Bilingual
En/Fa
Geographical Research is Published in both Persian and English Full-text.
Volume 38, Issue 3 (2023)
GeoRes 2023, 38(3): 423-434 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2023/08/19 | Accepted: 2023/09/20 | Published: 2023/10/2
Received: 2023/08/19 | Accepted: 2023/09/20 | Published: 2023/10/2
How to cite this article
Roshani N, Khosravipour B, Yazdanpanah M, Zobeidi T, Tajeri Moghadam M. Identifying and Formulation of the Sustainable Green University Indicators with the Delphi Method. GeoRes 2023; 38 (3) :423-434
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1524-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1524-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
1- Agricultural Extension and Education Department, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and Rural Development, Engineering, Khuzestan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Ahvaz, Iran
2- International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Luxenburg, Austria
3- Rural Extension and Development Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Tabriz University, Tabriz, Iran
2- International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Luxenburg, Austria
3- Rural Extension and Development Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Tabriz University, Tabriz, Iran
Full-Text (HTML) (67 Views)
Introduction
The world is becoming increasingly complex, interdependent, and unstable [Grecu & Ipiña, 2014]. The progressive development of civilization, as the most complex natural system, is impossible without continuous increases in energy consumption and the inevitable dissipation of this energy into the environment [Arutyunov, 2021]. In fact, among all the questions faced by humanity today, the impact of economic growth on ecological systems represents one of the greatest paradoxes [Newman & Dale, 2008]. On the one hand, economic growth provides welfare for people; on the other hand, it contributes to environmental degradation and the depletion of natural resources [Amaral et al., 2015]. In the face of critical issues such as climate change, resource scarcity, and environmental destruction, the mission of universities is to create spaces that foster environmental restoration [Zhao & Zou, 2015].
Many universities today exert a significant impact on the economy, society, and the environment, as they resemble “small cities” in terms of size and population [Ávila et al., 2017]. In terms of waste generation, transportation, water and material consumption, energy and electricity use, as well as academic, social, and educational activities within their boundaries, universities may be considered “complex buildings” [AlShuwaikhat & Abubakar, 2008].
Universities carry an important responsibility in shaping a future-oriented vision for sustainable development. They contribute to sustainability through internal functions (e.g., sustainability policies, university greening, environmental initiatives, curricula, and research) and external functions (the role of universities in their regions) [Dagiliūtė & Liobikienė, 2015]. The development of green universities is often the first step institutions take toward sustainability [Sonetti et al., 2016]. A green university, synonymous with an ecological and sustainable university, integrates sustainability across all dimensions, including teaching, research, campus operations, and infrastructure [Santa et al., 2019].
Despite their important role in promoting sustainability, debates remain regarding which aspects universities must prioritize to be recognized as sustainable institutions [Lambrechts et al., 2015]. Accordingly, higher education institutions worldwide have adopted diverse strategies and approaches to achieve sustainability, ranging from water and waste management to green building technologies, renewable energy, educational reforms, and research [Ali et al., 2020]. Universities can increasingly institutionalize sustainability practices in curricula, research, operations, outreach, evaluation, and reporting [Lozano, 2010]. However, since most universities were established before the awareness of sustainable development declarations, achieving a sustainable campus remains a significant challenge [Isa et al., 2021]. Transitioning into a sustainable, carbon-neutral campus is a gradual, step-by-step process without a standardized pathway [Mustafa et al., 2022].
In Iran, prior studies on green university indicators remain limited, indicating insufficient attention to this area of research. For example, Seyed Alavi et al. (2018) have identified the most important dimensions of green university management as, in order of priority: policymaking and planning, material and equipment management, leadership and strategies, technology, executive and organizational affairs, financial resources, human resources, research, education, environmental relations, and evaluation. James and Card (2012) found that factors influencing universities’ progress toward sustainability include operational practices on green campuses, organizational management and leadership, education, research and services, broad institutional initiatives, and sustainability assessment. Nejati and Nejati (2013) have emphasized four key dimensions of sustainable universities: community engagement, commitment and monitoring of sustainability, energy consumption and waste, and land use planning. Yuan et al. (2013) identified seven core factors for achieving green universities: management systems, environmental sustainability, sustainable curricula, research and development, staff rewards, student opportunities, and social responsibility. Zhao and Zou (2015) highlighted three essential dimensions for creating a green university: education, research, and campus environment. Turan et al. (2016) observed that while stakeholders differ in their views of sustainability performance indicators, their highest priorities are education, environmental initiatives, and research. Shuqin et al. (2019) identified five main sustainability dimensions in universities: organization and management, energy and resource efficiency, environmentally friendly settings, campus culture, and social communication. Similarly, Ali and Anufriev (2020) have reported that sustainability in universities depends on six dimensions: settings and infrastructure, energy and climate change, waste, water, transportation, and education and research.
The implementation of green practices in universities is still at an early stage. Current studies mainly focus on the sustainability of university buildings, taking into account human, energy, and environmental dimensions [Yadegaridehkordi & Nilashi, 2022]. Given the importance of green universities and the necessity of contextualizing them across different regions of the country, there is a noticeable absence of a comprehensive framework and a set of updated, validated indicators in university management. Such a framework should account for both physical structures and academic-research dimensions, as well as the perspectives of stakeholders (faculty members and students). Furthermore, existing studies have largely overlooked sustainability assessment tools and the prioritization of sustainability indicators.
Accordingly, the present study aimed to identify the dimensions and components of a green university. These were first extracted from the theoretical literature and then refined and categorized using expert opinions through the Delphi method.
Methodology
This study employed a mixed-methods design (qualitative–quantitative paradigm) and was applied in nature. The study area was Ilam County, the capital of Ilam Province, with an area of 212,840.67 hectares, accounting for 10.62% of the province’s total area. Ilam University, one of the most important public universities in the province, was selected as the research site. The purpose of this research was to identify the dimensions and components of a sustainable green university and to validate them from the perspective of Ilam University’s faculty members. Accordingly, both exploratory and confirmatory approaches were used, employing the Delphi technique to identify and validate the components of a sustainable green university. The Delphi method has been described as a qualitative, quantitative, and mixed approach [Sekayi & Kennedy, 2017] and is increasingly becoming a popular strategy that integrates both domains [De Villiers et al., 2005].
