1- “Use every opportunity to raise public, government, industry, foundation, and university
awareness by openly addressing the urgent need to move toward a sustainable future”

The sustainability awareness program at PU is a continuing process that intends to empower the
campus stakeholders with sufficient knowledge for an integrated sustainable development. Several
levels of awareness were organized during the period of this study in areas of education and outreach,
administration purchase, solid and hazardous waste management, water resource and waste water
management, energy efficiency/renewable energy generation, food and food services, biodiversity and
habitat restoration, transportation and the results (few) are discussed in detail under the Phase I (A) of
the TNS framework and also proposed for the upcoming academic years (June – May). Important Days
identified for our activities are“ ‘World Environment Day – June 5th’, ‘World Food Day – October 16th’,
‘World Wetlands Day - February 2nd’, ‘National Science Day - February 28th’, ‘World Water Day -
March 22nd’, ‘World Health Day – April 7th’, ‘World Earth Day – April 22nd’, etc.“

6.3.4.2. “Create an Institutional Culture of Sustainability (Action Plan 2)”

Action Plan 2- “Encourage all universities to engage in education, research, policy formation, and
information exchange on population, environment, and development to move
toward global sustainability”

Several workshops and conferences with specific focus on sustainability and inter-university
collaboration were organized in PU since the inception of GCI. One of them was the International
166
Green Campus Summit, 04-05th April 2013, in collaboration with Association for Promoting
Sustainability in Campuses and Communities (APSCC); Pondicherry University; Hamburg University;
Manchester Metropolitan University and Puducherry Pollution Control Committee, Govt. of
Puducherry, with official permission from Govt. of India Ministries such as Home Affairs, External
Affairs, Environment and Forest, to raise awareness and ensure commitment among the key
stakeholders (http://www.greencampussummit.org). The researcher was selected as the national level
coordinator for ULSF to promote Talloires Declaration in 2012. Since then under his promotion, the
total ‘Talloires Declaration Signatory Institutions’ from India had gone up from 10 (as of 2012) to 30
(as of 2015) (see ULSF website for signatory list). Apart from this, the researcher delivered popular
lectures on campus sustainability issues at Agricultural Citadel -Agricultural College, Italy (2012);
Allegheny College, PA, USA (2013); Content Enrichment Training Program for TGT’s (Science) of
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Teachers of Hyderabad Region (2013); at Lenovo, Puducherry, on World
Environment Day (2014). Apart from this, he presented his findings in various international
conferences/ symposia. As a consequence, it has permeated into the research projects of other
departments in the campus – Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences as well as the Green
Energy Technology (both at masters as well as doctoral levels).

6.3.4.3. “Educate for Environmentally Responsible Citizenship (Action Plan 3)”

Action Plan 3- “Establish programs to produce expertise in environmental management, sustainable

economic development, population, and related fields to ensure that all university graduates are
environmentally literate and have the awareness and understanding to be
ecologically responsible citizens”

Continuous education through awareness campaign is provided to the students on-campus and to
other institutions as part of the outreach and extramural activities. These are discussed in detail in the
Phase I (A) of the TNS framework in this chapter. The researcher along with the PURE&SC and other
collaborating faculty have planned ‘Green Campus Initiative – a National Level Awareness Program
(Phase I), 2017’ fostering environmentally responsible citizenship at various Universities and IHEs. An
Inter-University Sustainable Development Research Program (IUSDRP) – Coordinated by Manchester
Metropolitan University, London, U.K., fostering Sustainable Development Goals – SDG’s will be
initiated in accordance with the Govt. of India ‘Vision for 2020’; Govt. of Puducherry ‘Vision for 2020’
(New Proposal - 2017). Under this program, the researchers at partner universities, with an interest in
sustainable development research, and its ramifications, will be grouped together by an International
Advisory Board (IAB), to provide advice, guidance and support for the implementation of the
program’s activities. The operational components of IUSDRP involve five inter-related core tasks
namely: 1) Project bidding and implementation, 2) Publications, 3) Training, 4) Know-How Transfer,
and 5) Institutional strengthening. This international approach, facilitate effective mobilization of staff

167
and resources, and will showcase in the ongoing strategic bi-annual events such as ‘World Symposium
on Sustainable Development at Universities’ (WSSDU) and ‘World Sustainable Development Teach-In
Days’ to attract the attention of scientists, policy-makers, community members and media
representatives. Ultimately, it will broaden awareness about the partner universities (India and foreign),
and sharpen campus sustainability research capabilities by publishing in ‘The World Sustainability
Series (Springer)’ (book), and the ‘International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education (IJSHE)’,
(for both, the Chair Person, IUSDRP, is the Editor in Chief).

6.3.4.4. “Foster Environmental Literacy for All (Action Plan 4)”

Action Plan 4 -“Create programs to develop the capability of university faculty to teach environmental
literacy to all undergraduate, graduate, and professional students”

“The Rio+20 Conference confirmed SD as the international framework for action and
cooperation and highlighted the role of IHEs in creating awareness of sustainability among graduates.
But there was no official tool to ensure that universities were producing sustainability literate graduates.
In view of this, the Sustainability Literacy Test (SLT) was established by KEDGE Business School to
serve as a tool and take concrete action for the Higher Education Sustainability Initiative” (SULITE,
2015) (http://www.sulite.org/en/the_test). “The test is hosted and supported by KEDGE Business
School, France and governed by a general assembly composed of international organizations for the
Senior Advisory Board and various academic networks for the Regional/ National Expert Committee.
The objective of the test is to teach SD concepts, encourage research on SD issues, green the campuses,
support sustainability efforts in the communities in which they reside, and engage with and share results
through international frameworks”. Currently from India, APSCC (local NGO) is authorized as the
National Expert Committee Member to promote, facilitate and coordinate SLT throughout India.
Among others, the research supervisor of this dissertation and the coordinator for the campus
sustainability cell was a member of the expert committee which prepared the regional level questions
for the SLT, headed and coordinated by the researcher (Nandhivarman). As another symbolic
commitment to foster environmental literacy for all, PU has officially registered for the test to assess the
minimum level knowledge required on economic, social and environmental responsibility among the
students. The ground work for implementing SLT is completed and it is planned to be conducted from
the forthcoming academic year (2017-2018) onwards. The SLT coordinator (the PhD candidate), the PU
campus sustainability coordinator (the research guide of the candidate) jointly with the authorized
promoter of SLT (APSCC - local NGO) are committed to its implementation at PU.

6.3.4.5. “Practice Institutional Ecology (Action Plan 5)”

Action Plan 5- “Set an example of environmental responsibility by establishing institutional ecology

policies and practices of resource conservation, recycling, waste reduction, and environmentally sound
operations”
168
 “Even though universities/IHEs are complex organizations with diffuse hierarchical structures”
(Comm and Mathaisel, 2005; Dade, 2010) having hundreds of buildings and grounds, with each
building serving one or more purpose, and the operational requirements with more
water/energy/ecological foot prints, the administrators find it challenging and especially problematic to
advance in sustainability. “Hence, here come the very basic questions, Where to start? and How to start?
PU having many operational requirements including food, water, transportation, and energy systems”
(McIntosh et al., 2001; Uhl, 2004; Dade, 2010) “resulting in more water/energy/ecological foot prints
and greenhouse gas emissions, streamlining the same operational practices seems to be the best suited
strategy, generally referring to a ‘deep systems approach’ in the day-to-day life of the university or
HEI” (Cummings, 2009). “More over ‘The Mueller Report’ from Pennsylvania State University (Penn
State Green Destiny Council, 2001) confirms that environmentally beneficial changes that can be made
to the operation of a large campus are cost-effective”, and Gladwin et al. (1995); Breyman (2000); Dade
(2010) suggest the same and also even endorsed by UNEP (2013), USGBC (2014) and ISCN (2016).
“Hence, to uncover the presence of ‘good practices’ in PU setting, we ‘laid the cornerstones’ ” as
suggested by Cummings (2009) and realized that we are on the right track.

“We laid the foundation of institutional ecology through Solar Campus Project” (PU Solar
Campus, 2012; Boruah et al., 2015), the country’s first solar campus project, supported by the Ministry
of New and Renewable Energy, Govt of India. After an initial survey, it was found that if all the
rooftops (including the car parks and bike parks) on the Silver Jubilee Campus had solar panels and a
separate solar ring was installed in the central lawn space, it would be possible to generate 1MW of
power. Simultaneously WUIA, FWIA, and proposal for setting up of biogas plant associated with
slurry management and application for food production (discussed in Chapter 5 and 6) followed by
small wind turbines on the periphery of the campus to harness the wind energy and solar steam cookers
were initiated by the encouragement and support from then/present Vice Chancellor(s) and
administrators (2010-2016), Planning and Development, Electrical Wing, Horticultural Wing, Civil
Engineering Wing, Green Energy Technology and Mass Media and Communication, Hostel Wing,
Catering Service Providers, etc. Over a period of time, it is anticipated that the PU campus “landscape,
like buildings, can be seen as the physical embodiment of a universities values as it is the case for other
universities” (AASHE, 2013; Erickson, 2012; Barnes, 2015). In this context, “it is vital from the point
of campus life, to provide space for study, play, outdoor activities with aesthetic appreciation
and also even resulting in food production, while serving as a ‘living lab’ for research on
sustainable landscapes there by delivering valuable ecosystem services” (Rahardjati et al., 2011;
USGBC, 2014; Tahir, 2015). Pondicherry University Renewable Energy and Sustainability Cell
(PURE&SC) was also formed by 2013, to promote and coordinate campus sustainability activities.

169
6.3.4.6. “Involve All Stakeholders (Action Plan 6)”

Action Plan 6- “Encourage involvement of government, foundations, and industry in supporting

interdisciplinary research, education, policy formation, and information exchange in environmentally
sustainable development. Expand work with community and nongovernmental organizations to assist in
finding solutions to environmental problems”

The foundation of the proposed PUOCS framework is to ensure that all the stakeholders, both
internal and external are taken into account for any formulation or implementation of policies pertaining
the sustainable development agenda. The assessment conducted at PU are always with an
interdisciplinary approach, for example, several departments (Green Energy Technology; Mass Media
Communication; Horticulture Department; Planning and Development; CEW; Electrical Department)
and resource persons (Hydrology Department, Puducherry; REAP, Puducherry; DST&E, Puducherry;
APSCC) were partnered in successfully conducting a water/ waste/ energy and environmental audits;
sophisticated tools of analysis of management systems and performance indicators were used; Joint
collaborative projects such as ‘Production of biodiesel from Jatropha curcas Linnaeus (2011-14)’ with
REAP; and with the consultancy firms Alternatives and Global Sustainable Energy Solutions ‘Master
Plan and Detailed Project Report (DPR) for the development of PU Silver Jubilee Campus as a Solar
Campus (2012-13) (first phase)’ were also carried out. Several such other initiatives are also planned for
the future taking into consideration the potential ‘green campus-city synergies’ as Puducherry is
declared as a potential smart city by Govt. of India. The pilot project done at JNV opened up avenue for
other researchers to do similar doctoral research by utilizing the established components of GCI: for
example, researchers Alexander (for environmental education study) and Kamalraj (for
vermicomposting study) from the Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, PU, and the
Principal, JNV is practicing apiculture while the motivated JNV faculties practice organic kitchen/
herbal garden in their residences/campus and also promote the art of herbarium making.

6.3.4.7. “Collaborate for Interdisciplinary Approaches (Action Plan 7)”

Action Plan 7 - “Convene brain storming sessions among university faculty and administrators with
environmental practitioners to develop interdisciplinary approaches to curricula,
research initiatives, operations, and outreach activities that support an
economically, environmentally and socially sustainable future”

“Universities/IHEs can nowadays be regarded as ‘small cities’ due to their large size,
population, and the various complex activities and services that take place in real societies, having some
direct and indirect impact on the local environment. The environmental pollution and degradation
caused by universities in the form of energy and material consumption via activities and operations in
teaching and research, provision of support services and in residential areas could be considerably
reduced by an effective choice of organizational and technical measures” (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar,
2008). “A sustainability assessment is often the first step in making real change, as it allows for

170
quantifiable, statistical data collection, informed decision making, and easier communication of needs
and achievements” (DAL, 2015). “Moreover the assessment helps to collaborate; to foster
interdisciplinarity; to make SD an integral part of the institutional framework; to create an on-campus
real life experience; and to educate the educators” (Lozano et al., 2013). Several introductory brain
storming sessions were organized in the campus under the aegis of the solar campus project and more
are planned based on the findings of the present study to take it to the next “take off” stage.

6.3.4.8. “Enhance Capacity of Primary and Secondary Schools (Action Plan 8)”

Action Plan 8- “Establish partnerships with primary and secondary schools to help develop
the capacity for interdisciplinary teaching about population, environment, and
sustainable development”

In view of this, PU has established partnership with JNV and SNGGHS schools in the region to
implement GCI projects through collaborative efforts which are discussed in detail in Chapter 5 of this
dissertation. The ICSM model was implemented as an integrated form in JNV and fragmented form in
SNGGHS due to the diversity in the organizational structure of both the schools. Since the
implementation of ICSM, there is an increasing interest from the student and staff communities from
other institutions in the region to facilitate it as a mass movement for green campus in their institutions.
This is also evident on the number of science projects for National Children Science Congress (NCSC)
have increased from none to eight during the academic year 2012-16 in JNV, whereas from none to five
at SNGGHS during the academic year 2014-16. Apart from the NCSC awards, “JNV also bagged
several national awards including the ‘Sustainable Campus Challenge Award’ at the International Green
Campus Summit for the year 2013, the ‘Change Maker Award’ from the Center for Science and
Environment for the year 2014 and as ‘Honorary Mention’ from UK - Trust for Sustainable Living
(TSL), Dubai for the year 2016, under the title(s) ‘Are Sustainable Cities Possible?’ and ‘Schools
Sustainability challenge’ ” (TSL, 2016). “The students have not only contributed to but also benefited
from the processes of greening the campus, through audits and other participatory programs which
influence an individual’s attitude toward sustainability” as reported by Leal (2011b). There is a future
plans to network with Elementary Education and Secondary Level Education Department, Puducherry
and with NCERT, New Delhi to promote such ‘picking up of low hanging fruits’ nationwide, keeping
JNV (primary and secondary level) and Pondicherry University (tertiary level) as living laboratories.

6.3.4.9. “Broaden Service and Outreach Nationally and Internationally (Action Plan 9)”

Action Plan 9- “Work with national and international organizations to promote a worldwide university
effort toward a sustainable future”

PU has collaborated with the local NGO, APSCC; Hamburg University; Manchester
Metropolitan University and Puducherry Pollution Control Committee and organized an
International Green Campus Summit (GCS-2013) at Puducherry on 4-5, April, 2013
171
(http://www.greencampussummit.org). The aims of GCS-2013 were: to provide Universities and Higher
Education Institutions all round the world with an opportunity to display and present their work on
campus greening initiatives; to foster the exchange of information, and dissemination of knowledge,
ideas and experiences; to promote adopting/implementing strategies for campus sustainability; to
discuss methodological approaches for campus greening projects and provide opportunities to showcase
thought leadership; to network the participants and provide a platform so they can explore possibilities
for cooperation and collaboration. GCS-2013 was attended by over 200 delegates from 12 countries -
representing both industrialized and developing geographical regions - and was a great success. The
delegates included several leading experts/practitioners on green campuses and sustainability from
around the world. “As part of the summit, a book titled ‘Implementing Campus Greening Initiatives -
Approaches, Methods and Perspectives’, co-edited by the author of this dissertation was published”
(Leal et al., 2015). The book contains a comprehensive list of initiatives on campus greening around the
world, embeds various case studies from industrialized and developing countries and provides an
account of issues, problems and opportunities.

As a part of the summit, it was unanimously agreed that integrating the principles and the
concepts of green campuses and sustainability into the core of students’ academic experiences from the
high school to College/University levels is important, since it ensures that the current and future student
communities acquire the required knowledge, skills, attitudes and values necessary to create a more
sustainable economy and social environment in the future. It is also widely accepted that commitments
at institutional level are more likely to make a positive difference and help progress towards a
sustainable future. In this context, principle consent from the Principal(s) for the implementation of GCI
in their campus were obtained from Kendriya Vidyalaya II, Pondicherry University; Govt. Law College;
and Pondicherry Engineering College, all situated around PU.

6.3.4.10. “Maintain the Movement (Action Plan 10)”

Action Plan 10- “Establish a secretariat and a steering committee to continue this momentum, and to
inform and support each other’s efforts in carrying out this declaration”

The PUOCS is in the process of setting up and one of the agendas for such an office is to
continuously review, incorporate feedback, gather necessary funds, implement outreach activities,
collaborate with internal and external stakeholders and ultimately maintain the movement. Apart from
this ‘Green Campus Initiative Cooperative Movement – GCICM’, was also founded to embrace
sustainability as ‘all encompassing’ concept ‘to involve all stakeholders’. The stake holders thus
involved themselves in ‘Green Campus Initiative’, would be regarded and honored as ‘GREEN
WARRIORS’. And the first group of JNV students (2012-13) who volunteered and initiated pilot scale
green campus initiative in their campus was awarded as ‘GREEN WARRIORS’ by Prof. Jose
Balthazar, Director, Unisul, Brazil, by April – 2013. With ‘enlightened self-interest’ (Gittell, 1981;
172
Cerych and Sabatier, 1986; Dominick, 1990; Lane, 1990; Orr, 1992; 2004; Rainsford, 1990; Wood,
1990; Berry and Gordon, 1993; Smith, 1993; Dolence and Norris, 1995; Keniry, 1995; Creighton,
1998; Shriberg, 2002a,b; Lozano et al., 2013; Krasny and Delia, 2015) the steering committee headed
and fueled by the researcher continue this momentum, to inform and support each other’s efforts in
carrying out this declaration.

6.4. Conclusion

“University and higher education leaders are well-positioned to oversee the processes of
developing, implementing, and enhancing environmental sustainability initiatives” (Bardaglio and
Putnam, 2009) “not only as an issue of practical significance, but also as a moral imperative to make the
world a safer and healthier place to live” (Cortese, 2003; Orr, 2004). It has been argued that “there is a
great need, in addition to having environmentally sustainable policies and practices in place, to ensure
that the individuals involved at all levels of the campus community are actively engaged in the
implementation of environmental sustainability programs” as suggested by McKenzie-Mohr (2011).

For the past 28 years of Pondicherry University’s history, the campus population and the
infrastructure had increased dramatically along with the associated pollution of various sorts. Various
studies and assessments are carried out as part of this dissertation to identify the major challenges,
determine the intensity of the problem and propose actionable solutions. This study touched upon the
state of GCI in India, background on Pondicherry University where this action research was carried out
and provides an introduction and addresses the role of Universities and IHEs in bringing about a
sustainable change in the campus operations. A thorough literature review was done on the history and
progress of Sustainability, Green Campus and its progress in secondary and tertiary level educational
institutions (IHEs) of India. The theoretical foundations and background on the various sustainability
models of selected campuses (foreign and Indian) were also reviewed with some case study examples.
Following this a perception assessment of a sustainable/ green campus through the tool ‘Sustainability
Assessment Questionnaire” was done. The results were found to be useful as a comprehensive tool to
identify the weaknesses and set goals, while formulating the framework for campus environmental
sustainability at Pondicherry University. It was found that all the reviewed articles focused on
operational policies, including in relation to water management, electricity use, waste disposal,
greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction, addressing environmental externalities from the physical operation. It
was also observed that the energy conservation, followed by waste reduction/ recycling, water
conservation and environmental/ energy audit have been the major focus of Indian Institutions when it
comes to sustainability.

With the insights gathered through the extensive literature review on sustainability models and
the results of the SAQ, an Integrated Cyclical System Model (ICSM) as a theoretical framework was
evolved with an expectation to serve as a comprehensive and scalable model for implementing GCI at
173
an institutional level. This ICSM was then implemented at a pilot scale in two school campuses (JNV
and SNGGHS) in both integrated and fragmented form to test its feasibility before implementing it fully
fledged in PU. The annual National Children Science Congress (NCSC) that is organized by the
Government of India was used as a motivational tool and also as an indicator to measure the progress of
GCI in the Pilot implementation. It was observed that, after the implementation of the ICSM at JNV,
there was a significant rise in the number of student participation in science projects and competitions
organized at state, national and international level. Apart from the NCSC awards, “JNV also bagged
several national awards including the ‘Sustainable Campus Challenge Award’ at the International Green
Campus Summit for the year 2013, the ‘Change Maker Award’ from the Center for Science and
Environment for the year 2014 and as ‘Honorary Mention’ from UK - Trust for Sustainable Living
(TSL), Dubai for the year 2016, under the title(s) ‘Are Sustainable Cities Possible?’ and ‘Schools
Sustainability challenge’ ” (TSL, 2016).

At PU, the Natural Step (TNS), Four-Phase Analytical Approach (ABCD - Approach) (Robert,
2000) was used in the action research implementation of green campus initiative. As part of the first
phase, a general awareness about the campus environmental sustainability and sustainable development
was provided among the PU campus communities and beyond by aligning all the campus stakeholders
towards a common understanding of sustainability and the whole-systems context. Following this, an
extensive baseline data mapping of the PU campus was conducted. This exercise includes several audits
with respect to water and waste with some supporting empirical studies to gain an insight into the
current status of how sustainable the campus is and what are the threats and challenges. Following this,
PU’s campus environmental sustainability framework was envisioned on the principles of ‘backcasting’
and a 31 point recommendation was provided to transform the campus into a model sustainable living
laboratory. Taking into consideration the examples of several institutions that are facing similar issues,
the PUOCS was proposed to be the governing body and a driving force in the implementation of the
recommended policies to bring about a green campus that everyone dream of.

Finally the Down to Action at PU started with the symbolic commitment of the University in
signing the Talloires Declaration, a ten-point action plan for incorporating sustainability and
environmental literacy in teaching, research, operations and outreach at colleges and universities. In its
commitment to the declaration, the University has committed in fulfilling its obligation to the objective
of the Declaration. In view of this, the PU has fostered inter-department and inter-university
collaboration by organizing several national and international conferences and workshops related to
sustainability. The University has also signed up for the Sustainability Literacy Test to assess the
sustainability literacy level of the students in the coming years. Just like any other educational policies,
the inclusion of sustainable development in university’s campus and programs can only succeed if it is
aimed at informing and mobilizing the key stakeholders. “This should be in coherence with relevant

174
structural measures such as campus greening, a robust research program and a set of practical
demonstration projects for effective outreach. In order to achieve such a goal, the PUOCS team should
ideally have a thorough knowledge of the issues linked to sustainability, perception of the students and
campus community towards implementing such policies” as suggested by Leal (2009; 2011a). This will
not only help in successful implementation of GCI but also empower the students with a broad
understanding of environment related issues/policies/rules/laws and enable them to pursue more specific
opportunities in the course of their academic or professional career. In the years to come, the “Green
Campus” of PU will provide an ambience of healthy environment to the students and add memorable
and rewarding experience of their student life. "Reducing your footprint (s)" and "going green" are
phrases we hear every day from the corporate sector. Hence, candidates with hands on experience on
sustainability skill sets will be highly sought after in the future by the employers. Besides, as a
concluding remark, ‘PU Green Campus’ will be a pleasant place to work for the faculty and
administrative staff who will find exciting opportunities to diversify/enhance their skills on multiple
dimensions of campus /city sustainability action research and outreach activities. Apart from this such
an initiative “when embraced as a cluster of green campuses in the region, will yield better results
contributing to National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC)” (NAPCC-INDIA, 2015) and
“Puducherry Climate Change Action Plan (PCCAP)” (NAPCC-PDY, 2015).

- END -

175
LIST OF REFERENCES

176
AASHE, (2010). “AASHE Institutional and System Office Members”, available at: www.aashe.org/
membership/members/institutional_members (accessed 5 July 2010).

AASHE, (2013). Promoting Sustainable Campus Landscape, 2013. The Association for the
Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. Retrieved from www.aashe.org.
ACER, (2015). Eco Schools Program. A First in Canada. Retrieved from http://www.acer-
acre.ca/resources/climate-change-in-context/meeting-the-challenge-daption-and-mitigation/ontario-
case-studiessuccess-stories/school-boardsschools
Ackoff, R. L. (1998). A systemic view of transformational leadership. Systemic Practice and Action
Research, 11(1), 23-36.
Ackoff, R. L. (1999). “Transformational leadership.” Strategy and Leadership January/February: 21-25.
ACUI, (2011). Association of College Unions International, Applying the core principles of
sustainability on campus. Copyright © 2011. Retrieved from
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/New/ My%20Documents/Downloads /ACUI%20-
%20Sustainability%20Smarts%20(2011).pdf
Adams, C. (2013). 'Sustainability reporting and performance management in universities: challenges
and benefits', Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 4 (3), 384-392.
Adams, W.M. (2006). The Future of Sustainability: Re-thinking Environment and Development in the
Twenty-first Century. Report of the IUCN Renowned Thinkers Meeting, 29–31 January 2006. Gland,
Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature.
Aderemi, A. O. and Otitoloju, A. A. (2012). “An assessment of landfill fires and their potential health
effects-a case study of a municipal solid waste landfill in lagos, nigeria. International Journal of
Environmental Protection, vol. 2, pp. 22-26, 2012.
Agamuthu, P., Kasapo, P., and Nordin, N. A. M. (2015). E-waste flow among selected institutions of
higher learning using material flow analysis model. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 105,
177-185.
AGRI-PDY, (2015). List of Schemes - Annual Plan 2014-15.Department of Agriculture, Government of
Puducherry. Retrieved from http://agri.puducherry.gov.in/scheme.htm
Agstar, (2012). “Increasing Anaerobic Digester Performance with Co-digestion”, September
2012.Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/agstar/documents/codigestion.pdf.
Alberta (2015). University of Alberta - Energy Management and Sustainable Operations (EMSO).
Retrieved from http://www.facilities.ualberta.ca/Operations_Maintenance/EMSO.aspx
Alexander, A. (2012). Environmental Education for sustainable development in selected schools of
Puducherry and Cuddalore regions, India”. Retrieved from
http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/handle/10603/23397
Alexandratos, N. and Bruinsma, J. (2012). World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision
(Vol. 12, No. 3). ESA Working paper.
Alfieri, T., Damon, D., dan Smith, Z. (2009). From Living Building to Living Campuses. Planning for
Higher Education. Vol 38, No 1, pp 51-59.
Alicia Beattie, (2014). "Cost-Benefit Analysis of Food-Waste Composting Program at UMM,"
Scholarly Horizons: University of Minnesota, Morris Undergraduate Journal: Vol. 1: Iss. 1, Article 1.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.morris.umn.edu/horizons/vol1/iss1/1. Pages 1-15.

177
Alliance, C. (2012). Rio+ 20 Treaty on Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://hetreatyrio20.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/treaty_rio.pdf
AlMaliky, S. B., and AlKhayat, Z. (2012). Kitchen Food Waste Inventory for Residential Areas in
Baghdad City. Modern Applied Science, 6(8), 45.
Alshuwaikhat, H. M., and Abubakar, I. (2008). An integrated approach to achieving campus
sustainability: assessment of the current campus environmental management practices. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 16(16), 1777-1785.
Altieri, M. A. (1995). Agroecology: the science of sustainable agriculture. Boulder: Westview Press
Altwegg, D., Roth, I. and Scheller, A. (2004). Monitoring sustainable development (MONET): final
report – methods and results. Swiss Federal Statistical Office: Neuchâtel.
Amaral, L. P., Martins, N., and Gouveia, J. B. (2015). Quest for a sustainable university: a review.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 16(2), 155-172.
Amr, A. I., Kamel, S., El Gohary, G., and Hamhaber, J. (2016). Water as an Ecological Factor for a
Sustainable Campus Landscape. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 216, 181-193.
An Taisce, (2013). The Green-Campus Programme. Smarter Sustainable Campus Communities. A
Guide for Campuses Embarking on the Green-Campus Programme. Retrieved from
http://www.tcd.ie/GreenPages/documents/Green-Campus%20Guidebook%202013-2014.pdf
Ankith, S., Anjana, S., Sahana, M. N., Mallela, P., Natarajan, K., Shobha, K. R., and Pahuja, N. (2015).
Design of IPv6 Network enabled Smart Water Flow Meter System for India. Proceedings of the Asia-
Pacific Advanced Network, 40, 115-120.
Anupama, V.N., Amrutha, P.N., Chitra G.S., and Krishnakumar, B. (2008). Phosphatase activity in
anaerobic bioreactors for wastewater treatment Water Research, 42: pp. 2796-2802.
Anwar, Z., Irshad, M., Fareed, I., and Saleem, A. (2015). Characterization and recycling of organic
waste after co-composting-A review. Journal of Agricultural Science.
APHA, (2005). Standard methods for the examination of water and waste water. American Public
Health Association, 21st edition. Washington D.C., USA
APSCC, (2016). Association for Promoting Sustainability in Campuses and Communities. Retrieved
from www.apsccindia.org/apscc.html
Apte, A., Cheernam, V., Kamat, M., Kamat, S., Kashikar, P., and Jeswani, H. (2013). Potential of Using
Kitchen Waste in a Biogas Plant. International Journal of Environmental Science and Development,
4(4), 370.
Archer, B. (1979). Design as a discipline: Whatever became of design methodology? Design Studies, 1,
17-20.
Armijo de Vega, C., Ojeda-Benítez, M.E. and Ramírez-Barreto, E. (2008). Solid waste characterization
and recycling potential for a university campus. Waste Manag. vol.28, pp. S21– S26.

