University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A California community college's climate action plan: an evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

A California community college's climate action plan: an evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 1

A CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE’S CLIMATE ACTION PLAN: AN
EVALUATION STUDY

by
Leigh T. Sata

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 10, 2019

Copyright 2019 Leigh Sata

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to begin this section with a story about my grandfather, Lloyd Shingu.
Grandpa Shingu proudly received his undergraduate and master’s degrees from USC but was
unable to complete his doctoral studies. He suffered from the economic hardships of the great
depression and later, wartime hysteria that sent him and his family to an internment camp in
Rohwer, Arkansas. We began this program approximately 75 years after President Roosevelt
signed Executive Order 9066. EO-9066 uprooted over 120,000 Japanese Americans from the
west coast. Over two thirds were American citizens, including my parents. This story is a
reminder that through education, may we vigilantly guard against race-based profiling and
political hysteria. Rossier’s emphasis on social justice and equity illustrates the possibilities
when an institution commits to doing the right thing. Thank you, Dean Gallagher and the
Rossier School for your leadership on this issue.
I would like to thank Dr. Mark Robison and Dr. Robert Filback for creating this unique
international Ed.D. program. The program exceeded my expectations, encouraging personal and
professional growth in unexpected ways. The educational and entrepreneurial aspects of the
program surprised and stimulated, and I was constantly inspired by my Cohort 6 peers. It was a
pleasure to work with such capable professionals from all parts of the world.
Thank you to dissertation chair Dr. Jenifer Crawford for your regular and timely feedback
and consistently positive encouragement. Thank you, Dr. Tracy Tambascia, for serving on my
committee and for taking the time to get to know our cohort personally. With your help, we
bonded in a special way. Thank you, Dr. Helena Seli, for serving on my committee and
appreciation for showing patience while teaching learning theory to those of us with non-
educational backgrounds. Thank you also for the travel tips for Tallin, Estonia. Thank you, Dr.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 3
Ruth Chung, for teaching quantitative methods in Hong Kong using exemplars emphasizing
equity and social justice. Thank you, Dr. Sabrina Chong and staff, for the incredible operational
support over the past two years.
Returning to school was a great adventure. Thank you to all the wonderful professors
that helped make the journey fulfilling. Professors Robison, Maddux, Chung, Picus, Seli,
Tambascia, Adolph, Samkian, Harju and Krop; thank you for the inspiration. You made this
terminal degree far more interesting than could be expected.
Thank you to my many friends and professional colleagues at NorCal College, featured in
this research paper. Thank you, Dr. C., for your leadership, mentorship and friendship. Thank
you, sustainability committee members, for your honesty, passion and commitment. The college
is better for your work, and you’ve become an exemplar in the community college system.
Finally, thank you to my family for their unconditional love and support. To my parents
Frank and Marian, thanks for your regular calls and reminders to sleep more. Reid and Kai,
thank you for allowing me writing time on our family vacations. Wendy, thank you sacrificing
two years’ worth of weekends and for encouraging me to apply in the first place. You showed
no hesitation about my decision to return to school. I would not have been able to finish without
your patience, love and understanding.
By the time Grandpa Shingu returned to Los Angeles from Arkansas, he was in his 50s
and had a family to support. He could not finish his USC doctorate but showed not a trace of
bitterness. My father, brother and sister (and many other relatives) followed his path to USC and
I’d like to think of this doctoral degree as closing the circle in his honor. This doctoral degree is
his degree and I’m happy to join him as a member of the Trojan family. Fight on!