The Delphi technique relies on the participation of individuals with expertise or specialized knowledge in the subject of study (the Delphi panel). Selecting qualified panel members is a crucial step, as the validity of results depends on their competence and expertise. Typically, 10 to 20 participants are sufficient for a Delphi panel [Powell, 2003]. In this study, the Delphi panel comprised 20 faculty members from Ilam University with expertise, research background, or practical experience in green universities, sustainable development, and green management. Participants were selected through purposive sampling using the snowball technique. The process began with gathering data from specialized faculty members in relevant fields and requesting them to introduce other experts. This continued until theoretical saturation was reached.
Traditional Delphi starts with an open-ended questionnaire, which is time-consuming and often results in low response rates. Therefore, a modified Delphi method consisting of a structured questionnaire was applied to collect experts’ opinions [Mao et al., 2020]. A structured questionnaire can be developed based on a comprehensive review of the literature [Huang et al., 2022]. Several researchers, such as Tran et al. and Huang et al., have adopted the modified Delphi in their studies [Tran et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2022]. Given the advantages of this method in utilizing existing theoretical foundations, the present study also employed the modified Delphi technique to design the research instrument.
First, through a review of the relevant literature and previous studies on green universities, the components of a green university were identified. Specifically, studies by Nejati & Nejati (2013), James & Card (2012), Yuan et al. (2013), Zhao & Zou (2015), Turan et al. (2016), and Ali & Anufriev (2020) were examined. The extracted components were then classified into eight main dimensions and organized into a questionnaire. Each item in the questionnaire asked participants to evaluate the level of importance of the proposed indicators. At the end of each section, participants were invited to add any other suggested indicators in an open-response format.
The reliability (internal consistency) of each dimension and the overall questionnaire was tested using Cronbach’s alpha. The results indicated acceptable reliability for both the individual dimensions and the overall questionnaire, with coefficients ranging from 0.75 to 0.94 in the first round and from 0.73 to 0.98 in the second round. The questionnaire was administered in two rounds to the panel of experts, leading to consensus. Each round lasted approximately two weeks, with an additional one-week interval between rounds for reflection on new and important components. Ultimately, one item was eliminated due to low importance, and thirteen new items were added to the set of green university components.
The data were analyzed using SPSS version 26. First, descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) were calculated for all items, followed by ranking the items based on their mean scores in descending order of importance.
Findings
Initially, the components of the green university were analyzed using the content analysis technique and constant comparison of data. In total, 8 dimensions and 79 components for establishing and developing a green university were identified. These were incorporated into a structured questionnaire for prioritization and submitted to Delphi panel members in two rounds.
Results of the First Delphi Round
In the first round, descriptive indicators (mean and standard deviation) of all components of the green university were calculated and ranked according to higher means.
According to the findings, in the Green Education dimension, the highest priority was the component of educating and training on the proper use of available resources such as water, fuel, paper, etc. In the Green Research dimension, the priority was the presence of research centers in the field of environment and sustainable development. In the Green Participation dimension, the top priority was active involvement in local and national sustainable development. For Campus Sustainability, the highest priorities were the reduction of waste, waste separation and recycling facilities, as well as investment in and utilization of safe and clean renewable energy technologies (e.g., solar, wind, geothermal). In the Evaluation, Reporting, Accountability, Commitment, and Monitoring dimension, the top priority was annual evaluation of the university’s sustainable development. For Green Management, the priority was revising the university’s vision, objectives, missions, commitments, and strategic services with a sustainable development approach. In Green Financial and Administrative Management, the highest priority was monitoring procurement, resources, equipment, and administrative expenditures. Finally, in the Green Professional and Social Services dimension, the top priority was providing consultancy services to governmental and non-governmental organizations in sustainable development.
Subsequently, descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) of each dimension were calculated. Based on these results, the highest priority was Campus Sustainability with a mean of 8.781 and a standard deviation of ±18.90, while the lowest was Green Education with a mean of 7.825 and a standard deviation of ±7.65.
Additionally, in the first round, participants were asked through an open-ended question to suggest other possible components. Based on data analysis, 13 components and 2 new dimensions (Green Culture and Green Psychology) were identified. These included: the use of modern technologies in the educational system (e.g., online learning for students and staff) in Green Education; promotion of car-sharing, installation of electronic promotional boards, and creation of an energy consumption database with continuous monitoring in Campus Sustainability; and pursuit and implementation of green management policies in Green Management. In the Green Financial and Administrative dimension, Green Accounting was integrated, including components such as cost and capital-saving strategies, transition toward green accounting, and adoption of preventive maintenance policies instead of equipment replacement. In Green Organizational Culture, components such as fostering environmental protection culture among students, faculty, and staff, promoting rational consumption, reforming consumption patterns of energy, water, electricity, and paper, and institutionalizing optimal consumption practices were added. In Green Psychology, components included developing a green self-image among students, faculty, and staff, establishing a green counseling center in the university to institutionalize sustainable and environmental behaviors, and fostering green identity and attitudes among students.
Furthermore, in Green Research, the component “development of interdisciplinary research with a focus on green and sustainable approaches” was merged with “design, approval, and implementation of interdisciplinary research with a green and sustainable development perspective” due to similarity, and was revised for the second round.
Results of the Second Delphi Round
In the second round, descriptive indicators of total scores of the components were recalculated and ranked based on higher means.