Ashcroft, M. B., and Gollan, J. R. (2012). Fine‐resolution (25 m) topoclimatic grids of near‐surface (5
cm) extreme temperatures and humidities across various habitats in a large (200× 300 km) and diverse
region. International Journal of Climatology, 32(14), 2134-2148.
Ashwood, K., Grosskopf, M., and Schneider, E. (1996). Conducting a waste audit and designing a waste
reduction work plan: A well thought out plan can lead to significant cost savings. Pulp and paper
Canada, 97(9), 84-86.

178
Atiyeh, R.M., Subler, S., Edwards, C.A., Bachman, G., Metzger, J.D. and Shuster, W. (2000). Effects of
vermicomposts and compost on plant growth in horticultural container media and soil. Pedobiologia
44, 579-590.
Atkinson, G. (2000). Measuring corporate sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning and
management, 43(2), 235-252.
Awasthi, M. K., Pandey, A. K., Bundela, P. S., and Khan, J. (2015). Co-composting of organic fraction
of municipal solid waste mixed with different bulking waste: characterization of physicochemical
parameters and microbial enzymatic dynamic. Bioresource technology, 182, 200-207.
Azapagic, A. (1999). Life cycle assessment and its application to process selection, design and
optimisation. Chemical Engineering Journal, 73, 1-21
Babson, (2014). Arts and Humanities at Babson College. Retrieved from
http://babsonsustainability.blogspot.in/
Baines, T. S., Lightfoot, H. W., Evans, S., Neely, A., Greenough, R., Peppard, J., and Alcock, J. R.
(2007). State-of-the-art in product-service systems. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 221(10), 1543-1552.
Bandy II, G (1998). Sustainability booklet, Houston, TX. The University of Texas-Houston Health
science Center.
Banks, C. (2013). Evaluating the Potential for Anaerobic Digestion to provide Energy and Soil
amendment.
Banks, C. J. (2002). Biodigestion of kitchen waste. A comparative evaluation of mesophilic and
thermophilic biodigestion for the stabilisation and sanitation of kitchen waste. Retrieved from
http://www.southampton.ac.uk//
Barbuto, J. E. (2005). Motivation and transactional, charismatic, and transformational leadership: A test
of antecedents. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11(4), 26-40.
Bardaglio, P., and Putman, A. (2009). Boldly sustainable: Hope and opportunity for higher education in
the age of climate change. Washington, DC: National Association of College and University Business
Officers.
Barlett, P.F., and Chase, G.W. (2004). Sustainability on Campus: Stories and Strategies for Change.
Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press.
Barnes, N. (2015). Cool Campus! A How-To Guide for College and University Climate Action
Planning. Retrieved from http://www.aashe.org/wiki/cool-campus-how-guide-college-and-university-
climate-action-planning
Barth, M. (2013). Many roads lead to sustainability: a process-oriented analysis of change in higher
education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 14(2), 160-175.
Basi, C. (2015). Meat Food Waste has Greater Negative Environmental Impact than Vegetable Waste.
Retrieved from http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2015/0812-meat-food-waste-has-greater-
negative-environmental-impact-than-vegetable-waste/
Bass, S., and Dalal-Clayton, B. (2012). Sustainable development strategies: a resource book. Routledge.
Bates, (2015). How Leaders Develop and Communicate a Vision. Retrieved from http://www.bates-
communications.com/articles-and-newsletters/articles-and-ewsletters/bid/57961/How-Leaders-
Develop-and-Communicate-a-Vision

179
Baumann, H., Boons, F., and Bragd, A. (2002). Mapping the green product development field:
engineering, policy and business perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10(5), 409-425.
BBC, (2014). India tackles food waste problem. BBC. Retrieved from
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28139586.
Beben Ashleigh, (2015). "An Investigation of On-campus Composting Among Undergraduate College
Students". Senior Honors Projects. Paper 14. Pages 1-40.
Beddington, J. (2013). A Perfect Storm: Food, Water and Energy Security. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/mar/18/perfect-storm-john-beddington-energy-food-
climate; http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/event/2036.
Behling, O., and McFillen, J. M. (1996). “A syncretic model of charismatic/ transformational
leadership.” Group and Organization Management 21(2): 163-191.
Bekessy, S.A., Samson, K., and Clarkson, R.E. (2007). The failure of non-binding declarations to
achieve university sustainability: a need for accountability', International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education, 8 (3), 301-316.
Beltramello, A., Haie-Fayle, L., and Pilat, D. (2013). Why new business models matter for green
growth. OECD Publishing, Paris.
Benik, P. and Bejbaruah, R. (2004). Effect of vermicompost on rice (Oryza sativa) yield and soil-
fertility status of rainfed humid sub-tropics. Indian Journal of Agriculture Sciences, 74: 488-491.
Beringer, A., Wright, T., and Malone, L. (2008). Sustainability in higher education in Atlantic Canada.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(1), 48-67.
Berry, J. K., and Gordon, J. C. (1993). Environmental leadership: developing effective skills and styles.
Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Best Colleges, (2016). Greenest Universities. Campus Life. Retrieved from
http://www.bestcolleges.com/features/greenest-universities/
Bhalla, G., Kumar, A., and Bansal, A. (2011). Assessment of groundwater pollution near municipal
solid waste landfill. Asian Journal of Water, Environment and Pollution, 8(1), 41-51.
Bhasin, B.S, Bjarnadottir, T., Das, V.N., Dock, M.M., Pullins, E. E., Rosales, J.R., Savanick, S.,
Stricherz, D.M., and Weller, L.A. (2003), “Passport to Earth Summit 2002. A case study in exploring
sustainable development at the University of Minnesota”. International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education Vol. 4, No.3, pp.239-249.
Bhattacharjee, S. (2015). Floods will be common in future, say climatologists. The Hindu. Retrieved
from http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/floods-will-be-common-in-future-say-climatologists/
article7957382.ece?
Bhattacharya, S. and Rathi, S. (2015). Reconceptualising Smart Cities: A Reference Framework for
India, (CSTEP-Report-2015-03).
Bierly, C., and Shy, E. (2013). Building pathways: How to develop the next generation of
transformational school leaders. Bain Brief. Retrieved from
http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/building-pathways-to-school-leadership.aspx
Biggar, J. (2008). Report on Green Day feedback. Retrieved from http://www.unbc.ca/
assets/green/unbcgreendayreport.pdf.

180
Bilodeau, L., Podger, J and Abd-El-Aziz, A. (2014). 'Advancing campus and community sustainability:
strategic alliances in action', International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 15 (2), 157-
168.
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
BIS, (2010). Indian Standard Code of Basic Requirements for Water Supply and Sanitation. Retrieved
from https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.1172.1993.html.
Black, R. E., Morris, S. S., and Bryce, J. (2003). Where and why are 10 million children dying every
year?. The Lancet, 361(9376), 2226-2234.
Bocken, N. M. P., Allwood, J. M., Willey, A. R., and King, J. M. H. (2011). Development of an eco-
ideation tool to identify stepwise greenhouse gas emissions reduction options for consumer goods.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(12), 1279-1287.
Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., and Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to
develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42-56.
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P., and Zeidner, M. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. New York:
Academic Press.
Bolman, L. G., and Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. John
Wiley and Sons.
Bolzonella, D., Pavan, P., Mace, S., Cecchi, F. (2005). Dry Anaerobic digestion of differently sorted
organic municipal solid waste: a full scale experience. 4th International Symposium of Anaerobic
digestion of Solid Waste (Copenhagen-Denmark), 1:85-92.
Bonan, G. B. (2008). Ecological Climatology, 550 pp. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Bond, T., Brouckaert, C. J., Foxon, K. M., and Buckley, C. A. (2011). A critical review of experimental
and predicted methane generation from anaerobic codigestion. Water Science and Technology, 65(1),
183.
Boons, F., and Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2013). Business models for sustainable innovation: state-of-the-art
and steps towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 9-19.
Boons, F., Montalvo, C., Quist, J., and Wagner, M. (2013). Sustainable innovation, business models and
economic performance: an overview. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 1-8.
Booth, A. (2007). Report on public engagement on greening the university; Retrieved from
http://www.unbc.ca/assets/green/committee/focus group report.pdf.
Boruah, D., Prasath, R. A., Poyyamoli, G., Nandhivarman, M., and Edwin, G. A. (2015). Developing
Pondicherry University Silver Jubilee Campus as “Solar Campus”. In Implementing Campus
Greening Initiatives (pp. 139-149). Springer International Publishing.
Bouallagui, H., Touhami, Y., BenCheikh, R., and Hamdi, M. (2005). Bioreactor performance in
anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable wastes. Proc. Biochem., 40: 989-995.
Boulay, A. M., Bouchard, C., Bulle, C., Deschênes, L., and Margni, M. (2011). Categorizing water for
LCA inventory. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16(7), 639-651.
Bowers, C. A. (1997). The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental Movement Needs a Strategy for
Reforming Universities and Public Schools. Albany, NY, State University of New York Press.

181
Brandon, S., and Lombardi, P. (2011). Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built
Environment´2ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
Breyman, S. (2000). Sustainability through incremental steps? The case of campus greening at
Rensselaer. In W.L. Filho (Ed.), Sustainability and university life, (2nd ed.), (pp. 79-87). New York:
Peter Lang.
Brezet, H. and van Hemel, C. (1997). EcoDesign: A promising approach to sustainable production and
consumption, UNEP, France. Retrieved from http://www.grida.no/news/press/1711.aspx
British Council. (2015). Sustaibility Toolkit. Retrieved from https://schoolsonline.britishcouncil.org
/sites/so/files/Sustainability%20Toolkit.pdf
Brix, A., Brydon, T., Davidian, E., Dinse, K., and Vidyarthi, S. (2006). Toward sustainable campus
communities: evaluating alternative development scenarios. MSc. project, University of Michigan,
USA.
Brix, H. (1994). Use of constructed wetlands in water pollution control: historical development, present
status, and future perspectives. Water science and technology, 30(8), 209-224.
Brundiers, K. and Wiek, A. (2011). Educating students in real-world sustainability research: Vision and
implementation. Innovative Higher Education, 36,107-124.
Brundiers, K. and Wiek, A. (2013). Do we teach what we preach? An international comparison of
problem - and project - based learning courses in sustainability. Sustainability, 5, 1725-1746.
Brundiers, K., Wiek, A., and Redman, C.L. (2010). Emerald a rticle: Real - world learning opportunities
in sustainability: from classroom into the real world. International Journal of sustainability in Higher
Education, 11(4), 308-324.
Brundtland Commission, (1987). Our common future: Report of the World Commission on
Environment and Development. UN Documents Gathering a Body of Global Agreements.
Bseiso, A., Abele, B., Ferguson, S., Lusch, P., and Mehta, K. (2015). A decision support tool for
greenhouse farmers in low-resource settings. In Global Humanitarian Technology Conference
(GHTC), 2015 IEEE (pp. 292-297). IEEE.
Buswell, A. M. and Mueller, H. F. (1952). Mechanism of methane fermentation. Industrial and
Engineering Chemistry 44(3): 550-552.
Cairns Jr, J. (2004). Will the real sustainability concept please stand up. Ethics in science and
environmental politics, 22, 49-52.
Calder, W., and Clugston, R. (2002). Progress toward Sustainability in Higher Education: A United
States assessment. [Report online]; available from University Leaders for a Sustainable Future,
Retrieved from http://www.ulsf.org
Campbell, H. E., Kim, Y., and Eckerd, A. M. (2015). Rethinking Environmental Justice in Sustainable
Cities: Insights from Agent-Based Modeling. Routledge.
Campbell, S. (2007). “Options for a Composting Program at Western Michigan University: A Case
Study.” Western Michigan University. Retrieved from http://www.wmich.edu/sustainability/pdf
/student_research/options_for_composting.pdf
CAP, (2010). The Carleton Academic Plan, 2010/11 – 2014/15, Office of the Provost and Vice-
President (Academic), Carleton University, Retrieved from http://www1.carleton.ca/provost/ccms/wp-
content/ccms-files/Carleton-Academic-Plan.pdf.

182
Carlowitz, H.C. Edler von, (1713). Sylvicultura oeconomica, oder haußwirthliche nachricht und
naturmäßige anweisung zur wilden baum-zucht. Braun: Leipzig.
Carlson, D. S. and Perrewe, P. L. (1995). “Institutionalization of organizational ethics through
transformational leadership.” Journal of Business Ethics 14(10): 829-838.
Carney, R. N., and Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students' learning from text.
Educational psychology review, 14(1), 5-26.
Carpenter, D. and Meehan, B. (2002). “Mainstreaming environmental management: Case studeis from
Australasian universities”. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 3 No.1,
pp. 19-37.
CASE, (2015). Case Western Reserve University. Food For Our Campus Dining. Retrieved from
https://students.case.edu/farm/food/
Cato, M. S. (2009). Green economics: an introduction to theory, policy and practice. Earthscan.
Cavanna, S., and Abkula, D. (2009). Scenario planning with African pastoralists: a ‘how to’ guide.
London: International Institute for Environment and Development.
CBCS, (2015). Aspects of Sustainable Construction in Brazil and Public Policy Promotion. Retrieved
from www.cbcs.org.br/_5dotSystem/userFiles/MMA-Pnuma/CBCS_EN_Aspectos%20da%20
Construcao%20Sustentavel_2015_web.pdf
CBS, PBL, Wageningen UR, (2014). Temperature trends: the Netherlands and worldwide, 1906-2013.
Retrieved from http://www.compendiumvoordeleefomgeving.nl/indicatoren/en0226-Temperature-
trends-the-Netherlands-and-worldwide.html?i=41-205
CCME, (1996). Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Waste audit users manual: a
comprehensive guide to the waste audit process. Winnipeg, MB: Manitoba Statutory Publishing;
1996.
CDC, (2015). Diarrhea: Common Illness, Global Killer. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/global/diarrhea-burden.html
CDEEP, (2012). Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CDEEP). Updated
Mapping of Food Residual Generation in Connecticut; CDEEP: Hartford, CT, USA, 2012. Retrieved
from http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/compost/compost_pdf/ct_food_residual_
generator_report_2012.pdf
Cerych, L., and Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Great expectations and mixed performance: The implementation
of higher education reforms in Europe. Trentham Books.
Cesaro, A., and Belgiorno, V. (2015). Combined Biogas and Bioethanol Production: Opportunities and
Challenges for Industrial Application. Energies, 8(8), 8121-8144.
CGWB, (2005). Dynamic ground water resources of Kerala, CGWB, Kerala Region unpublished report,
p 90.cgwb.gov.in referred on 21/04/2011.
Chakravarti, M.V. (2015). Education for Sustainable Development and Environment Protection.
RJSSM: Volume: 04, Number: 12, April 2015. Retrieved from www.theinternationaljournal.org
Chambers T., Porriit, J. and Price-Thomas, P. (2008). Sustainable wealth creation within environmental
limits.Forum for the Future, Cheltenham, England. Retrieved from
http://www.forumforthefuture.org/library/sustainable-wealth-creation)

183
Chambers, D. (2009). “Assessing and planning for environmental sustainability: a framework for
institutions of higher education”, Sustainability at Universities: opportunities, Challenges and Trends,
W.L. Filho, Franfurt.
Chang, N. B., and Davila, E. (2008). Municipal solid waste characterizations and management
strategies for the Lower Rio Grande Valley, Texas. Waste Management, 28(5), 776-794.
Chengula, A., Lucas, B. K., and Mzula, A. (2015). Assessing the Awareness, Knowledge, Attitude and
Practice of the Community towards Solid Waste Disposal and Identifying the Threats and Extent of
Bacteria in the Solid Waste Disposal Sites in Morogoro Municipality in Tanzania. Journal of Biology,
Agriculture and Healthcare, 5(3), 54-64.
Chernushenko, D. (1996). Greening Campuses: Environmental Citizenship for Colleges and
Universities. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, International Institute for Sustainable Development.
Chertow, M. R. (2000). Industrial symbiosis: literature and taxonomy. Annual review of energy and the
environment, 25(1), 313-337.
Chhokar, K.B. (2010). “Higher education and curriculum innovation for sustainable development in
India”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education Vol. 11 No. 2, pp.141-152.
Chidanamarri, S. (2009). Industry Analyst - Environment and Building Technologies. Retrieved from
http://www.frost.com/prod/servlet/market-insight-print.pag?docid=169044297.
Chowdhury, M. (2009). Searching quality data for municipal solid waste planning. Waste Management,
29(8), 2240-2247.
Christova-Boal, D., Evans, R.E., McFarlane, S. (1996). An investigation into greywater reuse for urban
residential properties, Desalination 106:391–397.
Clerico, E A., P.E., LEED AP, President, Alliance Environmental LLC, (2007). Water Reuse – New
York City and Japan Experience and Future Prospect. eclerico@AllianceEnvironmentalLLC.com.
Clugston, R.M. (2000). Introduction. In W.L. Filho (Ed.), Sustainability and university life. (2nd ed.),
(pp. 11-18). New York: Peter Lang
Clugston, R.M. and Calder, W. (1999). “Critical dimensions of sustainability in higher education”,
Filho, W.L. (Ed.), Sustainability and University Life, Peter Lang, Frankfurt, pp. 31-46.
Cole, L., and Wright, T. (2003). Assessing sustainability on Canadian University campuses:
development of a campus sustainability assessment framework. Unpublished master’s thesis, Royal
Roads University, Victoria, BC.
Collin, R.M., and Collin, R.W. (2009). Role of Government in sustainability Environment and Ecology,
Encyclopedia of Sustainability, Greenwood Pub Group, page 71
Comm, C.L., and Mathaisel, D.F.X. (2005). “An exploratory study of best lean sustainability practices
in higher education". Qual. Assurance Edu. Vol.13, pp. 227-240.
Commander, N. E., and Ward, T. (2009). The strength of Mixed Research Methods for the Assessment
of Learning Communities. About Campus (July-Aug), 25-29.
Conger, J. A. (1999). “Charismatic and transformational leadership: An insider's perspective on these
developing streams of research.” Leadership Quarterly 10(2):145-179.
Coops, N. C., Marcus, J., Construt, I., Frank, E., Kellett, R., Mazzi, E., and Schultz, A. (2015). How an
entry-level, interdisciplinary sustainability course revealed the benefits and challenges of a university-
wide initiative for sustainability education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, 16(5), 729-747.
184
COP, (2015). Paris Summit. COP - What’s it all about? Retrieved from
http://www.cop21paris.org/about/cop21
Copenhagen, (2015). The University of Copenhagen - Campus Service. Retrieved from
http://cas.ku.dk/english/planning_and/maintenance/
Corcoran, P.B. and Wals, A.E.J. (2004). “Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability:
Problematics, Promise, and Practice”, CERC Studies in Comparative Education, Springer, Berlin.
Cornell, (2015). Climate Action Plan. Retrieved from www.sustainablecampus.cornell.edu
/initiatives/climate-action-plan
Cornellsun, (2015). Creating a more sustainable campus. Retrieved from
http://150.cornellsun.com/2015/04/27/creating-a-more-sustainable-campus/
Cortese, A.D. (2005). “Integrating sustainability in the learning community”. Facilities manager Vol.21
No.1, pp.28-35.
Cortese, A. D. (1999). Education for Sustainability: The University as a model of sustainability. Second
Nature
Cortese, A.D. (2003). The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future. Planning for
Higher Education, 31(3), 15-22.
Costanza, R. (1991). Ecological economics. The science and management of sustainability. New York:
Columbia University Press; p. 525.
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M. (1997). The value of the world’s
ecosystem services. Nature, 387, 253-260.
Costello, C., Birisci, E., and McGarvey, R. G. (2015). Food waste in campus dining operations:
Inventory of pre-and post-consumer mass by food category, and estimation of embodied greenhouse
gas emissions. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 1-11.
Crang, M. (2002). Qualititative methods: the new orthodoxy? Progress in Human Geography 26(5),
647-655.
Creighton, S. H. (1998). Greening the ivory tower: improving the environmental track record of
universities, colleges and other institutions. MIT Press.
Creighton, S. H., and Rappaport, A. (2007). Degrees that matter: Climate change and the university.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
CSANR, (2015). Compost. Washington State University. Retrieved from http://csanr.wsu.edu/compost/
CSE Manual, (2009). Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi. Retrieved from
http://www.cseindia.org/userfiles/Annual_Report2009-10.pdf
CSE, (2013). Proceedings of One day workshop ‘Energy and Resource Efficiency in Urban Water
Management’ August 12, 2013. Organized by CSE, New Delhi Supported by: CCBP NURM,
Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India, Government of Puducherry.
http://www.cseindia.org/userfiles/Proceedings%20of%20the%20 workshop.pdf.
Cuéllar, A. D., and Webber, M. E. (2008). Cow power: the energy and emissions benefits of converting
manure to biogas. Environmental Research Letters, 3(3), 034002.
Cummings, G. A. (2009). Turning higher education green from the inside out: a qualitative study of
four colleges and universities that “made green happen”. Retrieved from
http://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI3421847/
185
Currie-Alder, B. (1997). Barriers to Sustainability: Problems inhibiting the success of SANREM-
Ecuador.
Cutler, M. (2007). Sustainable Schools through Science across the World. Primary Science Review, 99,
26-28.
Dade, A. E. (2010). The Impact of individual decision making on campus sustainability initiatives.
UNLV Theses/Dissertations/Professional Papers/Capstones. Paper 4.
Dahle, M., and Neumayer, E. (2001). “Overcoming barriers to campus greening: A survey among
higher educational institutions in London, UK”. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education , Vol.2 No. 2, pp.139-160.
Dahlén, L., Vukicevic, S., Meijer, J. E., and Lagerkvist, A. (2007). Comparison of different collection
systems for sorted household waste in Sweden. Waste Management, 27(10), 1298-1305.
DAL, (2015). Baseline Sustainability Assessment. Retrieved from
https://www.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/sustainability/rethink_manual/BaselineSustainabilityAs
sessment.pdf
Daly, H. E. (2006). Sustainable development—definitions, principles, policies. In The future of
sustainability (pp. 39-53). Springer Netherlands.
Data360, (2015). Retrieved from http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=757
Davis, S. A., Edmister, J. H., Sullivan, K., and West, C. K. (2003). Educating sustainable societies for
the twenty-first century. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 4(2), 169-
179.Deb Gallagher, 2012. Practical Steps For Integrating Sustainability Into the Organization
De Mes, T. Z. D., Stams, A. J. M., Reith, J. H., and Zeeman, G. (2003). Methane production by
anaerobic digestion of wastewater and solid wastes. Bio-methane and Bio-hydrogen.
DECD, (2007). Education for Sustainability. A guide to becoming a sustainable school. Retrieved from
http://www.decd.sa.gov.au/efs/files/pages/EfS_guide_Interactive.pdf
DeFoe, D. (2013). Understanding Organizations Using the Four Frame Model: Factories or Machines
[Structural Frame] and Helpful Checklist for Organizational Assessment.
DEH, (1999). Department of Environment and Heritage. Today Shapes tomorrow: Environmental
Education for a Sustainable Future - A discussion paper. Canberra: Environment Australia. Retrieved
from http://ee.environment.gov.au
Dekker, S.W.A., Hancock, P.A. and Wilkin, P. (2013). Ergonomics and sustainability: towards an
embrace of complexity and emergence. Ergonomics, 56, 357-364.
Deluga, R. J. (1988). “Relationship of transformational and transactional leadership withemployee
influencing strategies.” Group and Organization Studies 13(4): 456-467.
Denscombe, M. (2010). Good Research Guide: For small-scale social research projects (4th Edition).
Open University Press. Berkshire, GBR. ISBN 978-0-3352-4138-5.
Desa, A., Yusooff, F., and Kadir, N. B. Y. A. (2012). Environmental Awareness and Education: A Key
Approach to Solid Waste Management (SWM)-A Case Study of a University in Malaysia. INTECH
Open Access Publisher.
Diesendorf, M. (2000). Sustainability and sustainable development. In: Dunphy D,Benveniste J,
Griffiths A, Sutton P, editors. Sustainability: the corporate challenge of the 21st century. Sydney:
Allen and Unwin; 2000. p. 19–37.

186
Doan, T. T., Henry-des-Tureaux, T., Rumpel, C., Janeau, J. L., and Jouquet, P. (2015). Impact of
compost, vermicompost and biochar on soil fertility, maize yield and soil erosion in Northern
Vietnam: A three year mesocosm experiment. Science of the Total Environment, 514, 147-154.
Dobers, P., and Wolff, R. (2000). Competing with'soft'issues-from managing the environment to
sustainable business strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 9(3), 143.
Dolence, M. G., and Norris, D. M. (1995). Transforming higher education: A vision for learning in the
21st century. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for College and University Planning.
Domask, J. J. (2007). "Achieving goals in higher education: An experiential approach to sustainability
studies", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 8, No, 1, pp.53 – 68.
Dominick, C. A. (1990). Revising the institutional mission. New Directions for Higher Education,
1990(71), 29-36.
Doppelt, B. (2003). Leading change toward sustainability. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.
Dowie, W. A., McCartney, D. M., and Tamm, J. A. (1998). A case study of an institutional solid waste
environmental management system. Journal of Environmental Management, 53(2), 137-146.
Drake, D. F., and Spinler, S. (2013). OM Forum-Sustainable Operations Management: An Enduring
Stream or a Passing Fancy? Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, 15(4), 689-700.
Dresner, S. (2008). The principles of sustainability. Earthscan.
Droffner, M.L. and W. Brinton (1995). Survival of E. coli and Salmonella Populations in Aerobic
Thermophilic Composts as Measured with DNA Gene Probes. Zentralbl. Hyg. Umwelt. 197:387-397.
Gustav Fischer Verlag Stuttgart;
Duan, N., Lin, C., Wang, P., Meng, J., Chen, H., and Li, X. (2014). Ecological analysis of a typical
farm-scalebiogas plant in China. Front Earth Sci 1–10
Dwivedi, A., Khire, M. V., and Mohan, B. K. (2015). Estimation of Land Surface Temperature to Study
Urban Heat Island Effect in Mumbai Using Landsat ETM+ Image.
Dwivedy, M., and Mittal, R. K. (2010). Estimation of future outflows of e-waste in India. Waste
management, 30(3), 483-491.
Eatmon, T., Pallant, E., and Laurence, S. (2015). Food production as an integrating context for campus
sustainability. In Implementing Campus Greening Initiatives (pp. 325-336). Springer International
Publishing.
Eaton, J. M., and Eaton, P. B. (2007). Helping Communities Move toward Sustainable Development.
The Natural Step – a Premier for Atlantic Canada. Retrieved from
http://www.gpiatlantic.org/pdf/TNS/TNS_Primer.pdf
ECOAP. (2015). Eco-Innovation in the Spotlight. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/index_en.htm
Edelstein, M. R. (2004). Sustaining sustainability: Lessons from Ramapo College. Sustainability on
Campus: Stories and Strategies for Change, 271-292.
Edwards, A. R. (2010). Thriving beyond sustainability: Pathways to a resilient society. Gabriola Island,
BC: New Society.
Edwards, C. A., Arancon, N. Q., Kai, T. C., and Ellery, D. (2007). The Conversion of Organic Wastes
into Vermicomposts and Vermicompost ‘Teas’ Which Promote Plant Growth and Suppress Pests and

