Campus sustainability: survey findings and action plan

1. 

   1Greening Halden: everyday choices, practical changes

   Speaker notes

   Maya: Hi everyone, we’re Group 4, and we’ve been looking at how everyday campus choices could connect to a bigger sustainability goal. This is a class exercise: Halden University, the survey responses, and the campus estimates are fictional. We’ll explain what the evidence suggests we should try, and where it is too limited to promise results.

2. 

   2Our question is which practical changes students would support

   Speaker notes

   Maya: To turn that broad goal into something practical, we focused on travel, cup use, and recycling. Our question was which relatively low-cost changes respondents would support, and how those changes could contribute to Halden’s fictional net-zero ambition for 2035.

3. 

   3Our convenience sample describes respondents, not the whole campus

   Speaker notes

   Maya: To answer that question, we ran an online survey from October 6 through 17, using course channels, the students’ union newsletter, and staff mailing lists. Of the 412 respondents, 298 were undergraduates, compared with 71 postgraduates and 43 staff, so the responses are heavily weighted toward undergraduate views. Participation was voluntary, and people already interested in sustainability were probably more likely to respond. That means we can describe these respondents, but we cannot treat their preferences as representative of the whole campus. Separately, the project used estates-office figures and published studies to estimate option costs and carbon savings.

4. 

   4Walking and public transport lead respondents’ campus travel

   Speaker notes

   Daniel: Thanks, Maya; keeping those sampling limits in mind, I’ll start with travel. Bus or train was the largest category at 33%, but walking was close behind at 31%, compared with 16% driving alone. Several respondents mentioned expensive bike-share membership, which gives us a possible affordability barrier to investigate. It does not tell us whether a discount would actually change their journeys, so that is a reason to test an intervention rather than assume its impact.

5. 

   5Reusable-cup ownership exceeds daily use

   Speaker notes

   Daniel: That distinction between a possible intervention and actual behavior also matters for cups. While 58% of respondents owned a reusable cup, only 22% brought one every day, alongside an average of 3.4 single-use hot-drink cups per week. Ownership alone clearly does not establish daily reuse, although these results do not explain why people leave their cups behind. The 47% who said they would pay an extra 25p were answering a hypothetical question, not responding to a real charge, so we should not use that figure to predict the effect of pricing.

6. 

   6Unclear labels are the leading reported recycling barrier

   Speaker notes

   Priya: Thanks, Daniel; recycling gives us a more directly reported practical barrier. Unclear labels were the biggest obstacle for 41% of respondents, compared with 27% who said bins were too far away and 12% who said recycling did not matter. That makes clearer signage a proposal tied to a specific reported problem, rather than simply another appeal to care about sustainability. We would still need to check whether new labels improve recycling behavior.

7. 

   7Refill stations and clearer labels attract the strongest support

   Speaker notes

   Priya: That match between a reported problem and a proposed solution is reinforced by the support results. Clearer labels attracted 82% support, while refill stations led at 88%; opposition to each was just 3%. Bike-share discounts and the cup deposit scheme also had majority support, at 71% and 64%, respectively. A meat-free day was much more divisive, with 39% supporting it and 36% opposing it. These figures help us judge acceptability, but they are not participation rates or evidence that implementation will succeed.

8. 

   8Choosing an action requires more than popularity

   Speaker notes

   Priya: Those preferences give us one part of the decision, but popularity alone cannot tell us where to start. We also need to weigh first-year cost, estimated annual carbon savings, and time to implementation, while remembering that estimates are not achieved reductions.

9. 

   9The largest estimated carbon saving has the weakest support

   Speaker notes

   Priya: Bringing those criteria together reveals why there is no clear winner on every measure. The meat-free day has the highest estimated annual saving, at 52 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, and the lowest first-year cost, at £1,000, but only 39% support. Clearer labels offer a different balance: £4,000, an estimated nine metric tons annually, 82% support, and a one-month start time. The bike-share pilot is the most expensive at £24,000, with the second-highest estimated saving of 38 metric tons, while refill stations and the cup scheme have lower estimated savings of six and eleven metric tons. These are rough comparisons to guide a decision, not a forecast we can guarantee.

10. 

    10We recommend three quick wins and a measured bike-share pilot

    Speaker notes

    Tomás: Thanks, Priya; those trade-offs are why we recommend a staged package rather than simply choosing the largest carbon estimate. Clearer labels, ten refill stations, and a £1 cup deposit scheme would cost an estimated £31,500 together, with roughly 26 metric tons of annual carbon savings if the project estimates hold. We would separately test a 50% bike-share discount for one term at a cost of £24,000, tracking new memberships without treating membership growth alone as proof of carbon savings. For canteens, we propose exploring a plant-forward option on every menu instead of a meat-free day. That alternative was not surveyed, so we cannot claim respondents endorsed it.

11. 

    11Our evidence combines project data with published reading

    Speaker notes

    Tomás: To keep those recommendations traceable, it is important to distinguish our numerical sources from our academic context. The fictional workbook supplies the respondent counts and survey percentages, while the project report provides the option estimates and recommendations. The published reading addresses barriers to environmental behavior, reusable-cup interventions, and the broader sustainable-development agenda. It provides context, but it does not turn our fictional survey or rough estimates into demonstrated campus outcomes.

12. 

    12Start practically, then test whether the changes work

    Speaker notes

    Tomás: With those evidence boundaries in mind, our conclusion is to start practically and evaluate before expanding. We propose repeating the survey next year and assessing behavior alongside stated support, because this self-selected sample may be more sustainability-minded than the wider campus. For bike-share, track new memberships and test actual travel behavior before claiming emissions reductions. We also need to consult canteen and estates staff about practical constraints, since their operational perspectives were not surveyed. Thank you; our central recommendation is a staged plan that treats support as a starting point and results as something we still have to establish.

How to make slides or a PowerPoint automatically Soft Rounded · 13 slides Quarterly business review: performance, drivers and decisions Swiss Minimal · 14 slides Luxury hospitality: a flagship hotel investment proposal Photo Editorial · 15 slides

See all examples →