The analysis showed that, in Green Education, the highest priority was “environmental literacy and sustainable development education.” The newly added component “use of modern technologies in the educational system (online training for students and staff)” ranked higher than “establishing interdisciplinary sustainable development courses” and “sustainable development-oriented specializations at the postgraduate level,” both of which had ranked lowest in the first round. In Green Research, the top priority was “allocation of budget and financial support for sustainability-related research projects.” In Green Participation, the top priority was “student participation in university environmental activities.” In Campus Sustainability, the first priority was “investment in and use of renewable, safe, and clean energy technologies (solar, wind, geothermal, etc.),” while the newly added component “installation of electronic promotional boards” was ranked last. In Evaluation, Reporting, Accountability, Commitment, and Monitoring, the first priority remained “annual evaluation of university sustainable development,” consistent with the first round. In Green Management, the top priority continued to be “revising the vision, goals, mission, commitments, and strategic services of the university with a sustainable development perspective.” The newly added component “pursuit and implementation of green management policies” ranked fifth. In Green Financial, Administrative, and Accounting Management, the first priority was “establishing financial stability and sustainability mechanisms in the university,” while the newly added components “cost and capital-saving strategies,” “transition toward green accounting,” and “preventive maintenance policies” ranked higher than “implementation of administrative automation,” which was placed last. In Green Professional and Social Services, the highest priority was “providing special services to innovative and research-oriented students in the field of environmental protection.”
Finally, two new dimensions, Green Organizational Culture and Green Psychology, were added. In Green Organizational Culture, the top priority was “cultivating a culture of environmental protection among students, faculty, and staff.” In Green Psychology, the first priority was “developing a green self-image among students, faculty, and staff”.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to identify and categorize the dimensions and components of a sustainable green university. Based on the findings, the components of a green university were classified into ten major dimensions: green research, green organizational culture, green psychology, green financing, administration and accounting, campus sustainability, green education, green management, green professional and social services, evaluation, reporting, accountability, commitment and monitoring of sustainable development and environmental information provision, and green participation. These dimensions provide a framework for assessing and planning the establishment of a green university.
The green research dimension included components such as allocating budgets and financial support for research projects related to sustainable development, attracting external funding for sustainability-related research, and establishing research centers in environmental and sustainability studies. This finding aligns with studies by Seyed Alavi et al., James and Card, Yuan et al., Zhao and Zou, Turan et al., and Ali and Anufriev [Seyed Alavi et al., 2018; James & Card, 2012; Yuan et al., 2013; Zhao & Zou, 2015; Turan et al., 2016; Ali & Anufriev, 2020]. Furthermore, it was revealed that green research was considered the most important dimension by the respondents, with the allocation of budgets and financial support for sustainability research as the key component. Universities should thus be directed toward establishing environmental research institutes and providing financial support for their projects.
The green organizational culture dimension comprised components such as fostering a culture of environmental protection among students, faculty, and staff; reforming consumption patterns of energy, water, electricity, and paper through awareness-raising; and promoting efficient resource use within the university. This finding is consistent with Shuqin et al. [2019]. Efforts to reform norms, values, traditions, and practices toward institutionalizing environmental awareness are part of green cultural development. It is recommended that universities promote environmental protection through cultural content such as brochures, books, posters, and short films, and support cultural and social associations that advocate for environmental issues.
The green psychology dimension included components such as fostering a green self-concept among students, faculty, and staff; establishing a green counseling center to institutionalize pro-environmental behaviors; and promoting green identity and attitudes among students. This dimension has not been identified in prior studies, indicating its novelty. Moreover, respondents ranked green psychology as the third most important dimension, with fostering a green self-concept being its central component. To enhance the interaction between university stakeholders (students and staff) and the environment, and to strengthen pro-environmental behavior, it is recommended that universities establish green psychology and counseling centers supported by environmental psychologists.
The green financing, administration, and accounting dimension consisted of components such as establishing financial sustainability mechanisms, monitoring procurement and administrative expenses in line with green management, and ensuring budgetary justice in allocating sustainability funds. This finding is consistent with Seyed Alavi et al. [2018]. Respondents ranked this as the fourth most important dimension, emphasizing financial sustainability mechanisms. Additional components proposed included adopting green accounting, prioritizing preventive maintenance over equipment replacement, and promoting cost-saving in operating and capital expenditures. It is recommended that universities diversify financial resources while incorporating green accounting practices.
The campus sustainability dimension encompassed components such as investment in renewable, safe, and clean energy technologies; waste reduction and recycling; and carpooling initiatives. This finding aligns with James and Card [2012], Nejati and Nejati [2013], Yuan et al. [2013], Zhao and Zou [2015], and Ali and Anufriev [2020]. Respondents ranked campus sustainability as the fifth most important dimension, highlighting investment in renewable energy technologies as the key component. Suggested strategies included promoting carpooling, installing digital awareness boards, and creating energy consumption databases. Universities should adopt digital media for awareness and energy-saving, modernize energy networks, and transition toward renewable energy (e.g., solar panels), while continuously monitoring energy use.
The green education dimension included components such as environmental and sustainability literacy training, resource-use education (e.g., water, fuel, and paper), developing interdisciplinary curricula focused on sustainability, and providing professional development for faculty on environmental issues. These results align with Seyed Alavi et al. [2018], James and Card [2012], Yuan et al. [2013], Zhao and Zou [2015], Turan et al. [2016], and Ali and Anufriev [2020]. Respondents ranked green education as the sixth most important dimension, with online learning technologies added as an emerging component. It is suggested that universities design and implement education programs with environmental orientations and expand digital and online classes to reduce energy consumption.
The green management dimension comprised components such as revising the university’s vision, mission, commitments, and strategic services toward sustainability; supporting knowledge-based firms producing green innovations; investing in sustainable income-generating projects; implementing green management policies; and adopting environmental standards. This finding is consistent with Seyed Alavi et al. [2018], James and Card [2012], Nejati and Nejati [2013], and Shuqin et al. [2019]. Respondents ranked this as the seventh most important dimension and emphasized policy implementation as a key factor. Revising the university’s vision and long-term strategic plan to integrate green principles is strongly recommended.