187
 Diseases. Retrieved from http://www.betuco.be/compost/The%20Conversion%20of%20
Organic%20Wastes%20into%20Vermicomposts%20and%20Vermicompost.pdf
Edwards, C.A. and Burrows, I. (1988). The potential of earthworm composts as plant growth media. In:
C.A. Edwards and E.F. Neuhauser (Eds). Earthworms in Waste and Environmental Management. (Pp.
211-219). SPB Academic Publ. Co. The Hague, Netherlands.
Edwin, G. A., and Poyyamoli, G. (2012). Climate change and sustainable management of water
resources. In Climate Change and the Sustainable Use of Water Resources (pp. 431-447). Springer
Berlin Heidelberg.
Edwin, G. A., Poyyamoli, G., Nandhivarman, M., Prasath, R. A., and Boruah, D. (2015). Constructed
Wetlands for the Treatment of Grey Water in Campus Premises. In Implementing Campus Greening
Initiatives (pp. 337-349). Springer International Publishing.
Elias, E. W., Dekoninck, E. A., and Culley, S. J. (2007). The potential for domestic energy savings
through assessing user behavior and changes in design. In Eco Design 2007: 5th International
Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing. University of Bath.
Elizabete, M., Seifferta B., and Lochb, C. (2005). “Systemic thinking in environmental management:
support for sustainable development”, Journal of Cleaner Production Vol.13, No.12, pp.1197–1202.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks. The triple bottom line of 21st century.
Elliott, H.and Wright, T. (2013). Barriers to sustainable universities and ways forward: A Canadian
students’ perspective. Retrieved from file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/New/
My%20Documents /wsf3_2304.
Ellis, L., and Martin, J. (2015). Implementing a Sustainability Strategy: A Case Study from the
University of Leeds. In Integrating Sustainability Thinking in Science and Engineering Curricula (pp.
75-88). Springer International Publishing.
El-Mogazi, D. (2005). Fertile Ground for Campus Greening: Programming and Organizational
Recommendations for the Ecological Sustainability of Bucknell University.
Elwell, D.J., Keener, H.M. and Hansen, R.C. (1996). Controlled high-rate composting of mixtures of
food residuals, yard trimmings and chicken manure. Compost Sci. Util., 4(1), 6-15.
Erickson, C. (2012). A Guide to Creating and Maintaining and Eco-Rep Program on your Campus.
Retrieved from http://www.aashe.org/files/documents/resources/eco-reps_guide.pdf
Eriksson, E., Auffarth, K., Henze, M., and Ledin, A. (2002). Characteristics of grey wastewater, Urban
Water 4 85–104.
Essex report, (1995). Workshop on the principles of sustainability in higher education (1995). Second
nature. Retrieved from http://www.secondnature.org/programs/starfish/biblio.nsf/www/vbsnpub.
EUCC’s Report, (2010). Contribution to EU marine policy and EU climate change policy, Final report
of the project, 1st January 2009 to 31st May 2010, page-7.
Evans, J., Jones, R., Karvonen, A., Millard, L., and Wendler, J. (2015). Living labs and co-production:
university campuses as platforms for sustainability science. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 16, 1-6.
Fadeeva, Z. (2005). Promise of sustainability collaboration—potential fulfilled?. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 13(2), 165-174.
FAO, (2011). Global Food Losses and Waste. Extent, Causes and Prevention. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf
188
FAO, (2013). Food wastage footprint-Impacts on natural resources: summary report. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Farmer, G. M., Stankiewicz, N., Michael, B., Wojcik, A., Lim, Y., Ivkovic, D., and Rajakulendran, J.
(1997). Audit of waste collected over one week from ten dental practices. A pilot study. Australian
Dental Journal, 42(2), 114-117.
Fatahi, E., Mobasser, H. R., and Akbarian, M. M. (2014). Effect of organic fertilizer on wet weight, dry
weight and number of leaves in cowpea. J Nov. Appl Sci, 3(4), 440-443.
Felder, M. A., Petrell, R. J., and Duff, S. J. (2001). A solid waste audit and directions for waste
reduction at the University of British Columbia, Canada. Waste management and research, 19(4),
354-365.
Ferrer-Balas, D., Adachi, J., Banas, S., Davidson, C.I., Hoshikoshi, A., Mishra, A., Motodoa, Y., Onga,
M. and Ostwald, M. (2008). “An international comparative analysis of sustainability transformation
across seven universities”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education ,Vol. 9 , No.3,
pp. 295-316.
Finlay, J. (2010). Creating campus culture: A critical analysis of residence sustainability initiatives at
Queen’s University. Queen’s University, Department of Geography, 1-52.
Finlay, J., and Massey, J. (2012). Eco-campus: applying the ecocity model to develop green university
and college campuses. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 13(2), 150-165.
Flavel, T. C., and Murphy, D. V. (2006). Carbon and nitrogen mineralization rates after application of
organic amendments to soil. Journal of Environmental Quality, 35(1), 183-193.
FNS/USDA, (2013). Food and Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture. National
School Lunch Program Fact Sheet; FNS/USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. Retrieved from
http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/NSLPFactSheet.pdf
Fogel, D.S. and House, M.E. (2010). “How to plan, change, and improve, environmental sustainability
outcomes”, Sustainability the Journal of Record, Vol. 3 No. 6, pp. 342-347.
Fogg, B. J. (1999). Persuasive technologie301398. Communications of the ACM, 42(5), 26-29.
Forster-Carneiro, T., Pérez, M., and Romero, L. I. (2008). Influence of total solid and inoculum contents
on performance of anaerobic reactors treating food waste. Bioresource technology, 99(15), 6994-
7002.
Frankin, R. J. (2001). Full-scale experiences with anaerobic treatment of industrial wastewater. Water
Science and Technology, 44(8), 1-6.
Fraser, R. (2014). Report on Integrating Sustainabiltiy into Higher Education. Retrieved from
www.hawaii.edu/uhmfs/.../201407_research_sustainabilityhighered.docx
Fresner, J. (1998). Cleaner production as a means for effective environmental management. Journal of
cleaner production, 6(3), 171-179.
Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership pp.16–20.
Fuller, J. B., Morrison, R., Jones, L., Bridger, D., and Brown, V. (1999). “The effects of psychological
empowerment on transformational leadership and job satisfaction.” The Journal of Social Psychology
139(3): 389-391.
Garbutt, K. G. (2012). Cyclone Thane Kills 47 in India. Retrieved from
https://naturalhazardsnews.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/cyclone-thane-kills-47-in-india/

189
Garg, P., Gupta, A. and Satya, S. (2006). Vermicomposting of different types of waste using Eisenia
foetida: A comparative study. Bioresource Tech., 97, 391-395.
Garibay, S., and Jyoti, K. (2003). Market opportunities and challenges for Indian organic products.
ACNielsen ORGMARG Pvt. and FiBL.
Geli de Ciurana, A. M., and Leal Filho, W. (2006). Education for sustainability in university studies:
Experiences from a project involving European and Latin American universities. International Journal
of Sustainability in Higher Education, 7(1), 81-93.George Blumenthal, Chancellor, 2013. University
of California, Santa Cruz, Campus Sustainability Plan.
Gerlitz, J. Y., Banerjee, S., Brooks, N., Hunzai, K., and Macchi, M. (2015). An approach to measure
vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in the Hindu Kush Himalayas. In Handbook of Climate
Change Adaptation (pp. 151-176). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Ghosh, S., and Mohan, R. (2015). Education in emerging Indian society: the challenges and issues. PHI
Learning Pvt. Ltd.
Giddings, B., Hopwood, B., and O'Brien, G. (2002). Environment, economy and society: fitting them
together into sustainable development. ³Sustainable Development´ 10(4), 187-196.
Gittell, M. (1981). “Editor’s Introduction.” In Education and Urban Society, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 389-
398. Sage Publications, Inc., Beverly Hills, CA.
Gladwin, T.N., Kennelly, J. J., and Shelomith Krause, T. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable
development: implications for management theory and research. The Academy of Management
Review, 20, 874-907.
Global Financial Data, (2013). GFDatabase. Accessed on February 13, 2013.
Gobinath, R., Rajeshkumar, K., and Mahendran, N., (2010). Environmental performance studies on
educational institutions. International Journal of Environmental Sciences. Year: 2010, Volume: 1,
Issue: 1. First page: (18) Last page: (29) Online ISSN: 0976-4402.
Goddard, J., and Vallance, P., (2011). The Civic University: Re-uniting the University and the City
Newcastle University UK. Forthcoming in: Higher Education in Cities and Regions: For Stronger,
Cleaner and Fairer Regions. OECD, Paris
Godemann, J., Bebbington, J., Herzig, C., and Moon, J. (2014). Higher Education and Sustainable
Development: exploring possibilities for organisational change. Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, 27(2), 218-233.
GoGreen, (2014). Indian Colleges Go Green. Aug 12, 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.sustainabilityoutlook.in/news/green-campus-indian-colleges-go-green#sthash.x
KRAtH27.dpuf.
Golda Arpudhalin, E. (2015). Phytoremediation potential of Arundo donax and Typha latifolia for the
treatment and reuse of domestic greywater. PhD dissertation submitted to Pondicherry University.
Goldin, I., and Winters, L. A. (1995). The economics of sustainable development. Cambridge
University Press.
Gómez, G., Meneses, M., Ballinas, L., and Castells, F. (2009). Seasonal characterization of municipal
solid waste (MSW) in the city of Chihuahua, Mexico. Waste Management, 29(7), 2018-2024.
GOP, (2008). Disaster Management Action Plan for Floods and Cyclones. Retrieved from
http://indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/Water%20consumption%20patterns.pdf.

190
Götze, R., Boldrin, A., Scheutz, C., and Astrup, T. F. (2016). Physico-chemical characterisation of
material fractions in household waste: Overview of data in literature. Waste Management.
Gould, C. (2015). Michigan State University Extension, Compost increases the water holding capacity
of droughty soils. Retrieved from http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/compost_increases_the_
water_holding_capacity_of_droughty_soils
Grassl, W. (2012). Business models of social enterprise: A design approach to hybridity. ACRN Journal
of Social Entrepreneurship Perspectives, 1(1), 37-60.
Green, L. (2013). Teaching (un) sustainability? University sustainability commitments and student
experiences of introductory economics. Ecological Economics, 94, 135-142.
Griffin, M., Sobal, J., and Lyson, T. A. (2009). An analysis of a community food waste stream.
Agriculture and Human Values, 26(1-2), 67-81.
Grindsted, T. (2011). 'Sustainable universities - from sustainability in higher education declarations to
national law', Journal of Environmental Economics, 1 (1), 29-36.
Grindsted, T., and Holm, T. (2012). 'Thematic development of declarations on sustainability in higher
education', Environmental Economics, 3 (1), 32-40.
Gruder, S. (2008). Building a Green Capital City: The Natural Step to Madison’s Sustainable Design
and Energy Future. 2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Retrieved from
http://www4.uwm.edu/shwec/publications /cabinet/ energy /Building%20a%20Green%20
Capital%20City_%20The%20Natural%20Step%20to%20Madison%27s%20Sustainable%20Design%
20and%20Energy%20Future.pdf.
GT, (2015). GA Tech Hydroponics Greenhouse Project at Georgia Institute of Technology. Retrieved
from http://www.esw.gtorg.gatech.edu/wp-content/uploads/GA-Tech-Hydroponics-Greenhouse-
Project-summary.pdf
Guijt, I., Moiseev, A., and Prescott-Allen, R. (2001). IUCN resource kit for sustainability assessment.
Part A: overview. IUCN: Gland, Switzerland.
Gumport, P. J. (2000). 'Academic restructuring: organizational change and institutional imperatives',
Higher Education, 39 (1), 67-91.
Gutmann, A. (2011). On risk and disaster: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina. R. J. Daniels, D. F. Kettl,
and H. Kunreuther (Eds.). University of Pennsylvania Press.
GVSU, (2009). Grand Valley State University making it Happen, Applied Sustainability at GVSU,
Retrieved from http://www.gvsu.edu/cms3/assets/1ACDDEF0-A15A-67B1-F268BE06B2416593
/2655 -App_Sus_Broch_2[1].pdf
Halperin, R., and Aloni, U., (2003). Standards for Treated Wastewater Reuse in the City, for Recreation
and in Industry (in Hebrew). Ministry of Health, Jerusalem, Israel, p. 15.
Hammermeister, A. M., Warman, P. R., Jeliakova, E. A., and Martin, R. C. (2004). Nutrient supply and
lettuce growth in response to vermicomposted and composted cattle manure. J. of Bioresource
Technology,(Quoted in Munroe, 2007).
Hardwick, S. R., Toumi, R., Pfeifer, M., Turner, E. C., Nilus, R., and Ewers, R. M. (2015). The
relationship between leaf area index and microclimate in tropical forest and oil palm plantation: Forest
disturbance drives changes in microclimate. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 201, 187-195.
Hart, S. (2000). Beyond greening: strategies for a sustainable world. Harvard Business Review pp:
66–76.

191
Hart, M. (2006). A better view of sustainable community. Retrieved from
http://www.sustainablemeasures.com/Sustainability/ABetterView.html
Harvard, (2015). The Harvard Sustainability Plan. Retrieved from
http://green.harvard.edu/commitment/our-plan
Havukainen, J., Uusitalo, V., Niskanen, A., Kapustina, V., and Horttanainen, M. (2014). Evaluation of
methods for estimating energy performance of biogas production. Renewable energy, 66, 232-240.
Hawken, P., Lovins, A. B., and Lovins, L. H. (2013). Natural capitalism: The next industrial revolution.
Routledge.
Heinz Family Foundation. (1995). Blueprint for a Green Planet: The Campus Earth Summit Initiatives
for Higher Education. [report online]; available from Heinz Family Foundation, Retrieved from
http://www.hfp.heinz.org/pdfs/Blueprint-For-Green-Campus.pdf
Henson, M., Missimer, M. and Muzzy, S. (2007). The campus sustainability movement: a strategic
perspective. Master‘s thesis. Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden.
Hessami, M. A., Christensen, S., and Gani, R. (1996). Anaerobic digestion of household organic waste
to produce biogas. Renewable energy, 9(1), 954-957.
HFS, (2015). University of Washington. Sustainable Dining - Local, Natural, Organic. Retrieved from
https://www.hfs.washington.edu/sustainabledining/#gsc.tab=0
HHRKA, (2010). Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. Retrieved from
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ296/pdf/PLAW-111publ296.pdf.
Hilaire, R. S., Arnold, M. A., Wilkerson, D. C., Devitt, D. A., Hurd, B. H., Lesikar, B. J., and Zoldoske,
D. F. (2008). Efficient water use in residential urban landscapes. HortScience, 43(7), 2081-2092.
Hilligoss, S., and Howard, T. (1999). Visual communication: A writer's guide. Longman.
Hilton, B. N., and Burkhard, R. J. (2009). Microenvironment Analysis of a University Campus: GIS
Design Considerations for Process Repeatability. Journal of Maps, 5(1), 219-231.
HLS, (2015). Commitment to Sustainability at Harvard Law School. Retrieved from
http://hls.harvard.edu/dept/facilities/sustainability/
Holliger, C. (2008). Microbiologie et Biotechnologie Environnementale. Enseignements au 2iE.
Lausanne: Swiss Federal Institute of Technologies Lausanne (EPFL).
Hoornweg, D., and Bhada-Tata, P. (2012). What a waste: a global review of solid waste management. ©
World Bank, 2012. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANDEVELOPMENT
/Resources/336387-1334852610766/What_a_Waste2012_Final.pdf
Horhota, M., Asman, J., P. Stratton, J., and C. Halfacre, A. (2014). Identifying behavioral barriers to
campus sustainability: A multi-method approach. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, 15(3), 343-358.
Hospido, Almudena, Marta Garballa, Maite Moreira, Francisco Omil, Juan M. Lema, and Gumersindo
Feijoo. (2010). Environmental assessment of anaerobically digested sludge reuse in agriculture:
potential impacts of emerging micro pollutants. Water Research, 44: 3225-3233.
Howard, G., and Bartram, J. (2003). Domestic water quantity, service level, and health (p. 33). Geneva:
World Health Organization.

192
Hristovski, K., Olson, L., Hild, N., Peterson, D., and Burge, S. (2007). The municipal solid waste
system and solid waste characterization at the municipality of Veles, Macedonia. Waste Management,
27(11), 1680-1689.
Hudson, B.D. (1994). Soil organic matter and available water capacity. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation March/April 1994 vol. 49 no. 2 189-194
Huffington, (2013). Green Universities: 25 Of The World's Greenest Campuses. The Huffington Post
Canada. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/01/14/green-universities_n_2474391.html
Hunting, S.A. and Tilbury D. (2006), ‘Shifting towards sustainability: Six insights into successful
organisational change for sustainability’, Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability
(ARIES) for the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage, Sydney:
ARIES.
Hydrology Project II. (2007). 2007 to 2011-2012, Puducherry / www.pdywaterinfo.org ./ referred on
05-07-2011.
IANS, (2015). Non-veg food waste more harmful than veg food. Retrieved from
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/food/food-features/Non-veg-food-waste-more-harmful-
than-veg-food/articleshow/48501756.cms Aug 16, 2015
IARU, (2014). Green Guide for Universities, Pathways towards Sustainability. International Alliance of
Research Universities (IARU) and Sustainia. Retrieved from
http://www.iaruni.org/images/stories/Sustainability/IARU_Green_Guide_for_Universities_2014.pdf
IFAD, (2012). Climate-smart smallholder agriculture: What’s different? IFAD Occasional paper 3, pp
19
Ifrah, G. L`Histoire de L’Eau, Paris, (1992). International Union for Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources (1991). Caring for the Earth. A strategy for sustainable living. Gland, Switzerland.
Retrieved from www.direitoshumanos.usp.br
IFRC, (2011). Information bulletin India: Cyclone THANE. Retrieved from
www.ifrc.org/docs/appeals/rpts11/IBINcy05011201.pdf
Illinois, (2014). Student Sustainable Farm Leads Campus in Local Food Production. Retrieved from
https://publish.illinois.edu/rmacdonald/2014/11/12/paper-2-student-sustainable-farm-leads-campus-in-
local-food-production/
IMDPUNE, (2014). Annual Climate Summary - 2014. Governemnt of India. Retrieved from
http://www.imdpune.gov.in/annual%20summary%202014.pdf
IPCC, (2007). Climate change,. The physical science basis. Retrieved from
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment–repor syr.pdf
IRDC, (1997). International Development Research Centre IDRC: Assessment tools. Ottawa.
ISCN, (2014). Best Practice in Campus Sustainability. Latest Examples from ISCN and GULF Schools
In collaboration with GULF, the Global University Leaders Forum of the WEF. Report presented at
the Global University Leaders Forum (GULF) session of the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting
2014, Davos-Klosters, Switzerland
ISCN, (2016). Demonstrating Sustainable Development in Higher Education –Sustainable Campus
Best Practices from ISCN and GULF Universities, Boston, MA: International Sustainable Campus
Network (ISCN), Retrieved from www.direitoshumanos.usp.br http://www.international-sustainable-
campus-network.org/downloads/general/441-2016-iscn-gulf-best-practice-report/file

193
Isiaka, A., and Siong, H. C. (2008). Developing Sustainable Index For University Campus. In EASTS
International Symposium on Sustainable Transportation incorporating Malaysian Universities
Transport Research Forum Conference.
Jain, N., Basniwal, R. K., Suman, Srivastava, A. K., and Jain, V. K. (2010). "Reusable nanomaterial and
plant biomass composites for the removal of methylene blue from water", Environmental Technology,
31(7), 755-760.
Jain, S. and Pant, P. (2010). “Environmental management systems for educational institutions”,
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 236-49.
Jain, S., Aggarwal, P., Sharma, N., and Sharma, P. (2013). 'Fostering sustainability through education,
research and practice: a case study of TERI University', Journal of Cleaner Production, 61, 20-24.
Jamrah. A., Al-Omari, A., Al-Qasem, L., and Abdel Ghani, N. (2006). Assessment availability and
characteristics of grey water in Amman. International water resources association. 31 (2), 210-220.
James, M., and Card, K. (2012). Factors contributing to institutions achieving environmental
sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 13(2), 166-176.
Jantsch, T. G., and Matttiason, B. (2004). An automated spectrophoyometric system for monitoring
buffer capacity in anaerobic digestion processes. Water Research. 38: 3645-3650.
Jefferson, B., Palmer, A., Jeffrey, P., Stuetz, R., and Judd, S. J., (2004). Greywater characterisation and
its impact on the selection and operation of technologies for urban reuse. Water Sci. Technol. 50 (2),
157–164.
Jerath, N., Ladhar, S. S., and Deepali, S. S. (2011). Evaluation of Environmental Status in Schools of
Punjab, India through Conducting Self Environmental Audit. Ethiopian Journal of Education and
Sciences, 7(2), 83-96.
Jerman, P. L., Coull, B. C., Elzerman, A. W., and Schmidt, M. G. (2004). South Carolina sustainable
universities initiative. Sustainability on Campus, 243-259.
Jha, D. N., (2013). India has highest incidence of diarrhoeal deaths: Study. Retrieved from
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-has-highest-incidence-of-diarrhoeal-deaths-
study/articleshow/20040356.cms
Johnston, A. (2015). Google Shows Off Futuristic Sustainable Campus Design. Retrieved from
http://cleantechnica.com/2015/03/06/google-shows-off-futuristic-sustainable-campus-design/
Jones, P., Selby, D., and Sterling, S. (Ed). (2010). “Sustainability Education-Perspectives and Practice
across Higher Education”, Earthscan, UK. pp.384.
Kahn, M. E. (2005). Review of economics and statistics.
Kalia, S., Bhalla, B., Das, L., and Awasthy, N. (2015). Promoting Socio-Economic Development
through Business Integration (pp. 1-413). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8259-7
Kalia, V. C., Kumar, A., Jain, S. R., and Joshi, A. P. (1992). Biomethanation of plant materials.
Bioresource Technology, 41: 209-212.
Karlin, B., Davis, N., and Matthew, R. (2010). GRASP: Testing an integrated approach to sustainability
education. Education, 2010.
Kasthofer, K. A. (1818). Bemerkungen über die Wälder und Alpen des Bernerischen Hochgebirgs—Ein
Beitrag zur Bestimmung der Vegetationsgrenze schweizerischer Holzarten, des Einflusses der
Waldungen auf die Kultur des Hochgebirgs, des Verhältnisses der Forstwirthschaft zur
Landwirthschaft und der Bedinge für Verbesserung der Alpenwirthschaft. Aarau.
194
Kates, R., Clark, W. C., Hall, J. M., Jaeger, C., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J. J., and Gallopin, G. C. (2000).
Sustainability science. 292(5517): 641-642. DOI: 10.1126/science.1059386
Keiner, M. (2005a). History, definition (s) and models of sustainable development. Eidgenössische
Technische Hochschule (Zürich) Institut für Raum-und Landschaftsentwicklung.
Keiner, M. (2005b). Re-emphasizing sustainable development—the concept of ‘Evolutionability’.
Environment, Development and Sustainability, 6(4), 379-392.
Keith, F., and Tchobanoglous, G. (2002). Handbook of solid waste management (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Kendall, H. (1992). World Scientist’s Warning to Humanity. Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved
from http://fore.yale.edu/publications/statements/union/
Keniry, J. (1995). Ecodemia: Campus environmental stewardship at the turn of the 21st century:
Lessons in smart management from administrators, staff, and students. Natl Wildlife Federation.
Kennedy, A., Deuel, A., Nelson, T. H., and Slavit, D. (2011). Requiring collaboration or distributing
leadership? Phi Delta Kappan, 92(8), 20–24.
Kent, M., Gilbertstone, D., and Hunt, C. (1997) Fieldwork in geography teaching: a critical view of the
literature and approaches. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 21(3) 313-332.
Kerby, M., and Mallinger, G. (2014). Beyond Sustainability: A New Conceptual Model. EJournal Of
Public Affairs, 3(2). Retrieved from http://ejournal.missouristate.edu/index.php/ejournal/
article/view/38
Kerr, K. G., and Hart-Steffes, J. S. (2012). Sustainability, student affairs, and students. New Directions
for Student Services, 137, 7-17.
Kibbutzim, (2015). Campus Greening– What is Campus Greening? Kibbutzim College of Education.
Retrieved from http://www.smkb.ac.il/en/green-campus/campus-greening

Kleynhans, T. E., and Spies, P. H. (1994). The influence of Newtonian‐Cartesian scientific thinking on
the interpretation of welfare and development. Development Southern Africa, 11(1), 49-67.
Knight, L. (2003). The right to water (No. 3). Diamond Pocket Books (P) Ltd.
KOÇ, H. E. (2014). Environmental Sustainability of University Campuses: a Practical Assessment Tool
(Doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University).
Kok, A. (2007). Intellectual capital management as part of knowledge management initiatives at
institutions of higher learning. International Conferences on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge
Management and Organisational Learning, 5(2), 131-254.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Krasny, M. E., and Delia, J. (2015). Natural area stewardship as part of campus sustainability. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 106, 87-96.
Krasny, M. E., and J. Delia. (2014). Campus sustainability and natural area stewardship: student
involvement in adaptive eco management. Ecology and Society 19(3): 27. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06787-190327

195
Krishnamoorthy, R. V., and Vajranabhaiah, S. N. (1986). Biological activity of earthworm casts: an
assessment of plant growth promotor levels in the casts. Proceedings: Animal Sciences, 95(3), 341-
351.
Krizek, K. J., Newport, D., White and Townsend, A. R. (2012). “Higher education's sustainability
imperative: how to practically respond?” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,
Vol. 13, No.1, pp.19-33
Kubik, M., and Ashton, P. (2014). Vol. 3 Issue 2 Introduction: Beyond Sustainability. Retrieved from
http://ejournal.missouristate.edu/ 2014/10/introduction-beyond-sustainability/
Kuijer, S. C. (2014). Implications of social practice theory for sustainable design. TU Delft, Delft
University of Technology.
Kujawa-Roeleveld K, Schuman, E., Grotenhuis, T., Kragic, D., Mels, A., and Zeeman, G. (2008).
Biodegradability of human pharmaceutically active compounds (PhAC) in biological systems treating
source separated wastewater streams
Kujawa-Roeleveld, K., and Zeeman, G, (2006). Anaerobic treatment in decentralized and source
separation based Sanitation concept, Rev. in Env. Sci. and Bio-Tech., 5, 115-139
Kullavanijaya, P., Paepatung, N., Laopitinun, O., Noppharatana, A., and Chaiprasert, P. (2007). An
overview of status and potential of biomethanation technology in Thailand. KMUTT Res. J, 30(4),
694-700.
Kumar, A., Kumar, A., Kumar, R., and Sudarsan, J. S. (2010). Biogas Manure (BGM) from mixed
kitchen waste: a trial study. Journal of Environmental Research and Development Vol, 5(1).
Kumar, R. (2013). The chief scientist at the National Environment Engineering Research Institute
(NEERI), gave an address to a meeting of the Centre for Environment Protection Research and
Development on February 18, 2013.
Kunte, D. P., Yeole, T. Y., and Ranade, D. R. (2000). Inactivation of Vibrio cholerae during anaerobic
digestion of human night soil: Bioresource Technology, 75: pp. 149-151.
Lai, C. M., Chen, S. W., Chen, K. H., Lee, C. C., Liu, K. L., Wei, C. B., and Yang, S. S. (2006). The
composting of household food waste in Teipai city. J. Biomass Energy Soc. China, 25, 53-64.
Lane, J. E. (1990). Institutional reform: A public policy perspective. Dartmouth Publishing Company.
Langer, M. E., and Schön, A. (2003). Enhancing Corporate Sustainability. A framework based
evaluation tools for sustainable development. Vienna: Forschungsschwerpunkt Nachhaltigkeit und
Umweltmanagement, Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien.
Leal Filho, W. (1999). Spotlight: International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Volume 3,
Number 2 : September.
Leal Filho, W. (2000). ‘Dealing with misconceptions on the concept of sustainability’, International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 1(1): 9–19
Leal Filho, W. (2009). Sustainability at Universities – Opportunities, Challenges and Threats. Frankfurt:
Peter Lang
Leal Filho, W. (2011a). ‘Applied sustainable development: a way forward in promoting sustainable
development in higher education institutions’, in W. Leal Filho (ed.) World Trends on Education for
Sustainable Development, Frankfurt: Peter Lang Scientific Publishers.

196
Leal Filho, W. (2011b). About the Role of Universities and Their Contribution to Sustainable
Development. Higher Education Policy, 2011, 24, (427 – 438) International Association of
Universities 0952-8733/11 Retrieved from www.palgrave-journals.com/hep.
Leal Filho, W., Muthu, N., Edwin, G., and Sima, M. (Eds.). (2015). Implementing Campus Greening
Initiatives: Approaches, Methods and Perspectives. Springer.
Lehmann, S. (2010). Green urbanism: Formulating a series of holistic principles. SAPI EN. S. Surveys
and Perspectives Integrating Environment and Society, (3.2).
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Wahlstrom, K., Anderson, S., Mascall, B., and Gordon, M. (2010). How
successful leadership influences student learning: The second installment of a longer story. In Second
international handbook of educational change (pp. 611-629). Springer Netherlands.
Lilley, D. (2009). Design for sustainable behaviour: strategies and perceptions. Design Studies, 30, 704-
720.
Lim, S. L., Wu, T. Y., Lim, P. N., and Shak, K. P. Y. (2015). The use of vermicompost in organic
farming: overview, effects on soil and economics. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,
95(6), 1143-1156.
Lin, C., Lo, S., Kuo, C. ad Wu, C. (2005). Pilot-scale electro-coagulation with bipolar aluminium
electrodes for on-site domestic grey water reuse. J. Env. Eng. 491-495.
Lindlof, T. R., and Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods (2nd ed.).
Newbury, CA: Sage Publications
Lingan, B. A., and Poyyamoli, G. (2014). A Study on Current Status of Municipal Solid Waste
Management Practices in Cuddalore Municipality, India. World Applied Sciences Journal, 31(6),
1096-1103.
Lockton, D., Harrison, D. and Stanton, N. (2008). Making the user more efficient: design for sustainable
behavior. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 1, 3-8.
Loewe, M. (2012). How to Reconcile the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs)? German Development Institute/Deutsches Institut für
Entwicklungspolitik (DIE)-Briefing Paper 18/2012.
Loyala, (2015). Aquaponic Systems at Loyala University Chicago. Retrieved from
http://www.luc.edu/sustainability/initiatives/urban-agriculture/aquaponics/
Lozano, (2010). Diffusion of sustainable development in universities’ curricula: an empirical example
from Cardiff University. Journal of Cleaner Production
Lozano, R. (2006). Incorporation and institutionalization of Sustainable Development into universities:
breaking through barriers to change. Journal of Cleaner Production. 14 (9-11), 787-96.
Lozano, R. (2008). Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16,
1838-1846.
Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K., and Seatter, C. S. (2014). Teaching organisational change management for
sustainability: designing and delivering a course at the University of Leeds to better prepare future
sustainability change agents. Journal of Cleaner Production.
Lozano, R., Lukman, R., Lozano, F. J., Huisingh, D., and Lambrechts, W. (2013). Declarations for
sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 10-19.