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables 6
Chapter One: Introduction 7
Background of the Problem 9
Importance of Addressing the Problem 12
Organizational Context and Mission 13
Organizational Goal 14
Description of Stakeholder Groups 15
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals 17
Stakeholder Group for the Study 18
Purpose of the Project 19
Definitions 19
Organization of the Project 21
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 22
Sustainability in Higher Education Institutions 24
Frameworks for Sustainability in HEIs 24
GHG Reduction in California Public Institutions 29
State Gubernatorial and Legislative Actions for GHG Reduction 29
Regional Incentives for GHG Reduction and Energy Savings 32
The Campus as a Regional Sustainability Hub 34
Measuring, Assessing and Reporting the Success of Sustainability in HEIs 37
Conceptual and Methodological Framework for the Study 42
Knowledge and Skills 42
Motivation 45
Organizational Influences 48
Chapter Three: Methods 55
Purpose of the Evaluation and Research Questions 55
Participating Stakeholders 57
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale 58
Data Collection and Interview Instrument 59
Interviews 60
Documents and Artifacts 61
Data Analysis 62
Credibility and Trustworthiness 63
Ethics 65
Chapter Four: Findings 68
Knowledge Findings 70
The First Sustainability Plan (Knowledge Factor 1) 71
Sustainability Templates (Knowledge Factor 2) 73
Understanding Measurable and Timebound Goal Setting (Knowledge Factor 3) 75
Understanding the Value of Writing a Sustainability Plan (Knowledge Factor 4) 76
Emerging Knowledge Influences (Knowledge Factors 5 and 6) 78
Motivational Findings and Assumed Influences 82
Intrinsic Motivation (Motivational Influence 1) 83
Self-Efficacy (Motivational Influence 2) 84
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 5
Organizational Findings and Assumed Influences 86
Trust and Collegiality (Organizational Influence 1) 87
Individual Leadership and Responsibility (Organizational Influence 2) 91
Incorporating Sustainability Measures (Organizational Influence 3) 97
Communicating with External and Internal Communities (Organizational Influence 4) 106
Conclusion 110
Chapter Five: Recommendations 112
Organizational Context and Mission 112
Organizational Performance Goal 114
Description of Stakeholder Groups 114
Goal of the Stakeholder Group for the Study 115
Purpose of the Project and Questions 115
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 116
Knowledge Recommendations 117
Current Motivational Promising Practices 123
Organization Recommendations 126
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 131
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations 132
Level 4: Results and leading indicators 135
Level 3: Behavior 138
Level 2: Learning 143
Level 1: Reaction 146
Evaluation Tools 147
Data Analysis and Reporting 148
Summary 149
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach 150
Limitations and Delimitations 152
Future Research 154
Conclusion 155
References 159
Appendix A: Organizational Mission, Organizational Performance Goal, Stakeholders’
Proficiencies and Performance Goals 173
Appendix B: Interview, Document and Artifact Protocols 175
Appendix C: Interview Protocol 182

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Organizational Performance and Multiple Stakeholder Goals 17
Table 2: Assumed Knowledge Influences 45
Table 3: Assumed Motivation Influences 48
Table 4: Assumed Organizational Influences 53
Table 5: Assets, Gaps and Emergent Knowledge Influences 70
Table 6: Knowledge of the specific definitions of the SMART acronym 75
Table 7: Emergent Knowledge Influence for the next sustainability plan 79
Table 8: Expectancy and Self-Efficacy Motivational Influences 82
Table 9: Assumed Organizational Influences 87
Table 10: Publicity measures for sustainability and the belief that it matters. 107
Table 11: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 120
Table 12: Summary of Motivation Influences and Promising Practice (Continue Practices) 125
Table 13: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 128
Table 14: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 136
Table 15: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Sustainability Committee
members 139
Table 16: Required Drivers to Support Sustainability Committee Members’ Critical
Behaviors 142
Table 17: Components of Learning for the Program. 146
Table 18: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program. 147