The green professional and social services dimension included components such as providing special services to innovative students and researchers in environmental protection, offering consultancy to government and non-government organizations, providing professional training for organizations in sustainable development, and subsidizing membership in environmental associations. This finding is consistent with James and Card [2012] and Yuan et al. [2013]. Respondents ranked this as the eighth most important dimension, highlighting services to innovative students as the central component.
The evaluation, reporting, accountability, and monitoring dimension included components such as annual sustainability assessment, sustainability reporting websites, periodic internal and external evaluations, reporting to stakeholders, accountability mechanisms, and regular sustainability audits. This finding aligns with Nejati and Nejati [2013] and Shuqin et al. [2019]. Respondents ranked this as the ninth most important dimension, with annual sustainability assessment as the key factor.
The green participation dimension encompassed components such as student involvement in environmental activities, university collaboration with local and national sustainability initiatives, partnerships with governments, NGOs, and industries, faculty participation in environmental outreach, interdisciplinary sustainability networks, and sustainability-related competitions. This finding aligns with Nejati and Nejati [2013]. Respondents ranked green participation as the tenth most important dimension, with student participation in environmental activities as the key component. Participation is regarded as a prerequisite for sustainable development [Turan et al., 2016]. Studies highlight that sustainability initiatives cannot succeed without stakeholder cooperation [Al-Shuaikhat & Abu Bakr, 2008; Wright, 2010]. Active student involvement in green initiatives, campus projects, and sustainability research is crucial [James & Card, 2012; Dahle & Neumayer, 2001]. It is recommended that universities strengthen participatory infrastructures and expand opportunities for student engagement in green initiatives.
Achieving a sustainable green university is feasible when green components are identified in accordance with the governing structures of universities. The most significant outcome of this study is the classification of green university dimensions and components, adapted to the organizational and administrative structures of universities in the country. Considering the evolving and unique characteristics of these structures, this classification enables universities and higher education institutions to advance toward establishing green universities, monitoring, and evaluating their sustainability pathways. The findings can guide higher education managers and policymakers in designing macro-level and operational programs for green university development, while also addressing the needs and expectations of sustainability-oriented societies concerned with environmental challenges.
Conclusion
A total of 91 components across 10 dimensions were extracted and categorized as indicators of a green university. Among these, the three most important dimensions in achieving a sustainable green university, in order of priority, are green research, green organizational culture, and green psychology.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express their gratitude to all individuals who participated in this research.
Ethical Permission: In this study, ethical and legal standards were observed through proper citation of all references used and by obtaining the necessary permissions for questionnaire distribution.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Authors’ Contributions: Roshani N (First Author): Introduction Writer/Methodologist/Assistant Researcher/Statistical Analyst/Discussion Writer (50%); Khosravipour B (Second Author): Assistant Researcher (15%); Yazdanpanah M (Third Author): Assistant Researcher (15%); Zobeidi T (Fourth Author): Assistant Researcher (10%); Tajeri Moghadam M (Fifth Author): Assistant Researcher (10%)
Funding: No funding was reported by the authors.
The world is becoming increasingly complex, interdependent, and unstable [Grecu & Ipiña, 2014]. The progressive development of civilization, as the most complex natural system, is impossible without continuous increases in energy consumption and the inevitable dissipation of this energy into the environment [Arutyunov, 2021]. In fact, among all the questions faced by humanity today, the impact of economic growth on ecological systems represents one of the greatest paradoxes [Newman & Dale, 2008]. On the one hand, economic growth provides welfare for people; on the other hand, it contributes to environmental degradation and the depletion of natural resources [Amaral et al., 2015]. In the face of critical issues such as climate change, resource scarcity, and environmental destruction, the mission of universities is to create spaces that foster environmental restoration [Zhao & Zou, 2015].
Many universities today exert a significant impact on the economy, society, and the environment, as they resemble “small cities” in terms of size and population [Ávila et al., 2017]. In terms of waste generation, transportation, water and material consumption, energy and electricity use, as well as academic, social, and educational activities within their boundaries, universities may be considered “complex buildings” [AlShuwaikhat & Abubakar, 2008].
Universities carry an important responsibility in shaping a future-oriented vision for sustainable development. They contribute to sustainability through internal functions (e.g., sustainability policies, university greening, environmental initiatives, curricula, and research) and external functions (the role of universities in their regions) [Dagiliūtė & Liobikienė, 2015]. The development of green universities is often the first step institutions take toward sustainability [Sonetti et al., 2016]. A green university, synonymous with an ecological and sustainable university, integrates sustainability across all dimensions, including teaching, research, campus operations, and infrastructure [Santa et al., 2019].
Despite their important role in promoting sustainability, debates remain regarding which aspects universities must prioritize to be recognized as sustainable institutions [Lambrechts et al., 2015]. Accordingly, higher education institutions worldwide have adopted diverse strategies and approaches to achieve sustainability, ranging from water and waste management to green building technologies, renewable energy, educational reforms, and research [Ali et al., 2020]. Universities can increasingly institutionalize sustainability practices in curricula, research, operations, outreach, evaluation, and reporting [Lozano, 2010]. However, since most universities were established before the awareness of sustainable development declarations, achieving a sustainable campus remains a significant challenge [Isa et al., 2021]. Transitioning into a sustainable, carbon-neutral campus is a gradual, step-by-step process without a standardized pathway [Mustafa et al., 2022].