197
Lozano, R., Lukman, R., Lozano, F.J., Huisingh, D., and Zilahy, G. (2010). “Jumping sustainability
meme: SD transfer from society to universities”. Proceedings of the 6th Conference ‘Environmental
Management for Sustainable Universities (EMSU), Delft, The Netherlands, 25-29 October 2010.
Lozano-Ros, R. (2003). Sustainable Development in Higher Education Incorporation, assessment and
reporting of sustainable development in higher education institutions.
Lubin, D. A., and Esty, D. C. (2010). “The big idea - the Sustainability Imperative,” The Harvard
Business Review, pp.10 Retrieved from HTTPS://HBR.ORG/2010/05/THE-SUSTAINABILITY-
IMPERATIVE
Lüdeke-Freund, (2009). Business Model Concepts in Corporate Sustainability Contexts. From Rhetoric
to a Generic Template for 'Business Models for Sustainability'
M’Gonigle, M., and Starke, J. (2006). Planet U: Sustaining the world, reinventing the university.
Gabriola Island, BC: New Society.
MacKenzie, A., and White, R., (1982). Fieldwork in geography and long-term memory structures.
American Educational Research Journal, 19(4) 623-632.
Malakahmad, A., Zain, S. M, Ahmad Basri, N. E., Mohamed Kutty S. R., and Isa, M. H. (2009).
Identification of Anaerobic Microorganisms for Converting Kitchen Waste to Biogas. Vol:3, No:12,
pages 410-13.
Mandal, S., and Rao, M. G. (2007). Overlapping fiscal domains and effectiveness of environmental
policy in India. Environmental Governance and Decentralisation, 223.
Mannison, M. W. (2006). Ecodesign for Large Campus Style Buildings Submitted for the award of
Doctor of Philosophy (Architecture) University of Queensland, Thesis.
Marcuse, P. (1998). Sustainability is not enough. Environment and Urbanization, 10 (2), 103-112.
Martin, M., and Parsapour, A. (2012). Upcycling wastes with biogas production:: An exergy and
economic analysis. In Venice 2012: International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste.
Maser, C. (2013). Decision making for a sustainable environment: a systematic approach. Boca Raton,
FL: CRC Press.
Mason, I. G., Brooking, A. K., Oberender, A., Harford, J. M., and Horsley, P. G. (2003).
Implementation of a zero waste program at a university campus. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 38 (4), 257-269.
Mata-Alvarez, J., Llabres, P., Cecchi, F., and Pavan, P. (1992). Anaerobic digestion of the Barcelona
central food market organic wastes: experimental study. Bioresource Technology, 39 (1), 39-48.
Mata-Alvarez, J., Mace, S., and Llabres, P. (2000). Anaerobic digestion of organic solid wastes. An
overview of research achievements and perspectives. Bioresource technology, 74 (1), 3-16.
McDonough, W., Braungart, M., and Clinton, B. (2013). The upcycle: Beyond sustainability--designing
for abundance. Macmillan.
McFarlane, D. A., and Ogazon, A. G. (2011). The challenges of sustainability education. Journal of
Multidisciplinary Research, 3 (3), 81-107.
McGibbon, C., and Van Belle, J. P. (2015). Integrating environmental sustainability issues into the
curriculum through problem-based and project-based learning: a case study at the University of Cape
Town. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 16, 81-88.

198
McGill. (2015). McGill University - Office of Sustainability. Retrieved from
https://www.mcgill.ca/sustainability/history-environmental-policy
McIntosh, M., Caccoila, K., Clermont, S. and Keniry, J. (2001). State of the campus environment: a
national report card on environmental performance and sustainability in higher education. National
Wildlife Federation. Retrieved October 26, 2007 from
http://www.nwf.org/campusEcology/resources/HTML/stateofthecampusreport.cf.
McIntyre, B.D., Herren, H.R., Wakhungu, J., and Watson, R.T. (2009). Synthesis report with executive
summary: a synthesis of the global and subglobal IAASTD reports, pp 95
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2011). Fostering sustainable behavior: An introduction to community-based social
marketing (3rd ed.). Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society.
McKibben, B. (2007). Deep economy: The wealth of communities and the durable future. New York,
NY: Holt Paperbacks.
McLennan, J. F. (2004). The philosophy of sustainable design: The future of architecture. Ecotone
publishing.
McLeod, M. K., Slavich, P. G., Irhas, Y., Moore, N., Rachman, A., Ali, N., and Caniago, C. (2010).
Soil salinity in Aceh after the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Agricultural Water
Management, 97(5), 605-613.
McNeill, D., Nesheim, I., and Brouwer, F. (Eds.). (2012). Land use policies for sustainable
development: exploring integrated assessment approaches. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Mebratu, D. (1998). Sustainability and sustainable development: historical and conceptual review.
Environmental impact assessment review, 18(6), 493-520.
Mekaikia, M. M., Belabbed, B., Djabri, L., Hani, A., Laouar, R., (2007). “Characterization of the
garbage dump of the city of Triaret and his impact on the quality of subterranean waters” Mail of the
Knowledge - N08, in June, 2007, pp.93-99.
Menardo, S., Cacciatore, V., and Balsari, P. (2015). Batch and continuous biogas production arising
from feed varying in rice straw volumes following pre-treatment with extrusion. Bioresource
technology, 180, 154-161.
Merrow, K., Philip Penzien, and Trevor Dubats. (2012). Exploring Food Waste Reduction in Campus
Dining Halls. ENVS 4100: Appropriate Technology and Sustainability The Campus as a Living
Laboratory with Dr. Harold Glasser –Spring.
https://wmich.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/ENVS%204100%20Final%20Project%20Report%20
-%20Merrow,%20Penzien,%20Dubats.pdf
MHRD, (2015). University and Higher Education Overview. Government of India. Ministry of Human
Resource Development. Retrieved from http://mhrd.gov.in/university-and-higher-education
Michigan University, (2015). From Millennium Development Goals to Sustainable Development
Achievements. Student Organization. Retrieved from
http://www.engin.umich.edu/college/about/cal/events/2015/february/from-millennium-development-
goals-to-sustainable-development-achievements
Microsoft, (2015). Microsoft is growing into Sustainability. Retrieved from
http://425business.com/microsoft-growing-sustainability/
Middlebury, (2015). Sustainability at Middlebury University. Retrieved from
http://www.middlebury.edu/sustainability/campusorgs

199
Miller, (2015). Sustainability through Aquaponic Systems at Home. Retrieved from
http://www.thefishsite.com/articles/2010/sustainability-through-aquaponic-systems-at-home/
Mitchell, C. (2000). Integrating sustainability in chemical engineering practice and education:
concentricity and its consequences. Transactions of the Institution for Chemical Engineering, 78, 237-
242.
MNRE, (2015). Ministry of New and Renewable Energy. Government of India. Retrieved from
www.mnre.gov.in/
Modi, P. N. (1998). Water Supply Engineering, Standard Book House, Delhi.
Mohee, R. (2005). Medical wastes characterisation in healthcare institutions in Mauritius. Waste
Management, 25(6), 575-581.
MOHFW, (2006). Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India, 2006, under the heading
Cases and Deaths due to water borne diseases in various states. Retrieved from www.mohfw.nic.in/
Moir, S., and Carter, K. (2012). Diagrammatic representations of sustainability ± A review and
synthesis In: Smith, S.D (Ed) Procs 28th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2012,
Edinburgh, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, 1479-1489.
Monash University, (2015). Sustainable Development at Monash Sustainability Institute. Retrieved
from www.monash.edu/sustainability-institute/programs-initiatives/sustainable-development/
Moore, J., Pagani, F., Quayle, M., Robinson, J., Sawada, B., Spiegelman, G. and Van Wynsberghe, R.
(2005). “Recreating the university from within: collaborative reflections on the University of British
Columbia’s engagement with sustainability”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, Vol.6 , No.1, pp. 65-80.
More, R., Kale, N., Kataria, G., Rane, R. A., and Deshpande, S. (2015). Study of the Different
Approaches used to Estimate the Urban Heat Island Effect in India. Int. J. of Multidisciplinary and
Scientific Emerging Research, 4(2).
Morel, A., and Diener, S. (2006). Greywater Management in Low and Middle-Income Countries,
Review of different treatment systems for households or neighbourhoods. Swiss Federal Institute of
Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag). Dübendorf, Switzerland. Pages 1-107. ISBN: 3-906484-
37-8--978-3-906484-37-2
MPCA, (2010). Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Digging Deep through School Trash: A Waste
Composition Analysis of Trash, Recycling and Organic Material Discarded at Public Schools in
Minnesota; MPCA: St Paul, MN, USA, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.pca.state.mn.us
Muff, K., Dyllick, D., Drewell, M., North, J., Shrivastava, P., and Haertle, J. (2013). Management
Education for the World: A Vision for Business Schools Serving People and Planet (Northampton,
UK: Edward Elgar).
Muthu, N., Poyyamoli, G., and Edwin, G.A. (2011) “Evolving a Water Policy Framework 2011For
Green Campus Initiative - A Case Study Of Pondicherry University, India”. Presented and published
in the conference proceedings of “8th International Conference on Urban Watershed management–
Water systems in Rapidly Urbanizing areas, Beijing, China.
Muthu, N., Bhaskaran, S., Poyyamoli Gopalsamy., Nakkeeran, M., and Golda A. Edwin. (2012). Energy
production as a key component in fostering campus environmental sustainability and green economy.
Retrieved from https://www.unisul.br/wps/wcm/connect/26b1b0d4-35a1-4f63-8679-
53d3e60be6f0/artigo_gt-ciencias-ambientais_nandhivarman_vi-spi.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.

200
Muthu, N., Shanmugam, B., Gopalsamy, P., and Edwin, G. A. (2015). Implementing a Holistic and
Student Centered Outreach Programme Towards Integrated Sustainable Development of the
Campus—A Case Study of a Residential School from South India. In Integrating Sustainability
Thinking in Science and Engineering Curricula (pp. 591-612). Springer International Publishing.
Nafukho, F., Amutabi, M. N., and Otunga, R. N. (2005). Foundations of adult education in Africa.
Pearson South Africa.
Nagarajan, R., Thirumalaisamy, S., and Lakshumanan, E. (2012). Impact of leachate on groundwater
pollution due to non-engineered municipal solid waste landfill sites of erode city, Tamil Nadu, India.
Iranian journal of environmental health science and engineering, 9(1), 1.
Nagavallemma, K. P., Wani, S. P., Lacroix, S., Padmaja, V. V., Vineela, C., Rao, M. B., and Sahrawat,
K. L. (2004). Vermicomposting: Recycling Wastes into Valuable Organic Fertilizer. Global Theme on
Agroecosystems Report no. 8.
Naïma, T. D., Guy, M., Serge, C., and Djamel, T. (2012). Composition of Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW) Generated by the City of Chlef (Algeria). Energy Procedia, 18, 762-771.
NAPCC-INDIA, (2015). National Action Plan on Climate Change. Ministry of Environment Forest and
Climate Change. Government of India. Retrieved from
http://www.moef.nic.in/downloads/home/Pg01-52.pdf
NAPCC-PDY, (2015). Puducherry – Union Territory National Action Plan on Climate Change.
Retrieved from dste.puducherry.gov.in/NAPCC%2019.01.2010.PDF.
Narasimhan, T. N. (2010). Towards sustainable water management. The Hindu 25th Jan. 2010: OP ED
9. Retrieved from http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/towards-sustainable-water-
management/ article690675.ece.
Nattrass, B., and Altomare, M. (2013). The natural step for business: Wealth, ecology and the
evolutionary corporation. New Society Publishers.
Nayeem, M., and Qayoom, A. (2015). Design of Micro Climatic Environmental Conditions Inside
Greenhouses For Cultivation of Tulip Flowers. Journal of Applied Engineering (JOAE), 3(1).
NBEB, (2009). National Bio-Energy Board, National Master Plan for Development of Waste to Energy
in India, MWH Publication, pp. 1-10.
NBRIENVIS, (2015). Tree reducing air pollution. Retrieved from
http://www.nbrienvis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CMS/tree%20reducing%20air%20pollution.pdf
NCERT, (2015). National Council of Educational Research and Training. Retrieved from
http://www.ncert.nic.in/departments/nie/dee/publication/pdf/Towards%20A%20green%20School.pdf
NCSU, (2015). Advancing sustainability, lowering ecological footprints, and educating the public using
aquaponics. Retrieved from https://sustainability.ncsu.edu/sustaindev/wp-
content/uploads/2015/11/RecirculatingFC.pdf
NEERI, (2009). Guidance Manual for Drinking Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Second edn
NEERI Nagpur and NICD, Delhi, 10-136.
NEIWPCC, (2015). New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission. Retrieved from
http://www.neiwpcc.org/neiwpcc_docs/greenbk.pdf.
Nicolaides, A. (2006). “The implementation of environmental management towards sustainable
universities and education for sustainable development as an ethical imperative.” International Journal
of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 7 , No.4, pp. 414-424.

201
Niemi, H. (1997). Active learning by teachers. In. D. Stern, and G. L. Huber (Eds.), Active learning for
students and teachers.
Nisbet, E. K., and Zelenski, J. M. (2011). Underestimating nearby nature affective forecasting errors
obscure the happy path to sustainability. Psychological science, 22(9), 1101-1106.
Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., and Murphy, S. A. (2008). The nature relatedness scale: Linking
individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and
Behavior.
Nixon, A. (2002). "Improving the Campus Sustainability Assessment Process". Honors Th eses. Paper
1405. : 4-11-2002. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/honors_theses.
Noeke, J. (2000). “Environmental management systems for universities: a case study”, International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 1 No. 3, 2000(3):237–47.
Norton, R. K., Brix, A., Brydon, T., Davidian, E., Dinse, K., and Vidyarthi, S. (2007). Transforming the
University Campus into a Sustainable Community. Planning for Higher Education, 35(4), 22-39.
NSW, (2001). Environmental Education Policy for Schools Retrieved from
https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/policies/curriculum/schools/envir_educ/PD20020049.shtml
NUMBEO, (2015). Pollution in Pondicherry, India. Retrieved from
http://www.numbeo.com/pollution/city_result.jsp?country=Indiaandcity=Pondicherry
Nundy, S. (1999). The fieldwork effect: the role and impact of fieldwork in the upper primary school‘.
International research in Environmental Education, 8 (2), 190-198.
Nurse, K. (2006). Culture as the fourth pillar of sustainable development. Retrieved from http://
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?rep=rep1andtype=pdfanddoi=10.1.1.183.5662
NWF, (2008). National Wildlife Federation, Campus Environment 2008: National Report Card on
Sustainability in HE, Retrieved from www.nwf.org
O’Brien, R., and Heim, S. M. (2009). Impact of garden-based youth nutrition intervention programs: a
review. J Am Diet Assoc 109(2):273–280
O’Rafferty, S., Prendeville, S., and O’Connor, F. (2013). Ecodesign Baseline Study for Wales Waste
Prevention Programme.
O'Brien, G., and O'Keefe, P. (2013). Managing adaptation to climate risk: beyond fragmented
responses. Routledge.
O'Brien, R. (2001). Um exame da abordagem metodológica da pesquisa ação [An Overview of the
Methodological Approach of Action Research]. In Roberto Richardson (Ed.), Teoria e Prática da
Pesquisa Ação [Theory and Practice of Action Research]. João Pessoa, Brazil: Universidade Federal
da Paraíba. (English version) Retrieved from www.direitoshumanos.usp.br
http://www.web.ca/~robrien/papers/arfinal.html
Olsen, S., Amundsen, D., Varga, B., Minch, D., and Anderson, D. (1999). The Utah botanical gardens:
an educational resource for the university and the community. HortTechnology 9(4):562–565
Oregon, (2015). Office of Sustainability. Retrieved from http://sustainability.uoregon.edu/sustainability-
database/sustainable-design-campus
Orr, D. W. (1992). The problem of education. New Directions for Higher Education, 1992(77), 3-8.
Orr, D. W. (2004). Earth in mind: On education, environment, and the human prospect. Island Press.

202
O'Sullivan, C., Rounsefell, B., Grinham, A., Clarke, W., and Udy, J. (2010). Anaerobic digestion of
harvested aquatic weeds: water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), cabomba (Cabomba caroliniana) and
salvinia (Salvinia molesta). Ecological Engineering, 36(10), 1459-1468.
Owens, K. A., and Halfacre-Hitchcock, A. (2006). As green as we think? The case of the College of
Charleston green building initiative. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 7(2),
114-128.
Oxford, (2011). University of Oxford - Environmental Sustainability Report 2010-2011. Retrieved from
http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/media/global/wwwadminoxacuk/localsites/estatesdirectorate/documents/e
nvironment/Sust_report_2012.pdf
Padmavathy, A., and Poyyamoli, G. (2013). Role of agro-forestry on organic and conventional farmers'
livelihood in Bahour, Puducherry- India. Int. J. Agric. Sci. 2(12):400 409.
Pandey, A. (2005). South Asia Polity, Literacy and Conflict resolution. Literacy and development in
South Asia. Isha Books, 2005.
Pandey, B. K., Mishra, V., and Agrawal, S. (2011). Production of bio-electricity during wastewater
treatment using a single chamber microbial fuel cell. International Journal of Engineering, Science
and Technology, 3(4).
Pandey, P., Lejeune, M., Biswas, S., Morash, D., Weimer, B., and Young, G. (2016). A new method for
converting foodwaste into pathogen free soil amendment for enhancing agricultural
sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 205-213.
Parizeau, K., Maclaren, V., and Chanthy, L. (2006). Waste characterization as an element of waste
management planning: Lessons learned from a study in Siem Reap, Cambodia. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 49(2), 110-128.
Parkin, S. (2010). The Positive Deviant — Sustainability Leadership in a Perverse World, London:
Earthscan.
Parvin, G. A., Fujita, K., Matsuyama, A., Shaw, R., and Sakamoto, M. (2015). Climate Change, Flood,
Food Security and Human Health: Cross-Cutting Issues in Bangladesh. In Food Security and Risk
Reduction in Bangladesh (pp. 235-254). Springer Japan.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Pauli, G. A. (2010). The blue economy: 10 years, 100 innovations, 100 million jobs. Paradigm
Publications.
Paulson, L. D. (2013). “Indian Academic Promotes Constructed Wetland Water Treatment”. Retrieved
from http://www.rwlwater.com/constructed-wetland-water-treatment-in-india/
Peattie, K. (1995). Environmental marketing management: Meeting the green challenge. London:
Pitman.
Pereira, A. (2015). Chennai floods: Decoding the city’s worst rains in 100 years. Indian Express.
Retrieved from http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/chennai-floods-rains-
jayalalithaa-imd-reasons-rescue-news-updates/
Pettersen, I. N. (2015). Towards practice-oriented design for sustainability: the compatibility with
selected design fields. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, (ahead-of-print), 1-13.
Philip, A. (2014). Puducherry retains top slot in college density for the third time. The Hindu. Retrieved
from http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/puducherry/puducherry-retains-top-slot-in-college-
density-for-the-third-time/article6566973.ece
203
Pidlisnyuk, V. (2010). Education in Sustainable Development: the role of universities. Economic and
Environmental Studies, 10(1), 59-70.
Pittsburgh, (2015). University of Pittsburgh. Sustainability and Green Initiatives. Retrieved from
www.facmgmt.pitt.edu
Polaris, (2013). Water Use and Availability. Retrieved from https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net
/polarisinstitute/pages/87/attachments/original/1420756275/GEO_Section_I_Water_Use.pdf?1420756
275
Pollock, N., Horn, N, E., Costanza, R. and Sayre, M. (2009). Envisioning helps promote sustainability
in academia: A case study at the University of Vermont. International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education, 10, 343-353.
PONNIC, (2015). The Official Web site of Govt. of Puducherry. Retrieved from http://www.pon.nic.in/
Pop, I. N., Baciu, C., and Bican-Brisan, N. (2015). Survey on Household Waste Composition
Generated in CLUJ-NAPOCA, Romania During the Summer Season. Environmental Engineering and
Management Journal (EEMJ), 14(11).
Posner, S. M., and Stuart, R. (2013). Understanding and advancing campus sustainability using a
systems framework. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 14(3), 264-277.
Potter, S., and Dewberry, E. (1993). Ecodesign Management: A comparative study of companies in
Europe and the USA. In Proceedings Fifth International Forum on Design Management Research and
Education.
Poyyamoli, G., Prasath, R. A., Muthu, N., and Edwin, G. A. (2012). Evolving and implementing Green
campus strategies in Indian Higher Educational Institutions for Sustainable Development“.
Sustainable Development at Universities: New Horizons. Leal Filho, Walter, ed. Sustainable
development at universities: New horizons. Peter Lang, 2012.
Poyyamoli, G., Edwin, G. A., and Muthu, N. (2013). Constructed wetlands for the treatment of
domestic grey water: an instrument of the green economy to realize the millennium development
goals. In The Economy of Green Cities (pp. 313-321). Springer Netherlands.
Poyyamoli, G., Prasath, R. A., Nandhivarman, M., Edwin, G. A., and Boruah, D. (2015). Potentials and
Constraints for Adopting Campus Carbon Neutrality Strategies in Indian Higher Educational
Institutions. In Implementing Campus Greening Initiatives (pp. 251-264). Springer International
Publishing.
Prasad. S. (2015). Keen conserving groundwater: CM. Retrieved from
http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/puducherry/keen-conserving-groundwater-
cm/article7022617.ece.
Price, T. J. (2005), “Preaching what we practice: experiences from implementing ISO 14001 at the
University of Glamorgan.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol.6 , No.2,
pp. 161-178.
PU Solar Campus, (2012). Pondicherry University’s Silver Jubilee Campus set to be powered by the
sun. Retrieved from http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-tamilnadu/pondicherry-
universitys-silver-jubilee-campus-set-to-be-powered-by-the-sun/article4190669.ece)
PU Statistics, (2016). Pondicherry University - Consolidated statistical data. Retrieved from
http://www.pondiuni.edu.in/content/vital-statistics
Punithavathi, J., Tamilenthi, S., and Baskaran, R. (2012). A study of Thane cyclone and its impacts in
Tamil Nadu, India using geographic information system. Arch Appl Sci Res, 4(1), 685-695.

204
Quist, J., and Vergragt, P. (2006). Past and future of backcasting: the shift to stakeholder participation
and a proposal for a methodological framework. Futures, 38(9), 1027-1045.
Rahardjati, R., Khamidi, M. F., and Idrus, A. (2011). Green building rating system: the need of material
resources criteria in green building assessment. In Proceedings of the 2nd International conference on
environmental science and technology, ICEST.
Rainsford, G. N. (1990). The demographic imperative: Changing to serve America's expanding minority
population. New directions for higher education, 1990(71), 91-100.
Rajaram, S., and Qadri, S. M. H. (2014). Computation of Irrigation Water Requirements, Its
Managements and Calendering In Mulberry Crop for Sustainable Sericulture under Tamil Nadu
Conditions. Research Inventy: International Journal Of Engineering And Science. 4(1):01-19
Ralph, M., and Stubbs, W. (2014). Integrating environmental sustainability into universities. Higher
Education, 67(1), 71-90.
Ramachandraiah, C. (2001). ‘Drinking Water as a Fundamental Right’, Economic and Political Weekly,
February 24.
Randi, J., and Corno, L. (2000). Teacher innovations in selfregulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P.
Pintrich, and M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.651–685).New York: Academic
Press.
Rao, M.S., and Singh, S.P. (2004). Bio energy conversion studies of organic fraction of MSW: kinetic
studies and gas yield-organic loading relationships for process optimization. Bioresource Technology,
95:173-185.
Rasmussen, J. E. (2011). Transitioning to green: Implementing a comprehensive environmental
sustainability initiative on a university campus (Doctoral dissertation, California State University,
Long Beach).
Rauch, J. N., and Newman, J. (2009). “Institutionalizing a greenhouse gas emission reduction target at
Yale.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 10, No.4, pp.390-400.
Reddy, V. (1999). Perspectives plan of water resources in Pondicherry. Public Works Department.
Government of Pondicherry. pp 1- 8.
Rees, W. E. (2002). An ecological economics perspective on sustainability and prospects for ending
poverty. Population and Environment, 24(1), 15-46.
Rege, P. (2014). Green Campus. DNA INDIA. Retrieved from
http://www.dnaindia.com/academy/report-green-campus-2009927
Reinhardt, F. (2000). Sustainability and the firm. Interfaces, 30(3), 26-41.
REP, (2015). The Resource Efficiency Program (REP). Retrieved from
http://green.harvard.edu/programs/undergraduate-resource-efficiency-program
Rhoades, J. D., Kandiah, A. K., and Mashili, A. M. (1992). The use of saline awter for crop production-
FAO irrigation and drainge FAO. Rome, 48.
Ricato, M. (2010). Water Pricing - Fixed Water Charge. Retrieved from
http://www.sswm.info/content/water-pricing-fixed-water-charge
Riccaboni, A., and Trovarelli, F. (2015). Transition Towards Sustainable Development: The Role of
Universities. In Integrative Approaches to Sustainable Development at University Level (pp. 293-
305). Springer International Publishing.

205
Rice, P. L., and Ezzy, D. (1999). Qualitative research methods: A health focus (p. 291). Melbourne:
Oxford University Press.
Richard, R. (2002). Ecocities: Building Cities in Balance with Nature. Berkeley: Berkeley hills books.
Richardson, A. J., and Kachler, M. D. (2016). University Sustainability Reporting: A review of the
literature and development of a model. Handbook on Sustainability in Management Education.
Retrieved from http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/odettepub/101.
Ringland, G., and Schwartz, P. P. (1998). Scenario planning: Managing for the future. John Wiley and
Sons.
Robert K-H., Daly H., Hawken P. and Holmberg J. (1997). A Compass for Sustainable Development,
International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 4: 79-92.
Robèrt, K. (2008). The Natural Step Story, Seeding a Quiet Revolution. New Catalyst Books, Gabriola
Island, BC, Canada
Robèrt, K. H. (2000). Tools and concepts for sustainable development, how do they relate to a general
framework for sustainable development, and to each other?. Journal of cleaner production, 8(3), 243-
254.
Robinson, J. B. (1982). Energy backcasting A proposed method of policy analysis. Energy policy,
10(4), 337-344.
Rojas, A., Richer, L., and Wagner, J. (2007). University of British Columbia food system project:
Towards sustainable and secure campus food systems. EcoHealth, 4(1), 86-94.
Roosevelt, (2015). Roosevelt University Sustainability Initiative. Retrieved from
www.roosevelt.edu/greencampus
Ross, S. M. and Offerman, L. R. (1997). “Transformational leaders: Measurement of personality
attributes and work group performance.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23(10): 1078-
1086.
Rothblatt, S. (1995). An historical perspective on the university’s role in social development. In: Dill
DD, Sporn B (eds) Emerging patterns of social demand and university reform: through a glass darkly.
IAU Press, Tarrytown, NY, pp 1–19
Roy, R. (1994). The evolution of ecodesign. Technovation, 14(6), 363-380.
Ryan, A., Tilbury, D., Blaze Corcoran, P., Abe, O., and Nomura, K. (2010). Sustainability in higher
education in the Asia-Pacific: developments, challenges, and prospects. International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, 11(2), 106-119.
Sammalisto, K., and T. Lindhqvist, I. (2008). Integration of Sustainability in Higher Education: A Study
with International Perspectives, Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 32, No. 4. pp. 221-233.
Sammalisto, K., and Arvidsson, K. (2005). "Environmental management in Swedish higher education:
Directives, driving forces, hindrances, environmental aspects and environmental co-ordinators in
Swedish universities", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp.18
– 35.
Sangamithirai, K. M., Jayapriya, J., Hema, J., and Ravi Manoj (2015). Evaluation of in-vessel co-
composting of yard waste and development of kinetic models for co-composting. International
Journal of Recycling of Organic Waste in Agriculture September 2015, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 157-
165

206
Sankey, M. D. (2003). Visual and multiple representation in learning materials: an issue of literacy.
University of Southern Queensland.
Santamouris, M., Cartalis, C., Synnefa, A., and Kolokotsa, D. (2015). On the impact of urban heat
island and global warming on the power demand and electricity consumption of buildings—a review.
Energy and Buildings, 98, 119-124.
Sasse, L. (1988). Biogas plants, a publication of the Deutsches zentrum für entwicklungstechnologien.
GATE, A division of the deutsche gesellschaft für technische zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH.
Savanick, S., Strong, R. and Manning, C. (2008a). “Explicitly linking pedagogy and facilities to campus
sustainability: lessons from Carleton College and the University of Minnesota”, Environmental
Education Research, Vol 14 , No. 6, pp. 667-79.
Savanick, S., Strong, R. and Manning, C. (2008b). “Using a class to conduct a carbon inventory: a case
study with practical results at Macalester College”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 228-38.
Save the planet, (2011). Indian universities are introducing innovative energy saving techniques to
inculcate awareness among young minds. India Today. Retrieved from
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/save-the-planet/1/149710.html
Savelyeva, T., and McKenna, J. R. (2011). Campus sustainability: emerging curricula models in higher
education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(1), 55-66.
Scerri, A., and James, P. (2010). Communities of citizens and ‘indicators’ of sustainability.
Community Development Journal, 45, 219-236.
Scherr, S. J., Shames, S., and Friedman, R. (2012). From climate-smart agriculture to climate-smart
landscapes. Agriculture and Food Security, 1(1), 1.
Schnotz, W. (2002). Commentary: Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual
displays. Educational psychology review, 14(1), 101-120.
Schriewer, A., Odagiri, M., Wuertz, S., Misra, P. R., Panigrahi, P., Clasen, T., and Jenkins, M. W.
(2015). Human and animal fecal contamination of community water sources, stored drinking water
and hands in rural India measured with validated microbial source tracking assays. The American
journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 93(3), 509-516.
Schroeder, J. (2014). "Hawaii Funds BioTork Advanced Biofuel Technology". Domestic Fuel.
Retrieved from http://energy.agwired.com/2014/08/07/hawaii-funds-biotork-advanced-biofuel-
technology.
Schwartz, P. (1991). The Art of the Long View, 1st edition, Doubleday/ Currency, New York.
SEI, (2011) - Sustainable Endownments Institute, College Sustainability Report Card 2011, Retrieved
from www.greenreportcard.org/report-card-2011
Shaban, A., and Sharma, R. N. (2007). Water consumption patterns in domestic households in major
cities. Economic and Political Weekly, 2190-2197.
Shah, J. (2015). Exploratory Research on Smart Cities. Theory, Policy and Practice. Retrieved from
http://cidco-smartcity.niua.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Exploratory_Research_on_Smart
_Cities.pdf
Shah, R., and Ward, P. T. (2003). Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and performance.
Journal of operations management, 21(2), 129-149.