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 7
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
The scientific evidence that global temperatures are rising accumulates with each passing
year. The global average temperature for 2016 was the hottest ever recorded and according to
the Climate Science Special Report (CSSR), 16 of the 17 warmest years in the instrumental
record occurred between 2001 and 2016 (Wuebbles et al., 2017). Scientists continue to study the
long-term effects of global warming, and climate models predict more extreme weather events as
temperatures rise. Heat waves will be hotter and last longer and sea-levels may rise, with species
extinction and food insecurity in many parts of the world (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change [IPCC], 2014).
The IPCC is an international body of scientists organized in 1988 by the United Nations
Environmental Program and the World Meteorological Organization. In 2014, the IPCC issued
Assessment Report 5 (AR5), the latest version of a series of internationally coordinated reports
about on climate science. AR5 states that the evidence of global warming is unequivocal, and
that anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are “extremely likely” to
be the dominant cause of observed global warming since the mid-20
th
century (IPCC, 2014).
The United States continues to demonstrate intransigence regarding international climate
policy. In fact, climate change denial increased between 2001 and 2010, with free-market
advocacy groups continuing to discredit climate science and policy, a circumstance that began in
the late 1980s (McCright & Dunlap, 2011). Consequently, the Federal government has been
unable to create a policy to address the issue. In the meantime, California governors and the
state legislature joined the scientific global community to enact a series of executive orders and
laws to reduce human produced GHG emissions at California public institutions. The most
notable of these laws is AB-32, approved by the California Assembly in 2006.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 8
AB-32 will impact the 114-member colleges within the California community college
system (CCCS). The CCCS is the second largest in the world, serving over 2.1 million students
on campuses throughout the state. In the aggregate, the system is comprised of 24,000 acres of
land, 5,200 buildings and 72.4 million square feet of space (California Community College
Chancellor’s Office, n.d.). The CCCS plays a role alongside other California public institutions
by encouraging colleges to develop a climate action plan to reduce their GHG production (CCCS
Board of Governor’s Energy & Sustainability Policy, n.d.).
The implementation of energy and water conservation policy could have a significant
environmental impact due to the sheer size of the state. California has a population of just under
40 million (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017) and the 5th largest economy in the world by gross
domestic product (California Department of Finance, 2018). With an 840-mile coastline exposed
to a rising Pacific Ocean, tracts of suburban development abutting natural habitat subject to
annual wildfires, California is incented to fight global warming. As the largest state in the union
by population, the state is large enough to influence public policy in neighboring regions.
State deadlines mandating GHG reduction will begin to force implementation of GHG
reduction strategies. Along with other California public institutions, individual colleges will play
a role in ensuring that the state meets its GHG reduction goals. Colleges will need sustainability
leaders that have knowledge about state requirements and access to available planning tools. For
example, the Community College Chancellor’s Office Department of Facilities offers a
sustainability plan template, and other resources are available from outside parties. Along these
lines, the purpose of this study is to understand the capacity of a Northern California community
college’s sustainability committee to write and implement a sustainability plan, in accordance
with their institutional goal of creating a strong culture of sustainability.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 9
Background of the Problem
Academic literature and scientific consensus overwhelmingly support the hypothesis that
recent global warming is caused by GHG emissions from humans. Cook et al.
(2016) referenced multiple studies to make this point, citing those by Doran and Zimmerman
(2009), Bray and van Storch (2008), Verheggen et al. (2014), Stenhouse et al. (2014), Carleton et
al. (2015), and the Pew Research Center (2015). Of the over 4,000 abstracts authored by climate
scientists who stated a position on human-caused global warming, Cook et al. noted that “97.1%
were judged as having implicitly or explicitly endorsed the consensus” (p. 2).
Surveys indicate however, that the American public is skeptical that humans cause
climate change (Sterman, 2011), though national surveys mask the range of attitudes at the state
and local level. Californians are consistently less skeptical than the rest of the nation (Egan &
Mullin, 2017). In three nationwide surveys between 2011 and 2014, a bare majority of the
American public agreed that human activities are causing global warming (Hamilton, Hartter,
Lemcke-Stampone, Moore, & Safford, 2015).
When it comes to global warming and its causes, it appears that the public is influenced
as much by politics as it is by science (Egan & Mullin, 2017; Hamilton et al., 2015; Shreck &
Vedlitz, 2016). This troubling lack of scientific awareness continues to influence politicians and
decision makers, leading to ill-informed decisions such as withdrawing from the Paris Climate
Accord in 2017. The Paris accord encouraged policies designed to limit human-caused climate
change to not more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrialization levels. Above 2 degrees,
the cycles of climate-based weather extremes are likely to become more common, causing more
damage and potential suffering (IPCC, 2014).
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 10
The long-term solution to this skepticism towards science and scientific results may be
found in colleges and universities. Through their core mission of educating society, Dyer and
Dyer (2017) note that college and universities “shape the mindsets and mental models of
society’s professionals and leaders” with “higher education [as] a critical leverage point in
creating a sustainable society” (p. 112). Through their physical presence, colleges and
universities may demonstrate the full impact of their social mission by including energy
efficiency and sustainable features in the design of their campuses and buildings. By taking
direct and visible action, college leaders have an opportunity to change the future by influencing
those that will lead it.
Additionally, by incorporating sustainability classes into their required curriculum,
academic institutions may influence students to act on their knowledge and develop change-
agent skills. Faculty may develop curriculum to address questions about the distribution of
resources and quality of life impacts, issues that are gaining traction. One way to lower barriers
participation in the sustainability movement is to rely on existing networks. Networks provide
mission statements, templates and other tools to encourage sustainable practices, providing a
pathway for university and college faculty to exchange ideas about the environment and equity
issues related to sustainability (Rowe, 2002).
An example of one such network is the Association of University Leaders for a
Sustainable Future (ULSF). The ULSF created the Talloires Declaration, an influential
international document encouraging university and college leaders to become early adopters in
the fight against human-caused global warming. The ten-point action plan encouraged colleges
and universities to incorporate sustainability and environmental literacy into teaching, research,
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 11
operations and outreach (ULSF, 1990b). Though lacking measurable goals (thus reducing its
effectiveness), over 500 chancellors and presidents worldwide signed the declaration.
The Talloires Declaration was an important first step in encouraging college and
university presidents to take a public stand on sustainability. However, the implementation of
those goals will fall to faculty and staff. In the CCCS, decisions are made through a
participatory governance system. Participatory governance was created by the California
legislature through Assembly Bill AB-1725. The goal was to align the CCCS with the
University of California and California State University governance systems, where the faculty
senate was empowered to provide input on academic and administrative matters (Howell, 2010).
While the focus of this paper is not governance in the CCCS, it is important to understand
that faculty have authority to comment on specific areas of college activity (White, 1998). For
example, faculty may propose curriculum and operational initiatives. For colleges that practice
participatory governance effectively, initiatives developed by faculty and students have a better
chance of implementation. Sustainability planning falls into this category with influence over
facilities operations, curriculum development and even the neighborhood inhabited by the
college (Willson, 2010).
While the public debates the science of global warming, colleges and universities can
educate the next generation of leaders. Those with a grounding in science who understand the
human impacts on the planet may eventually change American public opinion about climate
change. Education requires the efforts of many, including educators that design eco-literate
curriculum, staff that implement sustainable operational practices, and enlightened students
advocating for sustainable operations on their campuses.