In Iran, prior studies on green university indicators remain limited, indicating insufficient attention to this area of research. For example, Seyed Alavi et al. (2018) have identified the most important dimensions of green university management as, in order of priority: policymaking and planning, material and equipment management, leadership and strategies, technology, executive and organizational affairs, financial resources, human resources, research, education, environmental relations, and evaluation. James and Card (2012) found that factors influencing universities’ progress toward sustainability include operational practices on green campuses, organizational management and leadership, education, research and services, broad institutional initiatives, and sustainability assessment. Nejati and Nejati (2013) have emphasized four key dimensions of sustainable universities: community engagement, commitment and monitoring of sustainability, energy consumption and waste, and land use planning. Yuan et al. (2013) identified seven core factors for achieving green universities: management systems, environmental sustainability, sustainable curricula, research and development, staff rewards, student opportunities, and social responsibility. Zhao and Zou (2015) highlighted three essential dimensions for creating a green university: education, research, and campus environment. Turan et al. (2016) observed that while stakeholders differ in their views of sustainability performance indicators, their highest priorities are education, environmental initiatives, and research. Shuqin et al. (2019) identified five main sustainability dimensions in universities: organization and management, energy and resource efficiency, environmentally friendly settings, campus culture, and social communication. Similarly, Ali and Anufriev (2020) have reported that sustainability in universities depends on six dimensions: settings and infrastructure, energy and climate change, waste, water, transportation, and education and research.
The implementation of green practices in universities is still at an early stage. Current studies mainly focus on the sustainability of university buildings, taking into account human, energy, and environmental dimensions [Yadegaridehkordi & Nilashi, 2022]. Given the importance of green universities and the necessity of contextualizing them across different regions of the country, there is a noticeable absence of a comprehensive framework and a set of updated, validated indicators in university management. Such a framework should account for both physical structures and academic-research dimensions, as well as the perspectives of stakeholders (faculty members and students). Furthermore, existing studies have largely overlooked sustainability assessment tools and the prioritization of sustainability indicators.
Accordingly, the present study aimed to identify the dimensions and components of a green university. These were first extracted from the theoretical literature and then refined and categorized using expert opinions through the Delphi method.
Methodology
This study employed a mixed-methods design (qualitative–quantitative paradigm) and was applied in nature. The study area was Ilam County, the capital of Ilam Province, with an area of 212,840.67 hectares, accounting for 10.62% of the province’s total area. Ilam University, one of the most important public universities in the province, was selected as the research site. The purpose of this research was to identify the dimensions and components of a sustainable green university and to validate them from the perspective of Ilam University’s faculty members. Accordingly, both exploratory and confirmatory approaches were used, employing the Delphi technique to identify and validate the components of a sustainable green university. The Delphi method has been described as a qualitative, quantitative, and mixed approach [Sekayi & Kennedy, 2017] and is increasingly becoming a popular strategy that integrates both domains [De Villiers et al., 2005].
The Delphi technique relies on the participation of individuals with expertise or specialized knowledge in the subject of study (the Delphi panel). Selecting qualified panel members is a crucial step, as the validity of results depends on their competence and expertise. Typically, 10 to 20 participants are sufficient for a Delphi panel [Powell, 2003]. In this study, the Delphi panel comprised 20 faculty members from Ilam University with expertise, research background, or practical experience in green universities, sustainable development, and green management. Participants were selected through purposive sampling using the snowball technique. The process began with gathering data from specialized faculty members in relevant fields and requesting them to introduce other experts. This continued until theoretical saturation was reached.
Traditional Delphi starts with an open-ended questionnaire, which is time-consuming and often results in low response rates. Therefore, a modified Delphi method consisting of a structured questionnaire was applied to collect experts’ opinions [Mao et al., 2020]. A structured questionnaire can be developed based on a comprehensive review of the literature [Huang et al., 2022]. Several researchers, such as Tran et al. and Huang et al., have adopted the modified Delphi in their studies [Tran et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2022]. Given the advantages of this method in utilizing existing theoretical foundations, the present study also employed the modified Delphi technique to design the research instrument.
First, through a review of the relevant literature and previous studies on green universities, the components of a green university were identified. Specifically, studies by Nejati & Nejati (2013), James & Card (2012), Yuan et al. (2013), Zhao & Zou (2015), Turan et al. (2016), and Ali & Anufriev (2020) were examined. The extracted components were then classified into eight main dimensions and organized into a questionnaire. Each item in the questionnaire asked participants to evaluate the level of importance of the proposed indicators. At the end of each section, participants were invited to add any other suggested indicators in an open-response format.
The reliability (internal consistency) of each dimension and the overall questionnaire was tested using Cronbach’s alpha. The results indicated acceptable reliability for both the individual dimensions and the overall questionnaire, with coefficients ranging from 0.75 to 0.94 in the first round and from 0.73 to 0.98 in the second round. The questionnaire was administered in two rounds to the panel of experts, leading to consensus. Each round lasted approximately two weeks, with an additional one-week interval between rounds for reflection on new and important components. Ultimately, one item was eliminated due to low importance, and thirteen new items were added to the set of green university components.
The data were analyzed using SPSS version 26. First, descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) were calculated for all items, followed by ranking the items based on their mean scores in descending order of importance.
Findings
Initially, the components of the green university were analyzed using the content analysis technique and constant comparison of data. In total, 8 dimensions and 79 components for establishing and developing a green university were identified. These were incorporated into a structured questionnaire for prioritization and submitted to Delphi panel members in two rounds.
Results of the First Delphi Round
In the first round, descriptive indicators (mean and standard deviation) of all components of the green university were calculated and ranked according to higher means.
According to the findings, in the Green Education dimension, the highest priority was the component of educating and training on the proper use of available resources such as water, fuel, paper, etc. In the Green Research dimension, the priority was the presence of research centers in the field of environment and sustainable development. In the Green Participation dimension, the top priority was active involvement in local and national sustainable development. For Campus Sustainability, the highest priorities were the reduction of waste, waste separation and recycling facilities, as well as investment in and utilization of safe and clean renewable energy technologies (e.g., solar, wind, geothermal). In the Evaluation, Reporting, Accountability, Commitment, and Monitoring dimension, the top priority was annual evaluation of the university’s sustainable development. For Green Management, the priority was revising the university’s vision, objectives, missions, commitments, and strategic services with a sustainable development approach. In Green Financial and Administrative Management, the highest priority was monitoring procurement, resources, equipment, and administrative expenditures. Finally, in the Green Professional and Social Services dimension, the top priority was providing consultancy services to governmental and non-governmental organizations in sustainable development.