207
Sharholy, M., Ahmad, K., Mahmood, G., and Trivedi, R. C. (2008). Municipal solid waste management
in Indian cities–A review. Waste management, 28(2), 459-467.
Sharma, D. (2007). Environmental Studies (H.P. University) - Page 4 - Google Books Result, Retrieved
from https://books. google .co.in/books?isbn=812242032X .
Sharma, K. and Pandya, M. (2015). ‘Towards a Green School on Education for Sustainable
Development for Elementary Schools’
Sharp, L. (2002). Green campuses: the road from little victories to systemic transformation.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 3(2), 128-145.
Shepard, J., and Johnson, L. (2009). Implementing Sustainable Institutional Practices. Journal of
Education for Sustainable Development, 3(2), 217-220.
Shriberg, M. (1999). Development of a Sustainability Management Framework for the University of
Michigan Housing Division. Thesis: School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Shriberg, M. (2000). “Sustainability management in campus housing: A case study at the University of
Michigan.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 1(2): 137-153.
Shriberg, M. (2002a). “Toward sustainable management: The University of Michigan Housing
Division's approach.” Journal of Cleaner Production 10(1): 41-46.
Shriberg, M. (2002b). Sustainability in U.S. higher education: organizational factors influencing
campus environmental performance and leadership. Doctoral dissertation. The University of
Michigan. Retrieved from http://sitemaker.umich.edu/snre-student-mshriber/files/shriberg.pdf.
Shriberg, M. (2003). “Is the ‘maize-and-blue turning’ green? Sustainability at the University of
Michigan”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 263-76.
Siebert, S., Burke, J., Faures, J. M., Frenken, K., Hoogeveen, J., Döll, P., and Portmann, F. T. (2010).
Groundwater use for irrigation–a global inventory. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 14(10),
1863-1880.
Silva, G. S., Tamaki, H. O., and Gonçalves, O. M. (2004). Implantação de programas de uso racional da
água em campi universitários. In Proceedings of the I Conferência Latino-Americana de Construção
Sustentável-X Encontro Nacional de Tecnologia do Ambiente Construído. São Paulo. 14p.
Simpson, W. (2003). Energy Sustainability and the Green Campus. Planning for Higher Education,
31(3), 150-58.
Sinha, R.K., Agarwal, S., Chauhan, K., and Valani, D. (2010). The wonders of earthworms and its
vermicompost in farm production: Charles Darwin’s’ friends of farmers’, with potential to replace
destructive chemical fertilizers from agriculture. Agric Sci 1(2)
Skidmore, (2015). Engaged Liberal Learning. The Plan for Skidmore College: 2005-2015. Retrieved
from www.skidmore.edu/planning/documents/strategicplan.pdf
Skourides, I., Smith, S. R., and Loizides, M. (2008). Sources and factors controlling the disposal of
biodegradable municipal solid waste in urban and rural areas of Cyprus. Waste Management
Research, 26(2), 188-195. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734242X07085756
Smart Cities, (2015). Mission Statement and Guidelines. Ministry of Urban Development. Government
of India. Retrieved from http://smartcities.gov.in/writereaddata/SmartCityGuidelines.pdf
Smith, A. A. (1993). Campus Ecology: A Guide to Assessing Environmental Quality and Creating
Strategies for Change. Living Planet Press, PO Box 1679, Venice, CA 90294.
208
Smyth, D. P., Fredeen, A. L., and Booth, A. L. (2010). Reducing solid waste in higher education: The
first step towards ‘greening’a university campus. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54(11),
1007-1016.
Sofer, S. and Potter, J. (2008). Campus Sustainability Best Practices: A Resource for Colleges and
Universities. This report was prepared for the Leading by Example Program at the Executive Office of
Energy and Environmental
Sonetti, G., Lombardi, P., and Chelleri, L. (2016). True Green and Sustainable University Campuses?
Toward a Clusters Approach. Sustainability, 8(1), 83.
Spellerberg, I.F., Buchan, G.D., and Englefield, R. (2004). "Need a university adopt a formal
environmental management system?: Progress without an EMS at a small university", International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp.125 - 132
Sreekrishnan, T. R., Kohli, S., and Rana, V. (2004). Enhancement of biogas production from solid
substrates using different techniques––a review. Bioresource technology, 95(1), 1-10.
Srinivas, Hari. (2015). "The Indian Ocean Tsunami and its Environmental Impacts". GDRC Reseaarch
Output E-023. Kobe, Japan: Global Development Research Center. Retrieved from
http://www.gdrc.org/uem/disasters/disenvi/tsunami.html
Stabinsky, D., and Ching, L. L. (2012). Ecological agriculture, climate resilience and the road to get
there. TWN, Penang, Malaysia, p 44
Stanford, (2000). The Natural Step Overview at Stanford. Retrieved from
http://web.stanford.edu/class/me221/readings/NaturalStepOverview.pdf
Stanford, (2015). Sustainability and Energy Management -Land, Building and Real Estate. Retrieved
from http://lbre.stanford.edu/sem/
STARS, (2016). Technical Manual (version 2.1, January 2016), by The Association for the
Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE)
Stenberg, J. (2001). Bridging gaps—SustainableDevelopmentand localdemocracy
processes.Gothenburg
Stephens, J. C., Hernandez, M. E., Roma´n, M., Graham, A. C., and Scholz, R. W. (2008). “Higher
education as a change agent for sustainability in different cultures and contexts,” International Journal
of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol.9, No.3 , pp.317-338.
Sterling, S. (2014). The importance of education for sustainable development. University World News.
Retrieved from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20141126162856455
Sterman, J. D. (2001). System dynamics modeling: Tools for learning in a complex world. California
management review, 43(4), 8-25.
Stern, D., and Huber, G. L. (Eds.), (1997). Active learning for students and teachers. Reports from eight
countries. OECD. Frankfurt amMain: Peter Lang.
Stokes, S. (2001). Visual literacy in teaching and learning: a literature review. Electronic Journal for the
Integration of Technology in Education, 1(1).
Stubbs, W. and Cocklin, C. (2008). “Teaching Sustainability to business students: shifting mindsets”,
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 206-221.
Suggitt, A. J., Gillingham, P. K., Hill, J. K., Huntley, B., Kunin, W. E., Roy, D. B., and Thomas, C. D.
(2011). Habitat microclimates drive fine‐scale variation in extreme temperatures. Oikos, 120(1), 1-8.

209
SULITE, (2015). Sustainability Literacy Test. Retrieved from http://www.sulite.org/en/the_test
Sundar, K. S. I. (2007). Environmental Education: Curriculam and Teaching Methods. Sarup and Sons.
SUSCON, (2015). Biomethane Source Book. Retrieved from http://suscon.org/cowpower/
biomethaneSourcebook/Chapter_2.pdf
SustainAbility, (2008). The Social Intrapreneur: A Field Guide for Corporate Changemakers, Skoll
Program Report. Retrieved from www.sustainability.com
Suthar, S. (2010). Potential of domestic biogas digester slurry in vermitechnology. Bioresour Technol
101(14):5419–5425.
Suthar, S. (2006). Effect of vermicompost and inorganic fertilizer on wheat (Triticum aesticum)
production. Nature,Environment and Pollution Technology, 5(2): 197-201.
Suthar, S., Choyal R., Singh S., and Sudesh. (2005). Stimulatory effect of earthworm body fluid
(vermiwash) on seed germination and seedling growth of two legumes. J. of Phytological Research,
18(2): 219-222.
Swearingen White, S. (2009). Early participation in the American College and University Presidents'
Climate Commitment. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 10(3), 215-227.
SWMR, (2015). Solid Waste Management Rules.. Retrieved from
http://www.moef.nic.in/sites/default/files/Solid%20Waste%20Management%20rule.pdf.
Sylvestre, P., McNeil, R., and Wright, T. (2013). From Talloires to Turin: A critical discourse analysis
of declarations for sustainability in higher education. Sustainability, 5(4), 1356-1371.
Tahir, M. (2015). Developing a Sustainable Campus Landscape Criteria: An Evaluation Universiti
Pendidikan Sultan Idris as a Green Campus. Advances in Environmental Biology, 9(4), 201-204.
Tan, H., Chen, S., Shi, Q., and Wang, L. (2014). Development of green campus in China. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 64, 646-653.
Tang, S.F., and Hussin, S. (2013). Advancing sustainability in private higher education through quality
assurance: A study of two Malaysian private universities. Asian Social Science, 9(11), 270-279.
Taylor, Miles (2013). "On-Site Composting Comes to Morris." University of Minnesota Morris. N.p.,
8Mar. 2013.
Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., and Vigil, S.A., (1993). Integrated Solid Waste Management,
Engineering Principles and Management Issues, McGraw Hill International edition. McGraw-Hill
Companies, Singapore.
Thatcher, A. (2014), Theoretical definitions and models of sustainable development that apply to human
factors and ergonomics, 2014. Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management – XI.
Nordic Ergonomics Societ Annual Conference – 46. Retrieved from http://proceedings.dtu.dk/fedora
/repository/dtu:2471/OBJ/x152.747-752.pdf
The Princeton Review, (2010). The Princeton Review’s Guide to 286 Green Colleges, Retrieved from
www.princetonreview.com/green-guide.aspx
Thomas, I., and Nicita, J. (2002). Sustainability education and Australian universities. Environmental
Education Research, 8(4), 475-492.
Thompson, D., and Van Bakel, S. (1995). A practical introduction to environmental management on
Canadian campuses (Vol. 12). Canada: National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy;
1995.
210
Thompson, D., and Wilson, M. J. (1994). Environmental auditing: theory and applications.
Environmental Management, 18(4), 605-615.
Thorne, Kacie L. Miss. (2014). "Composting: Sustainable Efforts on a University Scale". University
Honors Program Theses. Paper 39, Page 1-27
Thorpe, A. (2010). Design's role in sustainable consumption. Design Issues, 26(2), 3-16.
TNS, (2009). The Natural Step Framework. Retrieved from http://www.environmental-
mainstreaming.org/documents/EM%20Profile%20No%206%20-
%20Natural%20Step%20%286%20Oct%2009%29.pdf
TNS, (2015). The Natural Step Framework. Retrieved from http://www.naturalstep.ca/backcasting
Togo, M., and Lotz-Sisitka, H. (2009). Unit Based Sustainability Assessment Tool: A resource book to
complement the UNEP mainstreaming environment and sustainability in African universities
partnership. Share‐Net, Howick.
Tomati, U., Grappelli, A. and Galli, E. (1987). The presence of growth regulators in earthworm worked
wastes. In: A.M. Bonvicini Paglioi, P. Omodeo (Eds). On Earthworms. (pp. 423-436) Selected
Symposia and Monographs 2. Mucchi Editore, Modena, Italy.
Trinity, (2015). Earth’s Changing Environment. Retrieved from
www.trinity.edu/floxsom/earthschanging/Energy04/ECE_12_GW.ppt
TSL, (2016). 2016 Schools Sustainability Challenge. Retrieved from
http://www.livingrainforest.org/explore/schools-sustainability-challenge/
Tufts University, (2010). The Original Tufts Eco-Rep Program. Retrieved from
http://sustainability.tufts.edu/the-original-tufts-ecorep-program/
Tukker, A. (2004). Eight types of product–service system: eight ways to sustainability? Experiences
from SusProNet. Business strategy and the environment, 13(4), 246-260.
UBC, (2014). The University of British Columbia. Water Action Plan (WAP). Retrieved from
https://sustain.ubc.ca/campus-initiatives/water/water-action-plan
UC Berkeley, (2011). Campus Sustainability Report, “Snapshots of Sustainability”, UC, Berkeley,
pp.42. Retrieved from http://sustainability.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/2013_UC%20Berkeley
_Sustainability%20Report.pdf
UCMERCED, (2015). Sustainability Accomplishments (2005-2014). Retrieved from
https://sustainability.ucmerced.edu/area-stakeholders
UCR, (2014). The University of California. Water Action Plan (WAP). Retrieved from
http://sustainability.ucr.edu/docs/ucrwap_version_1_2014.pdf
UCSC, (2015). UC Santa Cruz - Campus Sustainability Plan. Retrieved from
http://sustainability.ucsc.edu/governance/files/CSP_2013_2016.pdf
Uhl, C. (2004). Process and practice: creating the sustainable University. In P.F. Barlett and G.W.
Chase (Eds.), Sustainability on campus stories and strategies for change (pp. 29-47). Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press.
Uhl, C., and Anderson, A. (2001). “Green destiny: universities leading the way to a sustainable future”,
BioScience, Vol. 51, pp. 36-42.

211
Uhl, C., Kulakowski, D., Gerwing, J., Brown, M., and Cochrane, M. (1996). “Sustainability: A
touchstone concept for university operations, education, and research.” Conservation Biology
10(5):1308-1311.
ULSF, (2015a). What is the Talloires Declaration?. Retrieved from
http://www.ulsf.org/programs_talloires.html
ULSF, (2015b). Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire Wayland MA, USA. Retrieved from
http://www.ulsf.org/
UMT, (2015). University of Montana. Gardens and Food Production on Campus. UMD Lommasson
Garden. Retrieved from http://www.umt.edu/dining/Sustainability/gardens/default.php
UNDESAPD, (2011). Unite Nations - Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population
Division. 2011. World population prospects: The 2010 revision, volume I: Comprehensive tables.
ST/ESA/SER.A/313
UN-DESD, (2007). Education for sustainable development: United Nations Decade (2005 – 2014).
Retrieved from http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=23279andURL_DO=DO
_TOPICandURL_SECTION=201.html.
UNECE, (2015). United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). From MDGs to SDGs –
what have we learned? Retrieved from http://www.unece.org/index.php?id=38786
UNEP, (2013). Greening Universities Toolkit. Transforming Universities into Green
and Sustainable Campuses: a Toolkit for Implementers. Available at
http://www.unep.org/training/docs/Greening_University_Toolkit.pdf.
UNEP, (2015). The Future of low carbon transport in India. Retrieved from
www.unep.org/transport/lowcarbon/news_and_events.asp
UNESCO, (1997). Educating for a sustainable future: a transdisciplinary vision for concerted action. In:
Report of the international conference on environment and society: education and public awareness
for sustainability, Thessaloniki: Greece
UNESCO, (2001). The Lüneburg Declaration. Retrieved from http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/
files/37585/11038209883LuneburgDeclaration.pdf
UNESCO, (2014). UNESCO Roadmap for Implementing the Global Action Programme on Education
for Sustainable Development, Published in 2014 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization, 7, place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP, France. Retrieved from
unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002305/230514e.pdf
UNICEF, (2006). Progress for children: A report card on water and sanitation. Number 5, September
2006.
United Nations, (1992). Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Retrieved
from www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm
United Nations, (2002). Johannesburg Summit. Retrieved from www.johannesburgsummit.org/ and
www.un.org/esa/sustdev/index.html
United Nations, (2014). The Road to Dignity by 2030: Ending Poverty, Transforming All Lives and
Protecting the Planet. Synthesis Report of the Secretary-General On the Post-2015 Agenda. Retrieved
from http://www.thpadvocacy.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/2014-12-sg-synthesis-report-on-sdgs.pdf
University of Toronto, (2007). Annual Sustainability Report 2007. Retrieved from
http://sustainability.utoronto.ca/Assets/Sustainability+Digital+Assets/Research+and
+Publications/Annual+Reports/annual2007.pdf
212
UNPAN, (2015). Water Resources Management and Urban Environment. Retrieved from
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan013202.pdf
USEPA, (2013). Waste Reduction Model (WARM)." Environmental Protection Agency, 4 June
2012.Web. 05 Apr. 2013.
USGBC, (2014). Roadmap to a Green Campus. U.S Green Building Council. Retrieved from
http://www.centerforgreenschools.org/sites/default/files/resource-files/RoadmaptoaGreen Campus
online_121611.pdf
UTSC, (2015). University of Toronto. Sustainability Office. Retrieved from
http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~sustain/
UWRF, (2015). University of Wisconsin - Food Systems and Production. Retrieved from
https://www.uwrf.edu/SCISCD/campus/Food.cfm
UWSUPER, (2008). TNS-at-Living-Green. Retrieved from https://www.uwsuper.edu/ncced
/presentations/.../TNS-at-Living-Green.p.
Vaid, V., and Garg, S. (2013). Food as Fuel: Prospects of Biogas Generation from Food Waste.
IJAFST, ISSN, (2249-3050).
Valentin, A. and Spangenberg, J. (1999). Indicators for sustainable communities. Paper presented at the
International workshop “Assessment methodologies for urban infrastructure”, Stockholm 20 to 21
November 1999.
Valorgas, (2015). Retrieved from http://www.valorgas.soton.ac.uk/Pub_docs/JyU%20SS%
202013/VALORGAS_JyU_2013_Lecture%202.pdf
Van den Bergh, J. C. (1994). Toward sustainable development: Concepts, methods, and policy. Island
Press.
Vandevivere, P., De Baere, L., and Verstraete, W. (2003). Types of anaerobic digester for solid wastes.
Biomethanization of the organic fraction of municipal solid wastes, 111-140.
Vaughter, P., Wright, T., McKenzie, M., and Lidstone, L. (2013). Greening the ivory tower: A review
of educational research on sustainability in post-secondary education. Sustainability, 5(5), 2252-
2271.Pondicherry University Statistics, 2011, viewed 7 October 2011, < http:
//www.pondiuni.edu.in/sites/default/files/downloads/pu_profile31052011.pdf>.
Velazquez, L., Munguia, N., and Sanchez, M. (2005). “Deterring sustainability in higher education
institutions: an appraisal of the factors which influence sustainability in higher education institutions”,
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 383-391.
Velazquez, L., Munguia, N., Platt, A., and Taddei, J. (2006). Sustainable university: what can be the
matter?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(9), 810-819.
Vincent, S., and Focht, W. (2009). US higher education environmental program managers' perspectives
on curriculum design and core competencies: Implications for sustainability as a guiding framework.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 10(2), 164-183.
Vision 2020, (2015). India Vision 2020. Retrieved from http://www.indiavision2020.org
/whatis_2020.html
Wait, D. A. (2014). Can a University's Public Affairs Mission Move the Institution beyond
Sustainability?. Department of Biology, Missouri State University. Retrieved from
http://ejournal.missouristate.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014 /10/Wait_Article.pdf.

213
Walker, J. B., and Seymour, M. W. (2008). "Utilizing the design charrette for teaching sustainability",
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp.157 – 169.
Wall, A., Birou, L., and Wall, J. L. (2010). “Sustainability Strategies in Universities: Developing a
Conceptual Framework,” 2010 Oxford Business and Economics Conference Program, St. Hugh’s
College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK, pp.26.
Waltner-Toews, D., Kay, J. J., and Lister, N. M. E. (2008). The ecosystem approach: complexity,
uncertainty, and managing for sustainability. Columbia University Press.
Walton, J., and Sweeney, M. (2014). How-To Guide: Promoting Sustainable Campus Landscapes.
AASHE Insights, 1(2), 60-88.
Walton, J., Alabaster, T. and Jones, K. (2000). “Environmental accountability: who’s kidding whom?
Environmental Management November 2000, Volume 26, Issue 5, pp 515–526
doi:10.1007/s002670010109
Walton, S. V., and Galea, C. E. (2005). Some considerations for applying business sustainability
practices to campus environmental challenges. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, 6(2), 147-160.
Wang, H. I. (2013). Toward a Green Campus with the Internet of Things–the Application of Lab
Management. world, 7, 8.
Wang, H. I. (2014). Constructing the Green Campus within the Internet of Things Architecture.
International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 2014.
WBCSD, (2007). The WBCSD Global Water Tool. Retrieved from http://www.wbcsd.org/work-
program/sector-projects/water/global-water-tool.aspx
Weenen, H. V. (2000). “Towards a vision of a sustainable university,” International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 20-34.
Weiss, C. S. (2009). Sustaining institutional mission through "Pilgrimage". Liberal Education, 95 (3),
56-60.
Weiss, E. B. (1992). Intergenerational equity: a legal framework for global environmental change.
United Nations University.
Wellock, T. R. (2007). Preserving the nation: The conservation and environmental movements 1870 –
2000. Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson, Inc
Wells, P., and Bristow, G. (2007). Embedding eco-industrialism into local economies: the search for
sustainable business and policy paradigms. Progress in Industrial Ecology, an International Journal,
4(3-4), 205-218.
Wells, P., and Seitz, M. (2005). Business models and closed-loop supply chains: a typology. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, 10(4), 249-251.
Wever, R., Van Kuijk, J. and Boks, C. (2008). User-centered design for sustainable behaviour.
International journal of sustainable engineering, 1, 9-20.
Wilkie, A. C., Graunke, R. E., and Cornejo, C. (2015). Food Waste Auditing at Three Florida Schools.
Sustainability, 7(2), 1370-1387.
Willard, B. (2012). The three sustainability models: Ways to explain sustainable societies. Retrieved
from https://www.2degreesnetwork.com/groups/2degrees-community/resources/three-sustainability-
models-ways-explain

214
Williams, T. (2013). Unleashing sustainable leadership in schools: The paradox of distributed
leadership. Educational Research Journal, 28(1/2), 33.
Williamson, S. R. (2012). A systems approach to reducing institutional GHG emissions International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education , Volume 13 , No.1, pp. 46 – 59.
Winter, J., and Cotton, D. (2012). Making the hidden curriculum visible: Sustainability literacy in
higher education. Environmental Education Research, 18(6), 783-796.
WMICH, (2009). Strategic Sustainability Initiatives at Western Michigan University’. Retrieved from
https://wmich.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/initiatives-report_2.pdf, 2009
Wood, R. J. (1990). Changing the educational program. New Directions for Higher Education,
1990(71), 51-58.
World Bank, (2010). Climate-smart agriculture a call to action, pp 24
WRI, (2014). World Resources Institute (WRI). Food Loss and Waste Protocol: Overview; WRI:
Washington, DC, USA, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/uploads
/Food_loss_and_ waste_protocol_Summary_Overview_Oct_2014.pdf
Wright, T. S. (2002). Definitions and Frameworks for Environmental Sustainability in Higher
Education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 3(3), 203-220.
Wright, T. S. (2004). “Consulting stakeholders in the development of an Environmental Policy
Implementation Plan: a Delphi Study at Dalhousie University.” Environmental Education Research,
Vol.10, No.2, pp. 179-194.
Wright, T., and Pullen, S. (2007). Examining the Literature A Bibliometric Study of ESD Journal
Articles in the Education Resources Information Center Database. Journal of Education for
Sustainable Development, 1(1), 77-90.
WSCSD, (2015). World Student Community for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from
http://www.wscsd.org/
Xiao, Y., Bai, X. M., Ou, Y., Zhi, Y., Zheng, H., and Xing, F. F. (2007). The composition, trend and
impact of urban solid waste in Beijing. Environ Monit Assess. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-007-9708-0
Yale, (2015). 2015 IARU Global University Climate Forum launched. Yale University. Retrieved from
http://sustainability.yale.edu/news/2015-iaru-global-university-climate-forum-launched
Yarime, M., and Tanaka, Y. (2012). The issues and methodologies in sustainability assessment tools for
higher education institutions a review of recent trends and future challenges. Journal of Education for
Sustainable development, 6(1), 63-77.
Yatima, S. R. M., and Arshad, M. A. (2010). Household Solid Waste Characteristics and Management
in Low Cost Apartment in Petaling Jaya, Selangor. Health and the Environment Journal, 1(2).
Yu, C. C., and Maclaren, V. (1995). A comparison of two waste stream quantification and
characterization methodologies. Waste Management and Research, 13(4), 343-361.
Zachrisson, J., and Boks, C. (2012). Exploring behavioural psychology to support design for sustainable
behaviour research. Journal of Design Research 14, 10(1-2), 50-66.
Zar, J. H. (1984). Multiple comparisons. Biostatistical analysis, 1, 185-205.
Zeng, Y., Trauth, K. M., Peyton, R. L., and Banerji, S. K. (2005). Characterization of solid waste
disposed at Columbia Sanitary Landfill in Missouri. Waste Management and Research, 23(1), 62-71.
215
Zhang, J. (2010). UC Berkeley Water Usage and Conservation Study Report. Retrieved from
http://sustainability.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/UC_BERKELEY_WATER
_CONSERVATION_REPORT_CACS_2010.pdf
Zhao, W., and Zou, Y. (2015). Green university initiatives in China: a case of Tsinghua University.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 16(4).
Zhuang, Y., Wu, S. W., Wang, Y. L., Wu, W. X., and Chen, Y. X. (2008). Source separation of
household waste: a case study in China. Waste Management, 28(10), 2022-2030.
Ziegler, R., Partzsch, L., Gebauer, J., Henkel, M., and Lodemann, J. (2014). Social entrepreneurship in
the water sector: Getting things done sustainably. Edward Elgar Publishing.

******************

216
ANNEXURES

217
 Annexure - A
Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ)
This questionnaire is designed to help evaluate the degree to which your College/University is incorporating concepts of
green campus/sustainability into its teaching, research, scholarship and community outreach. The answers /feedback will be
useful for your self-assessment/ networking. It may take about 30 minutes of your time to fill up this questionnaire.
(Modified and adapted from: Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ), Association of University Leaders for a
Sustainable Future, 2008 and other relevant questionnaires)
1. Please indicate the degree to which staff/faculty members of your institution are aware of the concept of green
campus or campus sustainability and climate commitment.
Not at all Somewhat Quite a bit A great deal Unsure or N/A
2. Please indicate the extent to which your College/University offers courses or programs that are concerned with
sustainability (e.g., global climate change, globalization and sustainable development, urban ecology, social
and economic justice, economics of sustainability, effect of environmental degradation on indigenous peoples,
multiculturalism, population, women and development, global psychology, human consciousness, or other):
Not at all Somewhat Quite a bit A great deal Unsure or N/A
Please list any courses or educational programs that you are aware of in which topics pertaining to
sustainability are taught or addressed at your institution.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
3. If your College/University does not offer materials (e.g. courses, programs) specifically focused on
sustainability, please indicate the degree to which any of the following sustainability concepts are embedded in
existing courses and/or programs: climate change, ecology, systems theory, human rights, social justice, global
health, triple bottom line (financial, social, and environmental achievement), ecological footprint, biodiversity,
or other sustainability concepts:
Not at all Somewhat Quite a bit A great deal Unsure or N/A
Please give examples of how this is done:…………………………………………………………………………………
4. Please indicate the degree to which your College/University’s staff, faculty, or students are involved and/or
concerned with improving campus or local sustainability:
Not at all Somewhat Quite a bit A great deal Unsure or N/A
Please list specific sustainability initiatives that your College/University is involved in (e.g. task forces, student
organizations, faculty research groups, waste segregation, composting, soil/water/biodiversity/energy
conservation, green purchase etc. along with web-links if any):
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
5. Indicate the degree to which your College/University participates in majors, minors, or certificate programs
related to sustainability and/or climate change:
Not at all Somewhat Quite a bit A great deal Unsure or N/A
Please list the specific programs related to sustainability that your center/institute participates in along with web
links:………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
6. Indicate the degree to which faculty research or scholarship is being done in the area of sustainability (e.g.
climate change modeling, renewable energy, sustainable building design, indigenous wisdom, population and
development, sustainability education, psychology of sustainability, or other):
Not at all Somewhat Quite a bit A great deal Unsure or N/A
Please give examples of how this is done along with web links : ……………………….………………………
7. Indicate the degree to which your College/University is involved in community projects and Internship
Programs related to sustainability and/or climate change (e.g. collaboration with environmental organizations,
working with local or regional businesses, partnerships with k-12 education):
Not at all Somewhat Quite a bit A great deal Unsure or N/A
Please give examples of how this is done along with web links : ………………………………………………

218
8. Indicate the degree to which your university /college administration /leadership is committed to adopt the
principles of green campus/sustainability
Not at all Somewhat Quite a bit A great deal Unsure or N/A
9. What are the operational practices emphasized by your institution for moving towards green campus/
sustainability? Rank them 1 to 5 in the space provided as in the case of other questions (e.g. 1 –not at all 5 –
unsure /NA)
Green building and infrastructure Energy conservation
Water conservation Biodiversity conservation
Soil conservation Retrofitting
Waste reduction/recycling Organic horticulture
Sustainable transportation Green purchasing
Energy /environmental audits
Others (please specify) …………………………………………………

10. Which among them are prioritized for the future implementation at your institution? Why?
when?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
11. What are the perceived key barriers for green campus strategies if any in your institution?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…
12. Please identify affiliations your institution maintains related to campus sustainability-
ULSF, AASHE, ISCN, DANS, APSCC etc.
………………………………………………….……………….………………………..……..…..……
13. Please describe briefly your current/future plan of action towards Green campus/campus
sustainability
…………….…….………….…………………………………………………………………………….
14. Please give details of the key contact persons for campus sustainability from your institute-
name, designation, areas of specialization, email ids
……………………………….………………………………………………………………………….…
15. Any other feedback/comment?
……………………………….……………………………………………………………………….……

219
 Annexure - B
Steps adopted for Water Use Inventory Analysis (WUIA)
1. Identification of the audit site - residential sectors (Quarters, Boys hostel, Girls hostel,
Mess facilities)
2. Obtaining clearances from the Chief Warden/ mess manager/ CEW/ P&D
3. Personal discussion and explaining the purpose of the work with the hostel/mess in-charge
4. Personal discussion and explaining the purpose of the work with CEW/ P&D
5. Sectorization of the audit site for water use inventory
6. Selection of the audit team
7. Educating the team members on the purpose of the work
8. ‘Walk through approach’ 1st day and 2nd day (if needed 3rd day)
9. Scoping (looking at carefully/ scan) the current management practices
- Observing the present condition
- Observing the inlet and outlet
10. Identification of the ideal timing for conducting the audit
11. Health and safety measures (ABC Approach – always be careful)
12. Identification of stake holder/ key informant
13. Informal interview – semi structured questionnaire for CEW staff
14. Informal interview – semi structured questionnaire for building in-charge/ hostel office
15. Quantifying the amount of fresh water consumed
16. Quantifying the amount of waste water generated
17. Quantifying the rain water harvesting potential
18. Quantifying the water saving potential
19. Recording the data
20. Consolidation of the data
21. Recommendations

220
 Annexure - C
Water and Waste Water Assessment questionnaire

Current Management Practices

1.The water supply within the university s maintained by: ………………….………………

2.How many wings/ division present to manage water supply: ………………………………

3.Name (s) of the person in charge: ………………………wing …………………………...;

………………………wing …………………………...;
………………………wing …………………………...;
………………………wing …………………………...;
………………………wing …………………………...;

4.No. of bore wells and its width: ……………(……………m) wing …………………;

……………(……………m) wing …………………;
………..…. (……………m) wing……………...….;
……………(……………m) wing …………………;
……………(……………m) wing …………………;

5.What is the depth of bore well: ………(m) wing …………………Age ……...;

………(m) wing …………………Age ……...;
………(m) wing …………………Age ……...;
………(m) wing …………………Age ……...;
………(m) wing …………………Age ……...;

6.At what level the abstraction pump exists: ……(m) wing ……..…...(good/ bad condition)
……(m) wing ……..…...(good/ bad condition)
……(m) wing ……..…...(good/ bad condition)
……(m) wing ……..…...(good/ bad condition)
……(m) wing ……..…...(good/ bad condition)

7. Is there any emergency/ alternative bore well: Yes (or) No

8. If Yes, their locations and depth: ………………(m) wing ………………………...;

………………(m) wing ………………………...;
………………(m) wing ………………………...;
………………(m) wing ………………………...;
………………(m) wing ………………………...;

9. Whether water table is declining: Yes (or) No

10. If Yes, the water table level: (SUMMER) Past level ……….(m)Present level ………. (m)
(WINTER) Past level ………..(m)Present level ………. (m)

11. Currently the university is facing water shortage problems: Yes (or) No

12. If yes- during which months: ………………………………………………………………

13. Are you sourcing water from outside: Yes (or) No

221
14. If Yes, how many liters per day: ………… (L); cost …………./- per …………… (L);
sourcing from local (or) adjacent areas through lorry (or) tractor

14. Do you aware, if the same condition exists, PU will face serious water problem: Yes (or) No

15. If Yes, have you informed the residents and students about it: Yes (or) No

13. If Yes, what is the feedback: ……….………………………………………………………

14. If No, why: ……………...……………….…………………………………………………

15. Is the University recycles water: Yes (or) No

16. If Yes, how many liters: ……………….. L

17. Is the University reuses water: Yes (or) No

18. If Yes, how many liters: ……………….. L

19. Is there rain water harvesting structures: Yes (or) No

20. If Yes, how many liters capacity: ………………...L

21. Do you know any system or technology for waste water treatment: Yes (or) No

22. Do you know about constructed wetland for waste water treatment: Yes (or) No

23. If any project is implemented for waste water treatment will you like it: Yes (or) No

24. How do you feel about sharing your knowledge with us: Good (or) OK (or) Bad

222
 Annexure - D
Site specific structured format for water use inventory

Location of main bore wells and their water supply for the entire campus

6am- 2pm- 10pm- Tank

Sl. Depth Tube Service
Type Location HP Status Supply Speed 2pm 10pm 6am Capacity
No (mts) (mts) To
(Hours) (Hours) (Hours) (Liters)

Bore
1
well

Bore
2
well

Bore
3
well

Hostel roof area and over head tank details

Hostel Name Roof Top Water Tank (RTWT) Roof area Potential
Tank Volume per tank (l) Total (m2) water
volume harvesting
Nos. Valve (l) capacity
(m3/year)
Yes No

Grand total

Hostel toilet, bath room, urinals, wash basin, water dispenser details

Hostel Name No. of Toilets Urinals Bath Wash Water

occupants (nf*) (nf*) rooms basin Dispenser
(nf*) (nf*) (nf*)

Grand total

223
 Annexure - E
Steps adopted for Food Waste Inventory Analysis (FWIA)
1. Identification of the audit site (Residential sector) within the campus
2. Obtaining clearances from the Chief Warden/ mess manager
3. Personal discussion and explaining the purpose of the work with the hostel/mess in-charge
4. Personal discussion and explaining the purpose of the work with P&D
5. Sectorization of the audit site for kitchen waste audit
6. Selection of the audit team
7. Educating the team members on the purpose of the work
8. ‘Walk through approach’ 1st day and 2nd day (if needed 3rd day)
9. Scoping (looking at carefully/ scan) the current management practices
- Observing the preparation procedure
- Observing the cooking methods involved
- Observing the spilled food while preparation and the way it is handled
(trampled under the feet/ swept aside during cooking/ swept aside after cooking)
- Who is sweeping aside? The cook (or) The assistant
- How many times they are sweeping the kitchen
- Opening time ……… and Closing time ……………. (or) Open 24 hours
10. Identification of the ideal timing for conducting the waste audit
11. Health and safety measures (ABC Approach – always be careful)
12. Identification of Stake Holder/ key informant
13. Informal interview – semi structured questionnaire for kitchen in-charge/ hostel office
14. Selection of the tools, machine and ideal place
15. Setting up of the tools, machine, auditing sheet (PP)
16. Characterization and quantification of the source segregated pre-cooked waste
17. Characterization and quantification of the source segregated post-cooked waste
18. Recording the data
19. Estimating the quantity of food waste diverted for nutrient recovery
20. Estimating the quantity of food waste diverted for energy recovery
21. Estimating the size of the anaerobic digester for energy recovery
22. Cost benefit analysis for resource recovery
23. Consolidation of the data
24. Recommendations

224
 Annexure - F
Food Waste Inventory Assessment Questionnaire

Current Waste Management Practices

1. Name of the facility site:

………………………………………………………………………………………………
2. Name of the Manager of the facility:
………………………………………….…………………………………………………
3. Name of the Hauler:
………………………………………………………………………………………………
4. Primary collection points :
……………………………………..………………..………………….…………………
5. Secondary collection points :
……………………………………………….………………………..………………………
5. Frequency of collection:
………………………………………………………..………………….………………….
6. Amount currently collected by weight: ……………………………..
7. Amount currently collected by volume: …………………………….
8. Frequency of collection: Morning…………; Afternoon ….….……; Evening ………….
9. Whether the waste is sold for money : YES(or) NO
10. If yes average income earned per day : Rs. …………………………
11. Whether the caterer is paying for the disposal : YES(or) NO
12. If yes average money spent per day : Rs. …………………..………
13. Billing Frequency : Daily/ Weekly/ Fortnightly/ Monthly
14. Bills based on weight or volume : …………….…………………………
15. Where waste is finally disposed : ……………….………………………
16. List current recycling efforts : Composting/Vermicomposting/Animal feed

225
 Annexure - G
Structured food waste inventory data sheet
(Site specific –based on the numbers of hostel/mess facility)

Kitchen facility
Type of Variables Girls Hostel Mess Boys Hostel Mess
waste Hostel 1 Hostel 2 Hostel 3 Hostel 4 Hostel 5 Hostel 6 Hostel 7
(Kg) (Kg) (Kg) (Kg) (Kg) (Kg) (Kg)
_ Students
(Nos)
_ Kitchen staff
(Nos)
_ Total
For Veg.Trimming
Energy Banana peel
Precooked waste

Recovery Total
(Biogas)
Egg shells**
Citrus waste (L)
For
Nutrient Coconut shell
Recovery Fibrous (DS)
(Compost) Meat waste
Total
Table waste
For ***
Post cooked waste

Energy Excess food

Recovery Spoiled food
(Biogas) Total
For Tea dust
Nutrient Coffee powder
Recovery
(Compost) Meat bone
Total
Total Waste per day for
Energy Recovery
Total Waste per day for
Nutrient Recovery
Total food waste disposed per
day
Average food waste generated
per person per day

Note:* Selective (approximate); **egg shell (approximate) *** Spilled and Plate waste; coconut shell (approximate); L-Lemon; DS-Drum stick

(1) For the calculation of the total waste generated per day for energy recovery is the sum of vegetable trimming, table waste and excess
food waste (2) For the calculation of the total waste generated per day for nutrient recovery is the sum of fruit peel, egg shell, citrus and
meat waste (3) the total no of beneficiary and meal plan will fluctuate depending on the hostellers schedule, availability of cooking raw
materials and season (4) coconut shell can be recycle as activated carbon/handicrafts

226
 Annexure - H
Criteria Identified for Pondicherry University Campus Sustainability
.

1. Environmental Education and outreach

Awareness program, Environmental Education, Inter disciplinary approach
2. Green purchase
Purchasing environment friendly, recycled, energy star standard products
3. Sustainable solid waste management
Existing practices, Impact assessment, evolving best practices
4. Sustainable waste water management
Effluent quality, Impact assessment, various treatment option
5. Hazardous waste management
Lab chemicals, Medical waste Health center,
Sanitary waste from residence and hostels
6. Energy efficiency/generation
Benchmark (sub meter), Bio waste to Biogas/ Energy, Solar Energy
7. Ground water resource management
Water footprint, Irrigation through Reuse, Rainwater harvesting
8. Sustainable management of Food and food services
Kitchen garden, Seasonal food, Indigenous/ Organic foods
9. Biodiversity and Habitat restoration
Ecological landscaping, Restoring original indigenous species
10. Sustainable Transportation
Pedestrian, bicycling, Implementing usage of bio-diesel (Jatropha Crucas)

Questionnaire for VC, Director’s, Registrar, FAO

Q. 1. You personal interest regarding this Green campus Project - Interested/ Not interested
Q. 2. Will you provide administrative support? Yes / No
Q. 3. Will you provide seed money grant? Yes / No
Q. 4. Will you provide collaborative monitory assistance for GC project? Yes / No
Q 5. Any other suggestions?

Questionnaire for VC, Director’s, Registrar, FAO

Q. 1. You personal interest regarding this Green campus Project - Interested/ Not interested
Q. 2. Will you provide administrative support? Yes / No
Q. 3. Will you provide recommendation for obtaining seed money grant? Yes / No
Q. 4. Will you provide recommendation for collaborative monitory assistance for GC project?
Yes / No
Q 5. Any other suggestions?

227
 Annexure - I
Categories and sub categories for assessing performance of the frame work
The Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System TM (STARS) is a voluntary, self-
reporting framework for helping colleges and universities track and measure their sustainability
progress. STARS is intended to stimulate, not end, the conversation about how to measure and
benchmark sustainability. It is recommended with the intention to build a stronger, more diverse
campus sustainability community by providing a framework for understanding sustainability, through
meaningful comparisons over time and across institutions, by fostering continual improvement toward
sustainability and sharing sustainability practices and performance. STARS score is based on the
percentage of applicable points it earns across categories namely Institutional Characteristics (IC);
Academics (AC); Engagement (EN); Operations (OP); Planning and Administration (PA) and
Innovation and Leadership (IN) with sub categories such as:

1). Institutional Characteristics (IC)

 Institutional Boundary
 Operational Characteristics
 Academics and Demographics

2). Academics (AC)

 Curriculum
- Academic Courses
- Learning Outcomes
- Undergraduate Program
- Graduate Program
- Immersive Experience
- Sustainability Literacy Assessment
- Incentives for Developing Courses
- Campus as a Living Laboratory
 Research
- Research and Scholarship
- Support for Research
- Open Access to Research

3). Engagement (EN)

 Campus Engagement
- Student Educators Program
- Student Orientation
- Student Life
- Outreach Materials and Publications
- Outreach Campaign
- Assessing Sustainability Culture

228
 - Employee Educators Program
- Employee Orientation
- Staff Professional Development
 Public Engagement
- Community Partnerships
- Inter-Campus Collaboration
- Continuing Education
- Community Service
- Participation in Public Policy 2
- Trademark Licensing

4). Operations (OP)

 Air and Climate

- Greenhouse Gas Emissions
- Outdoor Air Quality
 Buildings
- Building Operations and Maintenance
- Building Design and Construction
 Energy
- Building Energy Consumption
- Clean and Renewable Energy
 Food and Dining
- Food and Beverage Purchasing
- Sustainable Dining
 Grounds
- Landscape Management
- Biodiversity
 Purchasing
- Sustainable Procurement
- Electronics Purchasing
- Cleaning and Janitorial Purchasing
- Office Paper Purchasing
 Transportation
- Campus Fleet
- Student Commute Modal Split
- Employee Commute Modal Split
- Support for Sustainable Transportation
 Waste
- Waste Minimization and Diversion
- Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion
- Hazardous Waste Management
 Water
- Water Use

229
 - Rainwater Management

5). Planning and Administration (PA)

 Coordination and Planning

- Sustainability Coordination
- Sustainability Planning
- Participatory Governance
 Diversity and Affordability
- Diversity and Equity Coordination
- Assessing Diversity and Equity
- Support for Underrepresented Groups
- Affordability and Access
 Investment
- Committee on Investor Responsibility
- Sustainable Investment
- Investment Disclosure
 Wellbeing and Work
- Employee Compensation
- Assessing Employee Satisfaction
- Wellness Program
- Workplace Health and Safety

6). Innovation and Leadership (IN)

 Exemplary Practice
 Innovation

230
 Annexure - J
List of Publications
Research Articles
Edwin G. A., Poyyamoli, G. and Muthu, N. (2014). Efficacy of phytoremediation potential of aquatic
macrophytes for its applicability in treatment wetlands: A review of developments and research.
International Journal of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, 6(10), 267-278.
Edwin, G. A., Gopalsamy, P., and Muthu, N. (2014). Characterization of domestic gray water from
point source to determine the potential for urban residential reuse: a short review. Applied Water
Science, 4(1), 39-49.
Edwin G. A., Poyyamoli G. and Muthu, N., (2014) “Assessing the quality of treated municipal effluent
at Puducherry region, India” Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research., CSIR (Accepted for
publication)

Book Edited
Leal Filho, W., Muthu, N., Edwin, G., Sima, M. (Eds.) (2015). “Implementing Campus Greening
Initiatives - Approaches, Methods and Perspectives”. World Sustainability Series. IX, 362 p. 74 illus.,
66 illus. in color. ISBN 978-3-319-11960-1. Springer Publications.

Book Chapters
Poyyamoli G., Prasath, R. A, Muthu, N., and Edwin, G. A. (2012) Evolving and implementing Green
campus strategies in Indian Higher Educational Institutions for Sustainable Development“.
Sustainable Development at Universities: New Horizons. Leal Filho, Walter, ed. Sustainable
development at universities: New horizons. Peter Lang, 2012.
Edwin, G. A., Poyyamoli G, Arun Prasath R, Muthu, N. (2012) "Water Management and Reuse
Strategies at Pondicherry University - Sustainable Alternatives”. Sustainable Development at
Universities: New Horizons. Leal Filho, Walter, ed. Sustainable development at universities: New
horizons. Peter Lang, 2012.
Prasath, R. A, Poyyamoli G., Muthu, N and Edwin, G. A., (2012) Green Energy in Higher Educational
Institutions for Sustainable Development: Potential and Challenges in India. Sustainable Development
at Universities: New Horizons. Leal Filho, Walter, ed. Sustainable development at universities: New
horizons. Peter Lang, 2012.
Muthu, N., Edwin, G. A., Prasath, R. A, and Poyyamoli, G., (2012) Integrated Organic Kitchen Waste
Management for Campus Sustainability- a case study of Pondicherry University, India. Published in
Sustainable Development at Universities: New Horizons. Leal Filho, Walter, ed. Sustainable
development at universities: New horizons. Peter Lang, 2012.
Poyyamoli, G., Edwin, G. A., and Muthu, N. (2013). Constructed wetlands for the treatment of
domestic grey water: an instrument of the green economy to realize the millennium development
goals. In The Economy of Green Cities (pp. 313-321). Springer Netherlands.
Muthu, N., Shanmugam, B., Gopalsamy, P., and Edwin, G. A. (2015). Implementing a Holistic and
Student Centered Outreach Programme Towards Integrated Sustainable Development of the
Campus—A Case Study of a Residential School from South India. In Integrating Sustainability
Thinking in Science and Engineering Curricula (pp. 591-612). Springer International Publishing.
Muthu, N., Poyyamoli, G., Edwin, G. A., Prasath, R. A., and Boruah, D. (2015). Evolving and
Implementing Energy Recovering Strategy from Food Wastes at Jawahar Navodaya Vidhyalaya

231
 (JNV) Fostering Campus Sustainability. In Implementing Campus Greening Initiatives (pp. 1-12).
Springer International Publishing.
Edwin, G. A., Poyyamoli, G., Muthu, N., Prasath, R. A., and Boruah, D. (2015). Constructed Wetlands
for the Treatment of Grey Water in Campus Premises. In Implementing Campus Greening Initiatives
(pp. 337-349). Springer International Publishing.
Boruah, D., Prasath, R. A., Poyyamoli, G., Muthu, N., and Edwin, G. A. (2015). Developing
Pondicherry University Silver Jubilee Campus as “Solar Campus”. In Implementing Campus
Greening Initiatives (pp. 139-149). Springer International Publishing.
Poyyamoli, G., Prasath, R. A., Muthu, N., Edwin, G. A., and Boruah, D. (2015). Potentials and
Constraints for Adopting Campus Carbon Neutrality Strategies in Indian Higher Educational
Institutions. In Implementing Campus Greening Initiatives (pp. 251-264). Springer International
Publishing.
Prasath, R. A., Poyyamoli, G., Boruah, D., Muthu, N., and Edwin, G. A. (2015). The Role of Higher
Educational Institutions and Other Training Organizations to Promote Renewable Energy in India. In
Implementing Campus Greening Initiatives (pp. 37-52). Springer International Publishing.

232
ADDENDUM

233
 Addendum – A
PU Campus -Water Balance

Introduction

Traditionally, Puducherry region is endowed with a measurable stock of environmental assets

such as top soil, biodiversity, fertile and non-cultivable land, ground water and clean air, etc.. However,
due to urbanization, urban sprawl and industrialization in the region, there is a steep decrease in the
quality of these basic life support systems due to varied reasons, for e.g. ‘salt water intrusion and drop
in the ground water table (as of March 23, 2015)’ (Hydrology Project II; Prasad, 2015); the ingress of
sea water into the aquifer up to a distance of 5 to 7 km from the coast in the entire Puducherry region
(Hydrology Project II, 2007; Muthu et al., 2011; Edwin and Poyyamoli, 2012) (see Figure 1); water
scarcity of roughly below 200 cum per person per year (CGWB, 2005; Muthu et al., 2011; 2015; Edwin
and Poyyamoli, 2012; CSE Manual, 2009; UNPAN, 2015; Golda, 2015). Subsequently, the improper
solid waste management practices, open drainage, domestic/ industrial water pollution, cross
contamination (Narasimhan, 2010) is increasing the associated risk of health issues and water borne
diseases (MOHFW, 2006; Hospido et al., 2010).

Salt (Sea) Water

Intrusion from Bay of
Bengal

Figure 1: Salt (sea) water intrusion in the Puducherry region (Source: Hydrology Project II)

Apart from this the declining trend of ground water table in Puducherry region over 10 years is
of the order of 15 to 30 m in the West and about 7 m in the Eastern part of Puducherry (Muruganantham
and Ali, 2014; http://pandr.puducherry.gov.in) have resulted in the ‘water scarcity’ of roughly below
234
200 cum per person per year” (CGWB, 2005; Muthu et al., 2011; 2015; Edwin and Poyyamoli, 2012;
CSE Manual, 2009; UNPAN, 2015; Golda, 2015). On one hand, the shallow aquifers along the coast
show signs of salinity, on the other hand, due to over pumping, there has been a reversal of gradient in
certain areas like Kalapet, Muthialpet, Mudaliarpet, Kirumambakkam, and Panithittu (Muruganantham
and Mohamed, 2014). All these above mentioned facts ultimately suggest that, any further extraction
of groundwater if needed, the same has to be done only beyond this distance.
University campuses are large entities and often considered as small cities with high impacts on
the campus environment and thereby affecting the overall campus sustainability. Before the onset of this
millennia, water was considered as a scarce resource worldwide and until recently was given prime
importance for its conservation at every level, precisely the university campus, which in turn ultimately
demand water balance analysis (WBA).

Water Balance

In the natural system, water is constantly in motion and is able to change its state from liquid to
solid or vapor under appropriate conditions (Figure 2). Water balance analysis is an important tool ‘to
assess the current status and trends in water resource availability in any area over a specific period of
time’ (http://www.sswm.info).

Figure 2: Illustration of some water balance components

(Source: https//Hydrology (agriculture)#/media/File:Surface_water_cycle.svg)

Apart from this, the estimates arrived through water balance will strengthen the campus water
resource management and decision making. Techniques for carrying out water balance estimation range
from very simple ‘back of the envelope’ analysis to highly complex ‘computer-based models’, for either
of which a sound knowledge of hydrological processes is the prerequisite (http://www.sswm.info). The
above shown illustration shows some of the water balance components (http://www.sswm.info).
235
Applicability
In the field of hydrology, water balance analysis (WBA), is one of the main research study, to
address the necessities related with some of the important theoretical and practical hydrological
problems. Through WBA approach, it is possible to make a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of
available water resources and their change due to anthropological inputs (Sokolov and Chapman 1974;
Moriarty et al., 2007; http://www.sswm.info). WBA can also be used to help manage campus water
supply judicially and also to predict future water shortages. It is also used in irrigation; runoff
assessment (e.g. through the Rain Off model); flood control; pollution control; in the designing of
subsurface drainage systems which may be horizontal (i.e. using pipes, tile drains or ditches) or vertical
(drainage by wells) (http://www.alevelgeography.com; http://www.waterlog.info/rainoff.htm;
http://www.waterlog.info).

What is a Water Balance Analysis (WBA)?

Water balance analysis is a conservation technique of water quantum, requiring that, within a
specific area over a specific period of time, water inflows are equal to water outflows, plus or minus any
change of storage within the area of interest. Put more simply, the water entering an area has to leave
the area or be stored within the area. In water balance analysis, it is often useful to divide water flows
into ‘green’ and ‘blue’ water. ‘Blue’ water is the surface and ground water that is available
for irrigation, urban use, industrial use and environmental flows. ‘Green’ water is water that has been
stored in the soil and that evaporates into the atmosphere. The simplest form of water balance equation
is as follows (Moriarty et al., 2007; http://www.sswm.info):

P = Q + E ± ∆S

Where,

P is precipitation,
Q is runoff,
E is evaporation and
∆S is the storage in the soil, aquifers or reservoirs.

According to Mohanty (2016), Indian Council of Agricultural Research, the general water
balance equation used to make accurate estimates of water use is:

Inflow = outflow ± change in volume (∆V)

Total water use (TWU) is the sum of all possible inflows whereas, consumptive water use (CWU)
includes the possible outflows. Thus the appropriate equation is:

P+I = E + So + Of + D ± ∆V

236
Where,
Total water use (TWU)
Consumptive water use (CWU)
Water Reclamation
= (possible inflows) precipitation (P) + runoff (R) + stream inflow/
groundwater input (Si) + management additions or regulated
inflows (I)
= (possible outflows) evaporation (E) + seepage (So) + transpiration/
overflow (Of) + intentional discharge or regulated discharge (D) +
water in harvested biomass (about 0.75 m3/t - a negligible amount
that can be ignored).

This study is an attempt to organize the current state of water use and management at PU and it
is intended to support the Civil Engineering Wing (CEW) and Planning and Development (P&D) of PU
“by providing guidance for framing future water use/management policies by taking into account the
SD principles” (CBCS, 2015). “Initially it is applied here for the selected residential units (Quarters,
Boys hostel, Girls hostel, Mess facilities) of the PU” by adopting standard methods (UCMERCED,
2015). Current rate of ground water extraction to satisfy the needs of the residential activity is estimated
to be 7996020 m3 / year which constitute the main blue water footprint of the university, excluding
service sectors and other horticultural demand. Out of this 6396816 m3 / year constitutes overall waste
water, with 70% of it being grey water and with proper treatment system in place, around 60% of blue
water (2686663 m3 / year) can be produced (i.e. reclaimed) from the generated grey water per year as
suggested by Kujawa-Roeleveld and Zeeman (2006) and Golda (2015). With a total building plinth area
of over 45000 m2 (source, CEW) and annual rainfall of 998 mm in Puducherry (GOP, 2008), there is a
tremendous potential for harvesting of rainwater around 19822 m3 per year (i.e. 54306 l per day).

Therefore, the potentials for blue water that can be generated/ produced within the campus
through reclamation and rain water harvesting were estimated to be 2706485 m3 per year which could
potentially reduce the ground water extraction by 33.85%. The potential savings could have been
several folds higher if the kitchen, administrative, academic and other public service blocks are also
included in the calculation. By treating the grey water and reusing it for non-potable uses will also
eliminate contamination of soil, aquifer, ocean and other surface water bodies.

Rain Water Harvesting potential at PU based on the Rooftop area and Rainfall

With a total building plinth area of over 45000 m2 (source, CEW) and annual rainfall of 998 mm
in Puducherry (GOP, 2008), there is a tremendous potential for harvesting of rainwater around 19822
m3 per year (i.e. 54306 l per day). When this water is used in a ‘fit for purpose’ manner, it will help to
offset the ground water withdrawal and the corresponding electricity demand /GHG emission on/offsite
(diesel based genset onsite/coal based off site) to a greater extent.