Subsequently, descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) of each dimension were calculated. Based on these results, the highest priority was Campus Sustainability with a mean of 8.781 and a standard deviation of ±18.90, while the lowest was Green Education with a mean of 7.825 and a standard deviation of ±7.65.
Additionally, in the first round, participants were asked through an open-ended question to suggest other possible components. Based on data analysis, 13 components and 2 new dimensions (Green Culture and Green Psychology) were identified. These included: the use of modern technologies in the educational system (e.g., online learning for students and staff) in Green Education; promotion of car-sharing, installation of electronic promotional boards, and creation of an energy consumption database with continuous monitoring in Campus Sustainability; and pursuit and implementation of green management policies in Green Management. In the Green Financial and Administrative dimension, Green Accounting was integrated, including components such as cost and capital-saving strategies, transition toward green accounting, and adoption of preventive maintenance policies instead of equipment replacement. In Green Organizational Culture, components such as fostering environmental protection culture among students, faculty, and staff, promoting rational consumption, reforming consumption patterns of energy, water, electricity, and paper, and institutionalizing optimal consumption practices were added. In Green Psychology, components included developing a green self-image among students, faculty, and staff, establishing a green counseling center in the university to institutionalize sustainable and environmental behaviors, and fostering green identity and attitudes among students.
Furthermore, in Green Research, the component “development of interdisciplinary research with a focus on green and sustainable approaches” was merged with “design, approval, and implementation of interdisciplinary research with a green and sustainable development perspective” due to similarity, and was revised for the second round.
Results of the Second Delphi Round
In the second round, descriptive indicators of total scores of the components were recalculated and ranked based on higher means.
The analysis showed that, in Green Education, the highest priority was “environmental literacy and sustainable development education.” The newly added component “use of modern technologies in the educational system (online training for students and staff)” ranked higher than “establishing interdisciplinary sustainable development courses” and “sustainable development-oriented specializations at the postgraduate level,” both of which had ranked lowest in the first round. In Green Research, the top priority was “allocation of budget and financial support for sustainability-related research projects.” In Green Participation, the top priority was “student participation in university environmental activities.” In Campus Sustainability, the first priority was “investment in and use of renewable, safe, and clean energy technologies (solar, wind, geothermal, etc.),” while the newly added component “installation of electronic promotional boards” was ranked last. In Evaluation, Reporting, Accountability, Commitment, and Monitoring, the first priority remained “annual evaluation of university sustainable development,” consistent with the first round. In Green Management, the top priority continued to be “revising the vision, goals, mission, commitments, and strategic services of the university with a sustainable development perspective.” The newly added component “pursuit and implementation of green management policies” ranked fifth. In Green Financial, Administrative, and Accounting Management, the first priority was “establishing financial stability and sustainability mechanisms in the university,” while the newly added components “cost and capital-saving strategies,” “transition toward green accounting,” and “preventive maintenance policies” ranked higher than “implementation of administrative automation,” which was placed last. In Green Professional and Social Services, the highest priority was “providing special services to innovative and research-oriented students in the field of environmental protection.”
Finally, two new dimensions, Green Organizational Culture and Green Psychology, were added. In Green Organizational Culture, the top priority was “cultivating a culture of environmental protection among students, faculty, and staff.” In Green Psychology, the first priority was “developing a green self-image among students, faculty, and staff”.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to identify and categorize the dimensions and components of a sustainable green university. Based on the findings, the components of a green university were classified into ten major dimensions: green research, green organizational culture, green psychology, green financing, administration and accounting, campus sustainability, green education, green management, green professional and social services, evaluation, reporting, accountability, commitment and monitoring of sustainable development and environmental information provision, and green participation. These dimensions provide a framework for assessing and planning the establishment of a green university.
The green research dimension included components such as allocating budgets and financial support for research projects related to sustainable development, attracting external funding for sustainability-related research, and establishing research centers in environmental and sustainability studies. This finding aligns with studies by Seyed Alavi et al., James and Card, Yuan et al., Zhao and Zou, Turan et al., and Ali and Anufriev [Seyed Alavi et al., 2018; James & Card, 2012; Yuan et al., 2013; Zhao & Zou, 2015; Turan et al., 2016; Ali & Anufriev, 2020]. Furthermore, it was revealed that green research was considered the most important dimension by the respondents, with the allocation of budgets and financial support for sustainability research as the key component. Universities should thus be directed toward establishing environmental research institutes and providing financial support for their projects.
The green organizational culture dimension comprised components such as fostering a culture of environmental protection among students, faculty, and staff; reforming consumption patterns of energy, water, electricity, and paper through awareness-raising; and promoting efficient resource use within the university. This finding is consistent with Shuqin et al. [2019]. Efforts to reform norms, values, traditions, and practices toward institutionalizing environmental awareness are part of green cultural development. It is recommended that universities promote environmental protection through cultural content such as brochures, books, posters, and short films, and support cultural and social associations that advocate for environmental issues.
The green psychology dimension included components such as fostering a green self-concept among students, faculty, and staff; establishing a green counseling center to institutionalize pro-environmental behaviors; and promoting green identity and attitudes among students. This dimension has not been identified in prior studies, indicating its novelty. Moreover, respondents ranked green psychology as the third most important dimension, with fostering a green self-concept being its central component. To enhance the interaction between university stakeholders (students and staff) and the environment, and to strengthen pro-environmental behavior, it is recommended that universities establish green psychology and counseling centers supported by environmental psychologists.
The green financing, administration, and accounting dimension consisted of components such as establishing financial sustainability mechanisms, monitoring procurement and administrative expenses in line with green management, and ensuring budgetary justice in allocating sustainability funds. This finding is consistent with Seyed Alavi et al. [2018]. Respondents ranked this as the fourth most important dimension, emphasizing financial sustainability mechanisms. Additional components proposed included adopting green accounting, prioritizing preventive maintenance over equipment replacement, and promoting cost-saving in operating and capital expenditures. It is recommended that universities diversify financial resources while incorporating green accounting practices.