237
Limitations

According to Sokolov and Chapman (1974) and Moriarty et al. (2007), there is always
uncertainity while conducting WBA, arising from inadequate data capture networks, measurement
errors and the complex spatial and temporal heterogeneity that characterizes hydrological processes.
Consequently, uncertainty analysis is an important part of water balance estimation as it is the quality
control of information before used. Based on a series of consultations with the key stakeholders -PU
Civil Engineering Wing; PU, PWD (water supply); PU, Sanitation Wing; Hydrologist, Hydrology Dept.
Govt. of Puducherry; State Ground Water Board, for performing campus Water Balance Analysis
(WBA), the following conclusions were made:

 When it comes to the possible inflows like precipitation (P) the statistical data is available for
the entire region with the Statistical and Hydrology Department but not specifically for PU. On
the other hand runoff (R), stream inflow/ ground water seepage (Si), management additions or
regulated inflows (I) are in the initial stages of planning.
 When it comes to possible outflows like evaporation (E), seepage (So), transpiration/ overflow
(Of), intentional discharge or regulated discharge (D), water in harvest biomass are not yet
available, but are on the agenda of the State Ground Water Board, Puducherry.

Such data are not available even for the neighboring PEC campus. During the series of
consultations with the above mentioned key stakeholders, the following common problems that exist in
our PU campus in terms of WBA were identified, that are being sorted out at various levels:

 Temporal and spatial aquifer boundaries, either, are not defined or mixed up between two states
Puducherry and Tamilnadu
 The non-availability of secondary data on sector wise water consumption
 The unavailability of abstraction, rainfall, storage record
 The issue of double counting of water flows (water flows within an area added to water flow
exiting area)
 Wastage of water at various locations without any monitoring
 The danger of inappropriate extrapolation of field level information to a larger/ smaller scale
 Intuition based on popular myths is often used rather than good quality information through
systematic scientific analysis from concerned departments

The recommended measures for campus water sustainability

Nature provides accurate dynamic balance through diverse processes of ecosystems and cycles,
whereas the unwise human consumption ethic creates the imbalance. At the university level, the
operations and landscapes are parts of the system which need to go hand in hand. It is exposed to the
balance between growth and decay. Hence, as suggested by Ahmed et al. (2016), eco-landscaping
would lead to the cost reduction for the campus and the decreased intensive/excessive water use and
other structures needed to imitate the nature since the basic concept of sustainable ecological landscape
is to blend with nature and return back to the natural systems. Water sustainability for landscape

238
depends mainly on reduction of consumption, rain water harvesting and recycling of water (Ahmed et
al., 2016). Water is now recognized as one of the most contentious, uncertain resources of the future
(United Nations 2006), Paul Simon, the U.S senator suggests ‘that coming wars will be over water
rather than oil’ (Thompson and Sorvig, 2007). Such warnings helped many countries in evolving
sustainable methods/ technologies dealing with water management practices. Since
university/educational campuses are the most water consuming projects in the case of operations and
landscapes (especially potable water) in Puducherry region, it is essential to evolve strategies for
sustainable usage of water on campus landscapes, as well as to enhance the awareness through water
education for sustainable development as suggested by UNESCO (http://unesdoc.unesco.org). This
would facilitate PU to provide the nitty-gritty of water sustainability to other key stake holders in the
region as suggested by other workers for other regions (Johnson and Castleden, 2011; Ahmed et al.,
2016).

Water sustainability is not only about saving available sources on site, but it is simultaneous
restoration of natural systems and producing new resources by integrating different systems together,
that could support the very basis of life supporting systems- water, soil, vegetation and materials. The
balance between the different water end uses/users need to be considered as a very important factor, for
the misuse of water resources will lead to pollution and ecosystem degradation. Notable actions that
support water sustainability are (Calkins, 2012; Ahmed et al., 2016):

- Preserve and restore the interaction of rainfall, vegetation, and soil

- Promote onsite infiltration of rainfall and runoff
- Protect or improve surface water quality
- Promote groundwater recharge
- Maintain predevelopment stream bank base flow
- Reclaim and Reuse wastewater onsite
- Minimize use of potable water
- Capture and reuse rainwater, grey-water, and treated black water

Such recommendations are already given in the thesis in Chapter 6 (page 150).

239
Recommended steps to be involved in the future for PU campus water balance analysis (WBA)
According to Moriarty et al. (2007) the seven basic steps recommended for the water balance
analysis are :
Step 1: Demarcate the boundaries of the area where the water balance analysis is to be
made.
Step 2: Perform a needs assessment of the water balance information among stakeholders
with the help of semi structured interviews.
Step 3: Develop a schematic representation that shows storage, inflows and outflows
within the campus. Check for missing components and double counting of inflows/
storage/ outflows.
Step 4: Identify a source(s) for quality and reliable information relevant to the analytical
area and time period.
Step 5: Carry out sensitivity analysis on this information. If there are uncertainty and
inadequacies in the information (almost always the case), redefine the boundaries of the
water balance and/or modify the water balance equation by opting to highly complex
computer-based models.
Step 6: Produce water balance estimates in a format that is useful for visioning, scenario
planning and campus community planning.
Step 7: By using quality control methods, the water balance estimates regarding their
quality before they are disseminated is controled.

The researcher has now initiated this study, taking into consideration all the limitations in
constructing the data base as discussed above.

Conclusion

The period from October to December is referred to as ‘Northeast Monsoon Season’ over
Peninsular India (http://www.imdchennai.gov.in). According to The New Indian Express (Nov 1, 2016),
between October 3 and October 27, Chennai experienced a 96% shortfall in rain, receiving a mere
9.7 mm against the normal 234.7 mm. The rest of Tamil Nadu recorded a shortfall of 69% in October,
receiving 50.6 mm of rain against a 164.7 mm (https://scroll.in/a/828029). Comparatively, in spite of
the fact showed by the IMD statistics, that, the rainfall in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry in 2016 was just
a little over 9 mm higher than the record low of 1876, yet, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry suffered large
deficits of 62% and 79% respectively, indicating a disturbing trend, as among the 15 worst years of
rainfall since 1876, three have fallen in the last four years (http://www.thenewsminute.com).

Against this background, while Puducherry was hit by floods due to heavy rains in December
2015, it was worst hit by a drastic reduction in the North East monsoon season (October to December)
creating an unprecedented drought (79% deficit), hence, WBA either for PU or for UT of Puducherry
will be of great significance. As suggested by UNESCO, PU as a leading higher education institution
could enhance tertiary education and training programs by strengthening the education of a new

240
generation of water managers and decision makers to encompass a holistic, integrated transdisciplinary
approach to water resources and promote national, regional and international networks for professional
development and ready adoption of scientific research into the university curricula
(http://unesdoc.unesco.org). PU could provide the much needed scientific advice for sustainable
management of water resources (sector wise) in the region. It is strongly suggested that PU should
collaborate with the Central /State Ground Water Board along with the local educational institutions,
gated communities, industries and other key sectors such as tourism and agriculture so that water
security for sustainable development is realized at the earliest. This is urgently required as most of the
key water consuming sectors are located along the coastal region, and their excessive demand have
already depleted water table in several locations in Puducherry region (that include Kalapet region,
where PU is located) culminating in salination of the ground water aquifer. This becomes even more
important as Puducherry is being considered for the smart city project by Govt. of India.

References

Ahmed I. Amr, Shaimaa Kamel, Germin El Gohary, Johannes Hamhaber. (2016). Water as an
Ecological Factor for a Sustainable Campus Landscape. Urban Planning and Architecture Design
for Sustainable Development, UPADSD 14- 16 October 2015. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences 216 ( 2016 ) 181 – 193

Calkins, M. (2012). The Sustainable Sites Handbook: A Complete Guide to the Principles, Strategies,
and Best Practices for Sustainable Landscapes. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.Hoboken, New Jersey
(kindle version).

CBCS, (2015). Aspects of Sustainable Construction in Brazil and Public Policy Promotion. Retrieved
from www.cbcs.org.br/_5dotSystem/userFiles/MMA-Pnuma/CBCS_EN_Aspectos%20da%20
Construcao%20Sustentavel_2015_web.pdf

CGWB, (2005). Dynamic ground water resources of Kerala, CGWB, Kerala Region unpublished report,
p 90.cgwb.gov.in referred on 21/04/2011.

CSE Manual, (2009). Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi. Retrieved from
http://www.cseindia.org/userfiles/Annual_Report2009-10.pdf

Edwin, G. A., and Poyyamoli, G. (2012). Climate change and sustainable management of water
resources. In Climate Change and the Sustainable Use of Water Resources (pp. 431-447). Springer
Berlin Heidelberg.

Golda Arpudhalin, E. (2015). Phytoremediation potential of Arundo donax and Typha latifolia for the
treatment and reuse of domestic greywater. PhD dissertation submitted to Pondicherry University.
GOP, (2008). Disaster Management Action Plan for Floods and Cyclones. Retrieved from
http://indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/Water%20consumption%20patterns.pdf

Hospido, Almudena, Marta Garballa, Maite Moreira, Francisco Omil, Juan M. Lema, and Gumersindo
Feijoo. (2010). Environmental assessment of anaerobically digested sludge reuse in agriculture:
potential impacts of emerging micro pollutants. Water Research, 44: 3225-3233.

http://www.alevelgeography.com/water-balance/ Retrieved 09-01-2017

241
http://www.imdchennai.gov.in/nemweb.pdf

http://pandr.puducherry.gov.in/publications/v2020/pdf_files/chapter-09.pdf

https://scroll.in/a/828029

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001853/185302e.pdf

http://www.sswm.info/content/water-balance-estimation. Beat Stauffer, water balance estimation.

Retrieved 09-01-2017

http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/water-starved-62-deficit-tn-receives-lowest-ever-rainfall-1876-
55010

http://www.waterlog.info/ "Free articles and software on drainage of waterlogged land under irrigation".
Retrieved 09-01-2017

http://www.waterlog.info/rainoff.htm. "Rain off, surface runoff model". Retrieved 09-01-2017

Hydrology Project II. (2007) to 2011-2012, Puducherry / www.pdywaterinfo.org ./ referred on 05-07-

2011.

Kujawa-Roeleveld, K. and Zeeman, G. (2006). Anaerobic treatment in decentralized and source

separation based Sanitation concept, Rev. in Env. Sci. and Bio-Tech., 5, 115-139

Mohanty, (2016). Indian Council of Agricultural Research

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_ simplest_way_of_hydrological_ water_balance_
study_in_pond Retrieved 29-12-2016

MOHFW, (2006). Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India, 2006, under the heading
Cases and Deaths due to water borne diseases in various states. Retrieved from www.mohfw.nic.in/

Moriarty, P., Batchelor, C., Abd-Alhadi, F., Laban, P., Fahmy, H., and Inwrdam (Editor). (2007). The
EMPOWERS Approach to Water Governance: Guidelines, Methods and Tools.

Muruganantham S.and J. Mohamed Ashik Ali (2014). A case study of identifying optimum location for
artificial recharge in the north west part of Puducherry region, International Journal of Advance
Research In Science And Engineering 3(7), 243 -254.

Muthu, N., Poyyamoli, G., and Edwin, G.A., (2011). “Evolving a Water Policy Framework 2011For
Green Campus Initiative -A Case Study Of Pondicherry University, India”. Presented and published
in the conference proceedings of “8th International Conference on Urban Watershed management–
Water systems in Rapidly Urbanizing areas, Beijing, China.

Muthu, N., Shanmugam, B., Gopalsamy, P., and Edwin, G. A. (2015). Implementing a Holistic and
Student Centered Outreach Programme Towards Integrated Sustainable Development of the
Campus—A Case Study of a Residential School from South India. In Integrating Sustainability
Thinking in Science and Engineering Curricula (pp. 591-612). Springer International Publishing.

Narasimhan, T. N. (2010). Towards sustainable water management. The Hindu 25th Jan. 2010: OP ED
9. Retrieved from http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/towards-sustainable-water-
management/ article690675.ece.

NWC (Editor), (2005). Australian Water Resources 2005 - Water Balance Assessment. Canberra:
Australian Government, National Water Commission (NWC). URL [Accessed: 17.11.2016].

242
Prasad, S. (2015). Keen conserving groundwater: CM. Retrieved from
http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/puducherry/keen-conserving-groundwater-
cm/article7022617.ece.

Sokolov, A. A. and Chapman, T. G. (1974). Methods for water balanced computations. Paris: The
Unesco Press. URL [Accessed: 17.11.2016].

UCMERCED, (2015). Sustainability Accomplishments (2005-2014). Retrieved from

https://sustainability.ucmerced.edu/area-stakeholders

UNPAN, (2015). Water Resources Management and Urban Environment. Retrieved from
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan013202.pdf

243
 Addendum – B
PU Campus - Soil Quality Assessment

Six representative sampling sites (in terms of soil/vegetation types) were identified as
representative sites within the PU campus (Figure 1). On a dry and sunny day (Sept, 2010), soil samples
at the depth of 0-15cm from such six locations were collected. The samples were dried properly as per
the procedure recommended for X-ray Fluorescent Spectrometer (XRF) analysis. The dried samples
were thoroughly mixed and a fraction for each sample was set apart for grinding with mortar and pestle.

Figure 1: Map showing the location of soil sampling sites at PU campus

(Source: Pondicherry University, Civil Engineering Wing)

. The samples were grounded to a fine powder, sieved and were given to the Central
Instrumentation Facility (CIF) of our university for analysis. The soil samples were analyzed for eleven
major elements and twenty four trace elements, with the help of X-ray Fluorescent Spectrometer (XRF)
and the results are shown in the Figure 2 through 7. In addition, results of the recent soil analysis carried
out at PU (Sundarapandian et al., 2016) and soil analysis by chromatogram technique (Figure 8) by the
researcher were also considered. The soil from the six sample sites were analyzed by the researcher for
244
major and trace soil elements respectively, and the results were graphically represented under two
categories major and trace elements like:

 Al, Fe, Si, Ti (Figure 2); Ca, K, Mg, Mn (Figure 3); Na, P, S (Figure 4) for major elements and
 V, Cr, Zr, Ba, La, Ce (Figure 5); Sc, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Rb, Sr, Y, Pb (Figure 6); Ga, As, Nb, Mo,
Sn, Sb, Cs, Th, U (Figure 7) for trace elements

Almost all the elements showed a considerable difference among the six sample sites. The soil
quality parameters from the sites 1 and 2 were found to be similar to the neighboring contaminated site
3 where the underground sewer system flows and also coincides with the values of our University’s old
dump yard which is the site 4 and is more or less 1000 m far away from the above mentioned three
locations. Samples from the sites 5 and 6 which are 700 m and 800 m away from the other 4 sites
respectively exhibited significantly lesser amount of pollution and soil contamination. The results
revealed that the monsoon rains and leakage in the sewer systems or the overflowing of waste water
were the major reasons for the transfer and spreading of pollutants to the neighboring lands and
potentially all the way down to the sea. Pathogenic microbes might also be predominant in those sites
that could cause serious threats to the health of the environment and also to humans. If waste water
along with rain water is managed properly, such ramification of water based cross contamination could
be minimized and eliminated in due course of time.

90
80
70
60 Al
50 Fe
40 Si
30 Ti
20
10
0
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6

Figure 2: Graphical representation for major soil elements such as Al, Fe, Si, Ti

245
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2 Ca
1 K
0.8 Mg
0.6 Mn
0.4
0.2
0
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6
Figure 3: Graphical representation for major soil elements such as Ca, K, Mg, Mn

0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
Na
0.25
P
0.2
S
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6
Figure 4: Graphical representation for major soil elements such as Na, P, S

246
 450
400
350
V
300 Cr
250 Zr
200 Ba
150 La
100 Ce
50
0
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6
Figure 5: Graphical representation for trace elements such as V, Cr, Zr, Ba, La, Ce

45
Sc
40
Co
35
Ni
30
Cu
25
Zn
20
Rb
15
Sr
10
Y
5
Pb
0
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6

Figure 6: Graphical representation for trace elements such as Sc, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Rb, Sr, Y, Pb

247
 16
14 Ga
As
12
Nb
10 Mo
8 Sn
6 Sb
Cs
4
Th
2 U
0
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6
Figure 7: Graphical representation for trace elements such as Ga, As, Nb, Mo, Sn, Sb, Cs, Th, U

On the other hand, Sundarapandian et al. (2016) from the Department of Ecology and
Environmental Sciences along with his dedicated team of scholars and students, conducted a study on
Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) stocks (upto 30 cm soil depth) in different land uses (teak plantation,
eucalyptus plantation, acacia plantation, shrub land and grass land) within PU campus during 2015, by
using Walkley and Black’s method. The soil bulk density was found to increase significantly (P<0.05)
with increasing soil depth (upto 30 cm) in all sites except acacia plantation and shrub land. On the other
hand, grass land and shrub land showed significantly (P<0.05) greater bulk density compared with the
other study sites.

With increasing soil depth, the stock of soil organic carbon percent and the soil organic matter
significantly (P<0.001) decreased. Acacia and eucalyptus plantations showed significantly (P<0.05)
greater SOC percent than other study sites (upto 30 cm), attributed to higher litter inputs and greater
biological activity. Whereas the stock of total soil organic carbon was significantly greater in the grass
land and shrub land compared with the other study sites that can be attributed to greater bulk density
(upto 30 cm). The mean average range of bulk density in different depths was 1.16 (shrub land) to 1.26
(acacia) at 0-10 cm; 1.13 (acacia) to 1.70 (shrub land) at 10-20 cm and 1.15 (acacia) to 1.67 (grass land)
at 20-30 cm depth. This present study suggests that maintaining diverse land uses would enrich the
carbon stock of the institution in addition to preservation of biodiversity (Sundarapandian et al., 2016).
248
Soil analysis by chromatogram technique

Compared with the non-image data like numerical and scripts, the images are easier to
remember, and also help to make the text more compact or concise, concrete, coherent, comprehensible,
correspondent and codeable (Schnotz, 2002; Carney, 2002; Lozano, 2008). One such representation is
the work of Ehenfried Pfeiffer who developed the simple and useful circular paper chromatography
(MCRC, 2011) to complement written text without substituting it (Lozano, 2008). The same is modified
and developed by MCRC group (Murugappa Chettiyar Research Center, Chennai, 2011), as
“Alternative Analytical Technology - AAT” for soil nutrient analysis through image processing
chromatograms. Since waste management is related with community workers who are normally either
illiterate or moderately literate and the administrative staff majority mostly with non-science back
ground and average educational level, it is better to explain such concepts through image or
representations during awareness programs. This will increase understanding of complex concepts
(Atkinson, 2000) and improve their learning (Lozano, 2008).

In this scenario, the available soil nutrients in the samples from the two sites A and B
(contaminated site – A (i.e Site 3 from Fig 1), behind the Amudham mega mess and normal site B, (i.e
Site 6 from Fig 1) which is 1000 m away from the contaminated site), were visualized by using the
chromatogram technique. After completing the procedural methodology the chromatogram was
developed and analysed for zonations, colour, distance, shape, pattern, and the number of spikes
developed in the reacting area for interpretation.

Figure 8 (Site 3) shows well developed radiating spikes with three different colors in the inner
zone, and in case of middle zones distinguished spikes with sharp edges.

This indicates that the site 3 is rich in organic matter and hence the soil is highly fertile (the fact
is highly polluted/ contaminated because of kitchen waste water, black water from drainage). 8 (Site 6)
shows under developed or without radiating spikes, with two different colors in inner zone and clear
spikes were not found in middle zone, indicating that given sample has low organic matter (the fact is
just a barren land used as control) (Muthu et al., 2012).

249
 Site 1 Site 2 Site 3

Site 4 Site 5 Site 6

Figure 8 (a, b, c, d, e, f): Chromatogram results for the selected soil sampling sites

Conclusion

Forests are principally known for their rich biodiversity and have a vital role in the global
carbon cycle that provides various ecosystem services to the human society and to the non-human biota.
Over time and scale, India has a vast range of forest types, weather and soil conditions and our PU
campus as a mini forest is one among them (Parthasarathy et al., 2010). Since long-rotation forests store
more carbon in forest biomass and in associated carbon pools (Kaul et al., 2011) and the short-rotation
plantations serves as a sizeable sink for atmospheric CO2 both in temperate and tropical regions
(Houghton et al., 2000; Fang et al., 2001), plantation programs are often initiated by the Horticulture
Department of our university as afforestation which in turn becomes sizeable carbon sinks. As the
campus forest ecosystems are more significant as they regenerate soil quality over a period of time,
store carbon, provide clean environment, have aesthetic value, act as storehouse of medicinal plants etc.,
it is strongly recommended to ensure the vitality of such systems in the campus.

250
References

Atkinson, G. (2000). Measuring corporate sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning and

management, 43(2), 235-252.

Carney, R.N., and Levin, J.R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text.
Educational Psychology Review 2002;14(1):5–26.

Fang, J. Y., A. P. Chen, C. H. Peng, S. Q. Zhao, and L. J. Ci (2001),. Changes in forest biomass carbon
storage in China between 1949 and 1998, Science, 292, 2320 – 2322.

Houghton, R. A., Skole Dl, Nobre CA, Hackler, J. L., Lawrence K. T., and Chomentowski W. H.
(2000). Annual fluxes of carbon from deforestation and regrowth in the Brazilian Amazon. Nature
403: 301-304.

Kaul, M.G., Mohren, M.J., Dadhwal, V.K. (2011). Phytomass carbon pool of trees and forests in India.
Climate Change 108: 243-259.

MCRC, (2011). Murugappa Chettiyar Research Center, Chennai

Lozano, R. (2008). Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16,

1838-1846.

Nandhivarman Muthu, Golda Arpudhalin Edwin, Arun Prasath Ramaswamy, and Poyyamoli
Gopalsamy (2012). Integrated Organic Kitchen Waste Management for Campus Sustainability- a
case study of Pondicherry University, India.

Pondicherry University, (2010). Civil Engineering Department

Schnotz, W. (2002). Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational
Psychology Review 2002;14(1):101–20.

Sundarapandian, S.M., Amritha, S., Gowsalya, L., Kayathri, P., Thamizharasi, M., Dar, J.A., Srinivas,
K., Gandhi, D.S., and Subashree, K. (2016). Soil organic carbon stocks in different land uses in
Pondicherry university campus, Puducherry, India. Tropical Plant Research 3(1): 10–17

251
 Addendum – C
Pondicherry University Campus Flora

The diversity of species is valued as bio-resources because they are essential for ecosystem well-
being, species survival and human welfare. Several sustainability workers have highlighted that, the
field of biodiversity science has emerged as an important subject in the recent times in the context of
global environmental changes and the biodiversity loss (Parthasarathy et al., 2010).

Furthermore considering that the knowledge on biodiversity is important not only for their
ecological role and economic importance but also for their sustainable utilization and conservation, a
team of dedicated plant ecologists from the Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences
headed by Prof. Parthasarathy, came up with a detailed book on the Campus Flora of Pondicherry
University (PU). This initiative is an attempt to inventory plant biodiversity in the horticultural
landscape of university campus including the wild/naturalized plant species, cultivated/ ornamental
plants, macro fungi, lichens and mosses, which will be useful to both professional and amateur
botanists, ecologists, naturalists, conservationists, resource managers and also for various integrated
strategies of green campus initiative at PU (Parthasarathy et al., 2010).

The scenic university campus harbours four native vegetation types and there are still portions of
campus with native vegetation of tropical dry evergreen forest, tropical dry evergreen scrub, scrub
savanna and thorn forest (Parthasarathy et al., 2010). Geologically the campus harbors Cuddalore
Sand-stone formation with prominent hard lateritic caps. The soil is red ferralitic, sandy in texture and
heavily drained. The varied topography of the campus such as forests, scrubs, savannas, scenic Grand
Canyon-like Cuddalore Sand-stone formation with lateritic cap, is responsible for high diversity in plant
species. The centrally located ravine running west to east is an aesthetic attraction on the campus. Map
of the campus is given in Figure 1. Photographs of natural areas of the campus such as tropical dry
evergreen forest, dry evergreen scrub, scrub savanna and tropical thorn forest are provided in Plate 1
and 2. The ravine, on either sides of the wall remains moist during and following rainy season and
clothed with green carpet of the leafy moss, Barbula indica. Further, in moist soil and in decomposing
litter, a diverse species of fungi, including Agarics, other mushrooms, puff balls, etc. occur as
ephemerals.

Plant diversity study of Pondicherry University campus was undertaken systematically and
intensively from October 2009 to March 2010, to cover most species in flowering and fruiting stages
and also to cover various seasons including rainy and summer season by Parthasarathy et al. (2010).
All campus plants growing wild in the natural/semi natural environment in the campus and also
ornamental plants cultivated in building frontage, avenues, road dividers, nursery, and those introduced

252
in the garden of the Department of Biotechnology were covered under this study. According to
Parthasarathy et al. (2010), identification of plant species was facilitated by referring pertinent floras for
wild species (Gamble and Fischer 1987; Henry et al., 1987; Henry et al., 1989; Hooker 1879; Matthew
1991; Nair and Henry 1983; Sharma et al., 2003) and for cultivated ornamental plants (Bailey 1949 and
relevant websites).

Figure 1: PU campus layout

(Source: Civil Engineering Wing)

253
 (a)

(b)

Plate 1. (a) Tropical dry evergreen forest and (b) Tropical dry evergreen scrub
(Source: Parthasarathy et al., 2010)

254
 (a)

(b)

Plate 2. (a) Tropical scrub savanna and (b) Tropical thorn forest
(Source: Parthasarathy et al., 2010)
255
Plant Diversity
A total of 534 plant species which include 496 flowering plants and 38 non-flowering plants
(ferns, moss, lichen and macro fungi) were enumerated from the Pondicherry University campus. The
496 flowering plants belonged to 101 families. Among flowering plants 254 species (51%) are
wild/naturalized plant species and 242 species (49%) are cultivated ornamental plants. The most diverse
plant families in our campus include Euphorbiaceae (34 species), Poaceae (34 species), Rubiaceae (26
species), Mimosaceae (24 species), Papilionaceae (23 species), Acanthaceae (21 species), Araceae (18
species), Agavaceae, Apocynaceae and Arecaceae (16 species each) (Table 1).