The campus sustainability dimension encompassed components such as investment in renewable, safe, and clean energy technologies; waste reduction and recycling; and carpooling initiatives. This finding aligns with James and Card [2012], Nejati and Nejati [2013], Yuan et al. [2013], Zhao and Zou [2015], and Ali and Anufriev [2020]. Respondents ranked campus sustainability as the fifth most important dimension, highlighting investment in renewable energy technologies as the key component. Suggested strategies included promoting carpooling, installing digital awareness boards, and creating energy consumption databases. Universities should adopt digital media for awareness and energy-saving, modernize energy networks, and transition toward renewable energy (e.g., solar panels), while continuously monitoring energy use.
The green education dimension included components such as environmental and sustainability literacy training, resource-use education (e.g., water, fuel, and paper), developing interdisciplinary curricula focused on sustainability, and providing professional development for faculty on environmental issues. These results align with Seyed Alavi et al. [2018], James and Card [2012], Yuan et al. [2013], Zhao and Zou [2015], Turan et al. [2016], and Ali and Anufriev [2020]. Respondents ranked green education as the sixth most important dimension, with online learning technologies added as an emerging component. It is suggested that universities design and implement education programs with environmental orientations and expand digital and online classes to reduce energy consumption.
The green management dimension comprised components such as revising the university’s vision, mission, commitments, and strategic services toward sustainability; supporting knowledge-based firms producing green innovations; investing in sustainable income-generating projects; implementing green management policies; and adopting environmental standards. This finding is consistent with Seyed Alavi et al. [2018], James and Card [2012], Nejati and Nejati [2013], and Shuqin et al. [2019]. Respondents ranked this as the seventh most important dimension and emphasized policy implementation as a key factor. Revising the university’s vision and long-term strategic plan to integrate green principles is strongly recommended.
The green professional and social services dimension included components such as providing special services to innovative students and researchers in environmental protection, offering consultancy to government and non-government organizations, providing professional training for organizations in sustainable development, and subsidizing membership in environmental associations. This finding is consistent with James and Card [2012] and Yuan et al. [2013]. Respondents ranked this as the eighth most important dimension, highlighting services to innovative students as the central component.
The evaluation, reporting, accountability, and monitoring dimension included components such as annual sustainability assessment, sustainability reporting websites, periodic internal and external evaluations, reporting to stakeholders, accountability mechanisms, and regular sustainability audits. This finding aligns with Nejati and Nejati [2013] and Shuqin et al. [2019]. Respondents ranked this as the ninth most important dimension, with annual sustainability assessment as the key factor.
The green participation dimension encompassed components such as student involvement in environmental activities, university collaboration with local and national sustainability initiatives, partnerships with governments, NGOs, and industries, faculty participation in environmental outreach, interdisciplinary sustainability networks, and sustainability-related competitions. This finding aligns with Nejati and Nejati [2013]. Respondents ranked green participation as the tenth most important dimension, with student participation in environmental activities as the key component. Participation is regarded as a prerequisite for sustainable development [Turan et al., 2016]. Studies highlight that sustainability initiatives cannot succeed without stakeholder cooperation [Al-Shuaikhat & Abu Bakr, 2008; Wright, 2010]. Active student involvement in green initiatives, campus projects, and sustainability research is crucial [James & Card, 2012; Dahle & Neumayer, 2001]. It is recommended that universities strengthen participatory infrastructures and expand opportunities for student engagement in green initiatives.
Achieving a sustainable green university is feasible when green components are identified in accordance with the governing structures of universities. The most significant outcome of this study is the classification of green university dimensions and components, adapted to the organizational and administrative structures of universities in the country. Considering the evolving and unique characteristics of these structures, this classification enables universities and higher education institutions to advance toward establishing green universities, monitoring, and evaluating their sustainability pathways. The findings can guide higher education managers and policymakers in designing macro-level and operational programs for green university development, while also addressing the needs and expectations of sustainability-oriented societies concerned with environmental challenges.
Conclusion
A total of 91 components across 10 dimensions were extracted and categorized as indicators of a green university. Among these, the three most important dimensions in achieving a sustainable green university, in order of priority, are green research, green organizational culture, and green psychology.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express their gratitude to all individuals who participated in this research.
Ethical Permission: In this study, ethical and legal standards were observed through proper citation of all references used and by obtaining the necessary permissions for questionnaire distribution.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Authors’ Contributions: Roshani N (First Author): Introduction Writer/Methodologist/Assistant Researcher/Statistical Analyst/Discussion Writer (50%); Khosravipour B (Second Author): Assistant Researcher (15%); Yazdanpanah M (Third Author): Assistant Researcher (15%); Zobeidi T (Fourth Author): Assistant Researcher (10%); Tajeri Moghadam M (Fifth Author): Assistant Researcher (10%)
Funding: No funding was reported by the authors.
References
1. Ali EB, Anufriev V (2020). Towards environmental sustainability in Russia: Evidence from green universities. Heliyon. 6(8):e04719. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04719]
2. Alshuwaikhat HM, 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. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.12.002]
3. Amaral LP, Martins N, Gouveia JB (2015). Quest for a sustainable university: A review. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 16(2):155-172. [Link] [DOI:10.1108/IJSHE-02-2013-0017]
4. Arutyunov VS (2021). The concept of sustainable development and real challenges of civilization. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 91(2):102-110. [Link] [DOI:10.1134/S1019331621020027]
5. Averdung A, Wagenfuehrer D (2011). Consumers acceptance, adoption and behavioural intentions regarding environmentally sustainable innovations. Journal of Business Management and Economics. 2(3):98-106. [Link]
6. Ávila LV, Filho LW, Brandli L, Macgregor CJ, Molthan-Hill P, Özuyar PG, et al. (2017). Barriers to innovation and sustainability at universities around the world. Journal of Cleaner Production. 164:1268-1278. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.025]
7. Christensen P, Thrane M, Herreborg Jørgensen T, Lehmann M (2009). Sustainable development: Assessing the gap between preaching and practice at Aalborg University. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education.10(1):4-20. [Link] [DOI:10.1108/14676370910925217]
8. Conway TM, Dalton C, Loo J, Benakoun L (2008). Developing ecological footprint scenarios on university campuses: A case study of the University of Toronto at Mississauga. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 9(1):4-20. [Link] [DOI:10.1108/14676370810842157]
9. Dagiliūtė R, Liobikienė G (2015). University contributions to environmental sustainability: Challenges and opportunities from the Lithuanian case. Journal of Cleaner Production. 108:891-899. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.015]
10. Dahle M, Neumayer E (2001). Overcoming barriers to campus greening: A survey among higher educational institutions in London, UK. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2(2):139-160. [Link] [DOI:10.1108/14676370110388363]
11. De Villiers MR, De Villiers PJ, Kent AP (2005). The Delphi technique in health sciences education research. Medical Teacher. 27(7):639-643. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/13611260500069947]
12. Grecu V, Ipiña N (2014). The sustainable university-a model for the sustainable organization. Management of Sustainable Development. 6(2):15-24. [Link] [DOI:10.1515/msd-2015-0002]
13. Huang PB, Yang CC, Inderawati MMW, Sukwadi R (2022). Using modified Delphi study to develop instrument for ESG implementation: A case study at an Indonesian higher education institution. Sustainability. 14(19):12623. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/su141912623]
14. Isa HM, Sedhu DS, Lop NS, Rashid K, Nor OM, Iffahd M (2021). Strategies, challenges and solutions towards the implementation of green campus in UiTM Perak. Planning Malaysia Journal. 19(2):60-71. [Link] [DOI:10.21837/pm.v19i16.952]
15. James M, Card K (2012). Factors contributing to institutions achieving environmental sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 13(2):166-176. [Link] [DOI:10.1108/14676371211211845]
16. Kagawa F (2007). Dissonance in students' perceptions of sustainable development and sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 8(3):317-338. [Link] [DOI:10.1108/14676370710817174]
17. Lambrechts W (2015). The contribution of sustainability assessment to policy development in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 40(6):801-816. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/02602938.2015.1040719]
18. Lozano R (2010). Diffusion of sustainable development in universities' curricula: An empirical example from Cardiff University. Journal of Cleaner Production. 18(7):637-644. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.07.005]
19. Mao X, Loke AY, Hu X (2020). Developing a tool for measuring the disaster resilience of healthcare rescuers: A modified Delphi study. Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine. 28(4):1-12. [Link] [DOI:10.1186/s13049-020-0700-9]
20. Mustafa A, Kazmi M, Khan HR, Qazi SA, Lodi SH (2022). Towards a carbon neutral and sustainable campus: Case study of NED university of engineering and technology. Sustainability. 14(2):794. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/su14020794]
21. Nejati M, Nejati M (2013). Assessment of sustainable university factors from the perspective of university students. Journal of Cleaner Production. 48:101-107. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.09.006]
22. Newman L, Dale A (2008). Limits to growth rates in an ethereal economy. Futures. 40(3):261-267. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.futures.2007.08.017]
23. Powell C (2003). The Delphi technique: Myths and realities. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 41(4):376-382. [Link] [DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02537.x]
24. Sekayi D, Kennedy A (2017). Qualitative Delphi method: A four round process with a worked example. The Qualitative Report. 22(10):2755-2763. [Link] [DOI:10.46743/2160-3715/2017.2974]
25. Santa SLB, Ribeiro JMP, De Andrade Guerra JBS (2019). Green universities and sustainable development. In: Leal Filho W, editor. Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education. Cham: Springer. p. 851-856. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-11352-0_471]
26. Seyed Alavi SM, Ghalavandi H, Ghaleei A, Mohamadkhni K (2019). Identification and prioritization dimensions and components of green management in universities. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. 21(5):65-79. [Persian] [Link]
27. Shuqin C, Minyan L, Hongwei T, Xiaoyu L, Jian G (2019). Assessing sustainability on Chinese university campuses: Development of a campus sustainability evaluation system and its application with a case study. Journal of Building Engineering. 24:100747. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100747]
28. Sonetti G, Lombardi P, Chelleri L (2016). True green and sustainable university campuses? Toward a clusters approach. Sustainability. 8(1):83. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/su8010083]
29. Tran T, Trinh TPT, Le CM, Hoang LK, Pham HH (2020). Research as a base for sustainable development of universities: Using the Delphi method to explore factors affecting international publishing among Vietnamese academic staff. Sustainability. 12(8):3449. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/su12083449]
30. Turan FK, Cetinkaya S, Ustun C (2016). A methodological framework to analyze stakeholder preferences and propose strategic pathways for a sustainable university. Higher Education. 72(6):743-760. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s10734-015-9973-8]
31. Wright T (2010). University presidents' conceptualizations of sustainability in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 11(1):61-73. [Link] [DOI:10.1108/14676371011010057]
32. Wright TSA (2002). Definitions and frameworks for environmental sustainability in higher education. Higher Education Policy. 15(2):105-120. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S0952-8733(02)00002-8]
33. Yadegaridehkordi E, Nilashi M (2022). Moving towards green university: A method of analysis based on multi-criteria decision-making approach to assess sustainability indicators. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. 19(9):8207-8230. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s13762-022-04086-y]
34. Yuan X, Zuo J, Huisingh D (2013). Green universities in China-what matters?. Journal of Cleaner Production. 61:36-45. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.030]
35. Zhao W, Zou Y (2015). Green university initiatives in China: A case of Tsinghua University. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 16(4):491-506. [Link] [DOI:10.1108/IJSHE-02-2014-0021]