For all the enumerated wild and naturalized plant species, information such as botanical name,
family name, common name, vernacular name, crisp description, resource values, particularly medicinal
values, active chemicals, and other important features, as applicable to species, are provided.
Contribution of herbs to total diversity is maximum i.e. 91 species (36%) followed by trees - 72 species
(28%), lianas - 26 species (10%), grasses and sedges - 26 species (10%), herbaceous climbers - 23 (9%)
and shrubs - 16 species (6%). Some of the most striking plant species of the campus include the neem,
Azadirachta indica, the deciduous tree Lannea coromandelica, and the palm Borassus flabellifer among
trees, the shrub Dodonaea angustifolia and the endemic herb Sansevieria roxburghiana. Dense
entanglement of lianas, the woody climbers, are dominated by Cissus vitiginea, Ziziphus oenoplia,
Ichnocarpus frutescens, Rivea hypocrateriformis, Coccinia grandis, Capparis zeylanica and the semi-
parasitic twiner, the laurel dodder Cassytha filiformis. In scrub savannas, dense growth of grasses such
as Heteropogon contortus, Aristida setacea and Apluda mutica, with clumps of thorny bushes
characterized by neem as central tree and surrounded by the endemic thorny, dwarf palm species
Phoenix pusilla, and a diverse group of twiners and herbs enriching bush diversity, is a common feature
in the wilderness areas of the campus. Grasses and sedges contributed to considerable diversity of
hebaceous ground flora totaling to 26 species. Among them Heteropogon contortus, Aristida setacea,
Apluda mutica, Perotis indica form sizeable areas of scrub savannas. Many species of plants
enumerated in the campus are medicinally valuable resources, which include Achyranthes aspera,
Hemidesmus indicus, Azadirachta indica, Abrus precatorius, Cissus vitiginea, Cissus quadrangularis,
Carissa spinarum, Sansevieria roxburghiana, Trichosanthes tricuspidata, etc.
Table 1. List of plant families and their species diversity under wild and cultivated
categories of species represented in Pondicherry University campus, arranged in decreasing
order of their total species diversity (Source: Parthasarathy et al., 2010)

Family Number of wild/ Number of cultivated/ Total

naturalized species ornamental species
Euphorbiaceae 13 20 33
Poaceae 8 20 28
Rubiaceae 8 12 20

256
Acanthaceae 9 10 19
Araceae 18 18
Papilionaceae 2 16 18
Mimosaceae 5 11 16
Agavaceae 14 1 15
Caesalpiniaceae 5 10 15
Apocynaceae 10 4 14
Arecaceae 11 3 14
Asteraceae 9 6 12
Verbenaceae 8 4 12
Convolvulaceae 2 9 11
Asclepiadaceae 10 10
Malvaceae 3 7 10

Lamiaceae 1 8 9
Moraceae 6 3 9
Bignoniaceae 8 8
Cucurbitaceae 8 8
Cyperaceae 1 7 8
Myrtaceae 4 3 7
Amaranthaceae 1 5 6
Araliaceae 6 6
Rutaceae 4 2 6
Sapindaceae 1 5 6
Sterculiaceae 3 3 6
Cactaceae 3 2 5
Solanaceae 1 4 5
Zingiberaceae 5 5
Capparaceae 4 4
Combretaceae 3 1 4
Commelinaceae 1 3 4
Lythraceae 4 4
Meliaceae 1 3 4
Nyctaginaceae 3 1 4
Anacardiaceae 3 3
Annonaceae 3 3
Ebenaceae 3 3
Liliaceae 3 3
Nymphaeaceae 3 3
Sapotaceae 2 1 3
Aizoaceae 2 2
Amaryllidaceae 2 2
Boraginaceae 2 2
Celastraceae 1 1 2
Clusiaceae 1 1 2
Cordiaceae 1 1 2

257
Lauraceae 1 1 2
Marantaceae 2 2
Menispermaceae 2 2
Musaceae 2 2
Nephrolepidaceae 2 2
Oleaceae 2 2

Pedaliaceae 1 1 2
Piperaceae 1 1 2
Polypodiaceae 2 2
Rhamnaceae 2 2
Santalaceae 2 2
Scrophulariaceae 1 1 2
Tiliaceae 2 2
Vitaceae 2 2
Araucariaceae 1 1
Aristolochiaceae 1 1
Asparagaceae 1 1
Aspleniaceae 1 1
Averroaceae 1 1
Bombacaceae 1 1
Bromeliaceae 1 1
Cannaceae 1 1
Caricaceae 1 1
Caryophyllaceae 1 1
Casuarinaceae 1 1
Crassulaceae 1 1
Cupressaceae 1 1
Cycadaceae 1 1
Elaeocarpaceae 1 1
Flacourtiaceae 1 1
Flindersiaceae 1 1
Hippocrateaceae 1 1
Hydrocharitaceae 1 1
Lecythidaceae 1 1
Linaceae 1 1
Loganiaceae 1 1
Loranthaceae 1 1
Magnoliaceae 1 1
Malphigiaceae 1 1
Melastomataceae 1 1
Molluginaceae 1 1
Ochnaceae 1 1
Pandanaceae 1 1
Passifloraceae 1 1

Plumbaginaceae 1 1

258
 Podocarpaceae 1 1
Polygalaceae 1 1
Portulacaceae 1 1
Proteaceae 1 1
Rosaceae 1 1
Simaroubaceae 1 1
Violaceae 1 1
Zygophyllaceae 1 1
Total 229 254 483

Checklist of species
Most plant species of our campus are of considerable ecological and economical importance,
and useful as bio-resources to wild fauna and to human beings as well. Their resource values are
provided in Tables 2 to 7. Of the total 254 wild/naturalized plants 159 species (63%) are useful as
medicinal resources values, and others are valuable as timber (24 species: 10%), fuelwood, edible fruits,
etc. Ecologically, of the total 120 woody species 79 species (66%) and 13 (10%) out of 134 non-woody
species provide fleshy fruit resources to fauna, indicating the extent of faunal dependence of plants for
various ecological processes. Illustrative examples of such resource use by fauna are featured in Figure
4. Several species of leaves are edible to folivores, several flowers yield nectar produced by a diverse
group of nectarivores, especially sun birds and insects, particularly butterflies and moths. Thus various
ecological services including pollination and dispersal are rendered by the faunal communities, utilizing
plant rewards in the process. Of the total 254 wild/naturalized plants, seventeen species (7%) are wind
dispersed with winged fruits/seeds or seeds with tuft of hairs atop, and 145 species (57%) are dispersed
by autocorous mode.

List of plant species enumerated in Pondicherry University campus, categorized as

wild/naturalized and cultivated species and by plant life-forms – trees, shrubs, lianas, herbaceous
climbers, herbs and grasses and sedges are provided in Tables 2 to 7.

A. Tree species

Table 2: List of wild/naturalized tree species enumerated in Pondicherry University campus.

I
( - Invasive species but naturalized in campus; R- resource value: M- medicinal value; E-edible;
Fa- fruit reward for animals; T- timber; O- other uses)
(Source: Parthasarathy et al., 2010)

Species Family Common name Vern. name R

I
Acacia auriculiformis A.Cunn. ex Benth Mimosaceae Pencil maram Fa,T

Acacia holosericea A.Cunn exG.DonI Mimosaceae Pencil maram Fa,O

259
 Acacia leucophloea (Roxb.) Willd. Mimosaceae White Babool Velvael M

Acacia mangium Willd. Mimosaceae Fa

Aglaia elaeagnoidea (Juss.) Benth. var.

courtallensis Gamble Meliaceae Agil Fa,M,T

Tree of Theekuchi
Ailanthus excelsa Roxb. Simaroubaceae heaven maram M,O

Albizia amara (Roxb.) Boivin Mimosaceae Krishna Siris Usil M

Albizia lebbeck (L.) Benth. Mimosaceae Siris tree Vaagai M,T

Albizia odoratissima (L. f.) Benth. Mimosaceae Karu vaagai T

Allophylus serratus (Roxb.) Kurz Sapindaceae Amalai Fa

Anacardium occidentale L. Anacardiaceae Cashew Nut Mundhiri M, Fa

Atalantia monophylla (L.) Correa Rutaceae Wild lime Kattu M

Azadirachta indica A.Juss. Meliaceae Neem Vembu Fa,M,T

Bambusa bambos (L.) Voss Poaceae Bamboo Moongil M, O

Bauhinia racemosa Lam. Caesalpiniaceae Kokku Mandharai M

Mountain Sivappu
Bauhinia variegata L. Caesalpiniaceae Ebony mandhaarai M

Benkara malabarica (Lam.) Tirven. Rubiaceae Pudan Fa

Borassus flabellifer L. Arecaceae Palmyra palm Panai maram M,E,O,T

Cup and Saucer

Breynia retusa (Dennst.) Alston Euphorbiaceae plant Fa

Bridelia crenulata Roxb. Euphorbiaceae Spinuos Kino Tree Mulvengai Fa,T

Butea monosperma (Lam.) Taub. Papilionaceae Flame of the forest Purasu M,T

Alexandrian
Calophyllum inophyllum L. Clusiaceae Laurel Punnai M, Fa,T

Canthium dicoccum (Gaertn.) Teijsm and Binn. Rubiaceae Imburuttam Fa,O

Cassia didymobotrya Fresn. I Caesalpiniaceae O

Cassia fistula L. Caesalpiniaceae Amaltas Sarakkondrai M,T

Cassia roxburghii DC. Caesalpiniaceae Red Cassia Senkondrai M

Catunaregam spinosa (Thunb.) Tirven Rubiaceae Mountain Marakkarai Fa

Pomegranate

Chloroxylon swietenia DC. Flindersiaceae Ceylon Porinjan M,T

Satinwood

260
Cleistanthus collinus (Roxb.) Benth.
ex Hook.f. Euphorbiaceae Garari Oduvan Fa

Cordia obliqua Willd. Cordiaceae Naruvili M,Fa,E

Dalbergia paniculata Roxb. Papilionaceae T

Dichrostachys cinerea (L.) Wight and Arn. Mimosaceae Sickle Bush Vidather M

Diospyros ebenum Koen . Ebenaceae Karunkaali M, Fa,T

Diospyros ferrea (Willd.) Bakh. var. Ebenaceae rumbuli Fa

buxifolia (Rottb.) Bakh.

Diospyros melanoxylon Roxb. Ebenaceae Coromandel Beedi ilai M, Fa, E

Ebony

Drypetes sepiaria (Wight and Arn.) Euphorbiaceae Veera Fa

Pax and Hoffm.
Ehretia pubescens Benth. Boraginaceae Chamror Fa

Myrtaceae
Eugenia bracteata (Willd.) Roxb. ex DC. Fa
Ficus benghalensis L. Moraceae Banyan tree Alamaram M

Ficus hispida L.f. Moraceae Hairy Fig Paei athi M,Fa

Ficus religiosa L. Moraceae Peepal Arasu M,Fa,T

Flacourtia indica (Burm.f.) Merr. Flacourtiaceae Governor’s Mullukarai M, Fa

plum
Ixora pavetta Andr. Rubiaceae Small- M, Fa
flowered Ixora

Lannea coromandelica (Houtt.) Merr Anacardiaceae Indian ash tree Odhiyamaram Fa,O

Lepisanthes tetraphylla (Vahl.)Radlk. Sapindaceae Kurpa Karadipongan Fa

Mangifera indica L. Anacardiaceae Mango Maamaram Fa,M,T

Maytenus emarginata (Willd.) Ding Hou Celastraceae Red spike Thorn Kattangi M

Memecylon umbellatum Burm. f. Melastomataceae Ironwood tree Kaasaan M,Fa,O

Millingtonia hortensis L.f. Oleaceae Tree jasmine Maramaligai T

Mimusops elengi L. Sapotaceae Maulsari Magizhamaram M,O,T

Morinda coreia Buch. -Ham. Rubiaceae Indian mulberry Nuna T, Fa

Morinda pubescens J.E. Smith Rubiaceae Indian mulberry Manjanuna T, Fa

261
Muntingia calabura L. Elaeocarpaceae Jamaica cherry Fa,E

Ochna obtusata DC.

Ochnaceae Ramdhan Padalakkonai, Fa
Champa Panjaram
Pandanus fascicularis Lam. Pandanaceae Fragrant Thazhai M,O
Screwpine

Pavetta indica L. Rubiaceae Indian Pavetta Pavattai M,Fa

Phoenix sylvestris (L.) Roxb. Arecaceae Wild date palm Eechai M,Fa,O

Phyllanthus emblica L. Euphorbiaceae Amla Nelli Fa,M

Pithecellobium dulce (Roxb.) Benth. I Mimosaceae Madras thorn Kodukapuli M,Fa

Pongamia pinnata (L.) Pierre Papilionaceae Pongam tree Pungan M,T

Prosopis chilensis (Molina) StuntzI Mimosaceae Algaroba Velikathan O

Psidium guajava L. I Myrtaceae Guava Koyya M,E
Pterospermum canescens Roxb. Sterculiaceae Sembolavu, Vennanthai M

Sapindus emarginatus Vahl. Sapindaceae Notched leaf Poondhikottai Fa

soapnut
Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels Myrtaceae Jamun tree Naval Fa,M,E

Tamarindus indica L. Caesalpiniaceae Tamarind Puli M,T,E

Tarenna asiatica (L.) Kuntze Rubiaceae Kura maram M,Fa

Thespesia populnea (L.) Sol. ex Corr. Serr. Malvaceae Wild Indigo Poovarasu M,T

Vitex triflora L. Verbenaceae Chaste tree Nochi M

Walsura trifolia (A. Juss.) Harms Meliaceae Walsura Kanjimaram M,T

Wrightia tinctoria (Roxb.) R.Br. Apocyanaceae Sweet Paalai M

Indrajao

Ziziphus mauritiana Lam. Rhamnaceae Ber Ilandhai E,Fa

262
B. Shrubs
Table 3. List of shrubs enumerated in Pondicherry University campus.
I
( - Invasive species but naturalized in campus; R- resource value; M- medicinal value; E- edible;
Fa- fruit reward for animals; T- timber; O- other uses)
(Source: Parthasarathy et al., 2010)

Common
Species Family name Vern. name R
Calotropis gigantea (L.) R. Br. Ascelpidaceae Crown flower, Erukku M
Giant milk- weed
Canthium coromandelicum Rubiaceae Coromandel Karai, Kudiram M
(Burm. f.) Alston Canthium

Carmona retusa (Vahl) Masamune Boraginaceae Fukien tea Fa

Cassia alata L. Caesalpiniaceae Candle bush Seemai Agathi M

Cassia auriculata L. Caesalpiniaceae Tanner’s Cassia Aavaram M,O

Cassia hirsuta L. I Caesalpiniaceae Woolly Cassia Malai avarai

Cactaceae
Cereus pterogonus LemaireI Hedge cactus Aal sappathi Fa
Dodonaea angustifolia L.f. Sapindaceae Hop bush Viraali M

Gmelina asiatica L. Verbenaceae Asian Kumizh M, Fa

bushbleech

Ipomoea carnea Jacq. Convolvulaceae Neyveli O

Kattamanakku

Jatropha gossypifolia L. Euphorbiaceae Bellyache Kaattamanakku M

bush

Opuntia stricta (Haw.) Haw. var. Cactaceae Prickly pear Sapathikalli M,Fa

dillenii (Ker Gawler) L. BensonI

Phoenix pusilla Gaertn Arecaceae Dwarf date palm Chitreechai M,E,Fa,O

Ricinus communis L. Euphorbiaceae Caster seed Aamanaku M,O

Securenega leucopyrus (Willd.) Euphorbiaceae Pulanji M,Fa

Muell.-Arg.

263
C. Lianas, the woody climbers
Table 4. List of Lianas enumerated in Pondicherry University campus.
(I- Invasive species but naturalized in campus; R- resource value; M- medicinal value; E- edible;
Fa- fruit reward for animals; T- timber; O- other uses)
(Source: Parthasarathy et al., 2010)

Family
Species Family Common R
name Vern. name
Abrus precatorius L. Papilionacea e Indian wild Kundrimani M
liquorice

Canavalia virosa (Roxb.) Papilionaceae Sword bean Vaal avarai Fa

Wight and Arn.

Capparis brevispina DC. Capparaceae Fa

Capparis zeylanica L. Capparaceae Ceylon Caper Aathondai M,Fa

Carissa spinarum L. Apocynaceae Wild caranda Siru kala M,E,Fa

Cissus quadrangularis L. Vitaceae Pirandai M,Fa

Cissus vitiginea L. Vitaceae Sempirandai M,Fa

Ivy-Gourd
Coccinia grandis (L.) J. Voigt Cucurbitaceae Kovai M,Fa

Combretum albidum G. Don Combretaceae Piluki Vennangodi

Gymnema sylvestre (Retz.) Asclepiadaceae Gurmar Siru kurinjan M

R.Br.ex Roemer and Schultes

Mothirakanni,
Hugonia mystax L. Linaceae Agori M

Ichnocarpus frutescens (L.) R. Br. Apocynaceae Black Karunannari, M

Creeper Paalvalli

Jasminum angustifolium (L.)

Willd. Oleaceae Wild Jasmine Kaattu malli M, Fa

Lantana camara L. I Verbenaceae Wild sage Unnichedi M, Fa

Leptadenia reticulata (Retz.) Asclepiadaceae Jeevanthi Palaikkodi/ M

Wight and Arn. Keerippaalai

Pterolobium hexapetalum Caesalpiniaceae Indian Karu indu

264
 (Roth) Sant. and Wagh redwing

Reissantia indica (Willd.) Halle Hippocrateaceae Odankodi M

Rivea hypocrateriformis Convolvulaceae Midnapore Musuttai M, Fa

(Desr.) Choisy creeper

Sarcostemma acidum (Roxb.)

Voigt Asclepiadaceae Kodikkalli/ M

Somamum

Secamone emitica (Roxb.) Asclepiadaceae Naipaalai M

R.Br. ex Schultes

Strychnos minor Dennst. Loganiaceae Snake wood M, Fa

Toddalia asiatica (L.) Lam. Rutaceae Forest pepper Milagaranai M, Fa

Kattu
Trichosanthes cucumerina L. Cucurbitaceae Snake gaurd peippudal Fa

Trichosanthes tricuspidata Lour. Cucurbitaceae Indrayan Korattan Fa

Wattakaka volubilis (L.f.) T.

Cooke Asclepiadaceae Sneeze wort Kudasappalai/ M
Kodippalai,Kuri
ncha

Surai
kodi/Surattai
Ziziphus oenoplia (L.) Miller Rhamnaceae Jackal Jujube mullu M,E,Fa

D. Herbaceous Climbers
Table 5: List of herbaceous climbers enumerated in Pondicherry University campus.
I
( - Invasive species but naturalized in campus; R- resource value; M- medicinal value; E- edible;
Fa- fruit reward for animals; T- timber; O- other uses)
(Source: Parthasarathy et al., 2010)

Family
Species Family Common R
name Vern. name
Aristolochia indica L. Aristolochiaceae Indian Garuda kodi M
Birthwort
Asparagus racemosus Willd. Liliaceae Indian Thannirvittan M,Fa
asparagus kizhangu

Atylosia scarbaeoides L. Benth. Papilionaceae M

/
265
Cardiospermum halicacabum Sapindaceae Mudakkathan M
L.var. luridum

Cassytha filiformis L. Lauraceae Doddar-Laurel, Erumaikkottan, M,Fa

Love Vine Kodikkottan

False Pareira root, Paadakkizhangu

Cissampelos pareira L. var. Menispermaceae velvet leaf , M,Fa
hirsuta (D.C) Forman Urikkakodi

Clitoria ternatea L. Papilionaceae Butterfly pea Sangupoo M

Cocculus hirsutus (L.) Diels Menispermaceae Broom-creeper, Siru Kattukodi M,Fa

Ink-berry
Ctenolepis garcinii (Burm.f.) Cucurbitaceae Fa
C.B.Clarke
Diplocyclos palmatus (L.) C. Cucurbitaceae Lollipop climber, Fa
Jeffrey Bryony
Gloriosa superba L. Liliaceae Glory lily, Senkanthal M
Super lily

Hemidesmus indicus (L.) R. Br. Asclepiadaceae Indian saraparilla Nannari M

Ipomoea aquatica ForsskalI Convolvulaceae Water morning Vandalkirai,

Glory Varaiparani
Ipomoea coptica (L.) Roth ex Convolvulaceae
Roem. and Schultes

Ipomoea obscura Ker-Gawl Convolvulaceae

Sponge gourd
Luffa cylindrica (L.) M.Roem. Cucurbitaceae Nurai peerkkan

Mukia maderaspatana (L.) M. Cucurbitaceae Madras pea Musumusukkai M,Fa

Roem. pumkin
Oxystelma esculentum (L.f.) R.Br. Asclepiadaceae Rosy
Ex Schultes milkweed vine
Passiflora foetida L. Passifloraceae Stinking Poonai pidukkan M,Fa
passion flower

Pergularia daemia (Forssk.) Chiov. Asclepiadaceae Pergularia Vaeli parutthi M

Tragia involucrata L. Euphorbiaceae Indian stinging- Poonai kaasan M

Nettle
Tylophora indica (Burm.f.) Merr. Asclepiadaceae Emetic swallow Nanjaruppaan M
wort, Indian or
Country
Ipecacuanha

Zehneria mucronata (Blume) Miq. Cucurbitaceae

266
E. Herbs
Table 6: List of herb species enumerated in Pondicherry University campus.
(I- Invasive species but naturalized in campus; R- resource value; M- medicinal value; E- edible;
Fa- fruit reward for animals; T- timber; O- other uses)
(Source: Parthasarathy et al., 2010)

Species Family Common R

Family
name Vern. name
Abutilon indicum (L.) Sweet ssp.
indicum Malvaceae Indian Mallow Tuthi M

Acalypha indica L. Euphorbiaceae Indian Kuppaimeni M

copperleaf

Achyranthes aspera L. I Amaranthaceae Prickly chaff Naayuruvi M

flower

Ageratum conyzoides L. I Asteraceae Goat weed Poompillu M

Allmania nodiflora (L.) R. Br. ex Amaranthaceae Node flower Pannai keerai E
Wight allmania

Aloe vera (L.) Burm.f. I Liliaceae Aloe vera Sotru katrazhai M

Alysicarpus monilifer (L.) DC. Papilionaceae Kaatu maa

Alysicarpus rugosus (Willd.) DC. Papilionaceae Alyce lover

Amaranthus spinosus L. I Amaranthaceae Prickly amaranth Mullukkeerai M

Andrographis paniculata (Burm.f.) Acanthaceae Karyat Nilavembu M

Wallich ex Nees
Andrographis serphyllifolia (Vahl)
Wight Acanthaceae Sornapatti

Anisomeles indica (L.) KuntezI Lamiaceae Indian catmint Peymiratti M,O

Anisomeles malabarica (L.) R. Br. Lamiaceae Malabar Irattai M,O
ex SimsI catmint` peymiratti
Asystasia gangetica (L.) T. Anderson Acanthaceae Mitchy keerai M

Becium filamentosum (Forsskal) Chiov. Lamiaceae

Blepharis maderaspatensis (L.)

Roth Acanthaceae Creeping Blepharis Nethirapoondu M

Blepharis molluginifolia Pers. Acanthaceae

Blumea obliqua (L.) Druce Asteraceae Kakronda M

267
Boerhaavia diffusa L. I Nyctaginaceae Hog-weed Mookkirattai M
Catharanthus roseus (L.) DonI Apocynaceae Periwinkle Nithyakalyani M
Cleome gynandra L. I Capparaceae Wild spider Nallavelai M
flower

Cleome viscosa L. I Capparaceae Asian spider flower Naaivelai M

Commelina benghalensis L. Commelinaceae Whiskered Kaana vazhai M

commelina

Commelina ensifolia R.Br. Commelinaceae

Commelina paleata Hassk. Commelinaceae

Corchorus acutangulus L. I Tiliaceae East Indian mallow M

Croton bonplandianus BaillonI Euphorbiaceae Ban tulsi Railpoondu M

Datura metel L. I Solanaceae Devil’s trumpet Oomathai M

Dendrophthoe falcata (L.f.) EttingshI Loranthaceae Pulluruvi

Desmodium triflorum (L.) DC. Papilionaceae Creeping tick trefoil M

Dipteracanthus patulus (Jacq.) Nees Acanthaceae Bell weed Kirandhinayagam

Dipterocanthus prostratus (Poiret)Nees Acanthaceae Bell weed

Ecboilum viride (Vahl) Vollesen Acanthaceae Green shrimp plant Neelambaram M

Euphorbia hirta L. Euphorbiaceae Asthma plant Ammanpacharisi M,E

Dwarf Morning -
Evolvulus alsinoides L. Convolvulaceae glory Vishnukiranthi M

Roundleaf
Evolvulus nummularius L. Convolvulaceae Bindweed M

Gisekia pharmaceoides L Aizoaceae Manali keerai M

Gomphrena celosioides C. MartiusI Amaranthaceae Prostrate

decumbens

Hybanthus enneaspermus (L.) F. Violaceae Spade flower Orithazh M

Muell. thamarai

Hyptis suaveolens (L.) Poit. I Lamiaceae M

Indigofera aspalathoides Vahl ex DC. I Papilionaceae Sivanar vembu M

268
 Cheppu
Indigofera linnaei Ali Papilionaceae Trailing indigo nerunjil M

Indoneesiella echioides (L.) Sreemadh. Acanthaceae Gopuranthangi

Leonotis nepetiifolia (L.) R. Br. Lamiaceae

Leucas aspera (Willd.) Link Lamiaceae Common leucas Thumbai poo M

Pinnakku
I
Melochia corchorifolia L. Sterculiaceae Chocolate keerai M
weed

Elikkathu
Merremia emarginata (Burm.f.) Convolvulaceae Kidney leaf keerai M
Hallier f. I morning glory
Muthior
Merremia tridentata (L.) Hallier f. I Convolvulaceae Kidney leaf koondhal M
morning glory

Micrococca mercurialis L. Euphorbiaceae Shiral

Mimosa pudica L. I Mimosaceae Touch me not Thottar sinungi M

Mollugo nudicaulis Lam. Molluginaceae Carpetweed

Mollugo pentaphylla L. Aizoaceae Five-leaved Thura poondu

carpetweed

Ocimum canum Sims Lamiaceae Nai thulasi M

Ocimum tenuiflorum L. Lamiaceae Thulasi M

Oldenlandia umbellata L. Rubiaceae Indain Madder Irumbooral M

Parthenium hysterophorus L. I Asteraceae Carrot grass M

Pavonia zeylanica (L.) Cav. Malvaceae Ceylon swamp Mammatti M

Pedalium murex L. Pedaliaceae Bara gokhru Aanai nerunji M

Peperomia pellucida (L.) H.B.K. Piperaceae

Phyllanthus amarus Schum. and Euphorbiaceae Carry me seed Keezhanelli M

Thonn.
Phyllanthus debilis Klein ex Willd. Euphorbiaceae M

Phyllanthus maderaspatensis L. Euphorbiaceae Nila nelli M

Phyllanthus pinnatus (Wight) Webster Euphorbiaceae

Phyllanthus virgatus Froster f. Euphorbiaceae Seed under leaf M

269
 Soduku
Physalis minima L. I Solanaceae Ground cherry thakkali M

Polycarpaea corymbosa (L.) Lam Caryophyllaceae M

Polygala arvensis Willd. Polygalaceae Senega Veppilainankai M

Pseudarthria viscida (L.) Wight and Arn Papilionaceae Salaparni Pitani M

Psilotrichum elliotii Baker and C.B. Amaranthaceae

Clarke

Rhynchosia minima (L.) DC. Papilionaceae Burn-mouth vine M

Rostellularia simplex Wight Acanthaceae

Sansevieria roxburghiana Schulets Agavaceae Indian Marul M
and Schulets f. Bowstring
hemp

Sebastiania chamaelea (L.) Muell. Euphorbiaceae Creeping

Arg. sebastinia

Sida acuta Burm.f. Malvaceae Common Arival mooku M

wireweed keerai
Sida cordata (Burm.f.) Borssum Malvaceae Heart-leaf Palampasi
Waalkes sida
Sida cordifolia L. Malvaceae Nilatuthi M

Solanum nigrum L. Solanaceae Black Manathakkali M

nightshade
Solanum melongena L. var. Solanaceae M
insanum (L.) Prain

Spermacoce hispida L. Rubiaceae Jointed Nathaichuri M

buttonweed
Spermacoce ocymoides Burm.f. Rubiaceae Buttonweed

Seema
Stachytarpheta jamaicensis (L.) Verbenaceae Blue porter naayuruvi M
VahlI weed
Striga angustifolia (D. Don) C. J. Scrophulariaceae
Saldanha
Synedrella nodiflora (L.) GaertnerI Asteraceae Node weed
Tephrosia purpurea (L.) Pers. Papilionaceae Wild indigo Kattu-kozhinji M

Tribulus terrestris L. I Zygophyllaceae Puncture vine Nerunji M

Kinattru
Tridax procumbens L. I Asteraceae Tridax daisy paasan M

270
Triumfetta rhomboidea Jacq. Tiliaceae Burr bush Aadaiotti M

Vernonia cinerea (L.) Less. I Asteraceae Vernonia Puvamurundal M

Waltheria indica L. Sterculiaceae Sleepy morning Sembudu M

Zornia diphylla (L.) Pers. Papilionaceae Sirupalatai M

F. Grasses and Sedges

Table 7. List of grasses and sedges enumerated in Pondicherry University campus.
I
( - Invasive species but naturalized in campus; R- resource value; M- medicinal value; E- edible;
Fa- fruit reward for animals; T- timber; O- other uses)
(Source: Parthasarathy et al., 2010)

Species Family Vern. name R

Aristida hysterix L.f. Poaceae

Aristida setacea Retz. Poaceae Thudappam pul O

Brachiaria ramosa (L.) Stapf. Poaceae Paala pul

Bulbostylis densa (Wallich) Hand.-Mazz. Cyperaceae

Bulbostylis sp. Cyperaceae

Chloris inflata Link. Poaceae

Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. Poaceae Arugampul M

Cyperus arenarius Retz. Cyperaceae

Cyperus rotundus L. Cyperaceae M

Cyperus tenuispica Steudel Cyperaceae

Cyrtococcum trigonum (Retz.) A. Camus Poaceae

Dactyloctenium aegyptium (L.) P. Beauv. Poaceae Mattankayppul,

Mutankalippul

Digitaria ciliata (Retz.) Koeler Poaceae

Digitaria sp. Poaceae

Digitaria tomentosa (Willd.) Henrard Poaceae

Enteropogon monostachyos (Vahl) Poaceae

271
 Schumann ex Engl.

Eragrostiella tenella (L.) P. Beauv. ex. Poaceae

Roemer and Schultes var. insularis
Hubbard

Eragrostiella tenella (L.) P. Beauv. ex. Poaceae

Rome. and Schultes var. tenella

Fimbristylis cymosa R. Br. Cyperaceae

Fimbristylis sp. Cyperaceae

Heteropogon contortus (L.) P. Beauv. ex. Poaceae Oosippul/

Roemer and Schultes Pannakattupul

Paspalidium flavidum (Retz.) A. Camus Poaceae

Paspalidium sp. Poaceae

Perotis indica (L.) Kuntze Poaceae Narival pul/

Kudiraival pul

Sporobolus virginicus (L.) Kuntze Poaceae

Tragus roxburghii Panigr. Poaceae

References

Parthasarathy, N., Arul Pragasan, L., Muthumperumal, C., Anbarashan, M. (2010). Campus Flora of
Pondicherry University a Pictorial Guide to the Wild and Cultivated Plant Biodiversity.

272