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 12
Importance of Addressing the Problem
It is important to solve the challenges related to human-caused global warming for a
variety of reasons. One consequence of rising global temperatures are more extreme weather
events and their effects on human welfare. Global warming strategies have been implemented
inconsistently due to institutional and cultural barriers (Burch, 2010). Socio-cognitive barriers
may also play a part in inconsistent implementation, as the public may not believe they are fully
informed about risks and adaptive strategies. Information on both are needed to maintain trust
between the public and climate change experts (Grothmann & Patt, 2005).
Because climate change is now a political issue, arguments about policy are no longer
based on scientific evidence (Egan & Mullin, 2017; Hamilton et al., 2015; Sterman, 2011). The
lack of national leadership on global warming has put pressure on states and municipalities to
act. The California legislature has joined the international community by passing laws to reduce
GHG to 1990 levels by 2020, 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80% below 1990 levels by
2050. These markers are aligned with international treaties, such as the Paris Climate Accord.
In addition, international agreements were created by concerned leaders of colleges and
universities. Two agreements embody appropriate sustainable practices for colleges and
universities. The Talloires Declaration (ULSF, 1990) and the American College and University
Presidents’ Climate Commitment (Second Nature, 2006) encourage colleges to take a leadership
role in sustainable design and operational practices. Further, they encourage the teaching of
science and eco-literacy. Signing a treaty is a small step towards solving an enormous problem
but doing so allows colleges and universities to participate in finding a solution. Over time,
small steps may soon lead to giant leaps towards a sustainable future (Emanuel & Adams, 2011).
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 13
There are many drivers for achieving sustainability on a college campus. These include
economic development, social equity, health and safety, energy conservation, institutional
enhancement, and international research and development. Taken together, these issues create
new opportunities to improve human development (Waheed, Khan, & Veitch, 2011) and help
avoid the costs of deteriorating environmental systems.
Operational plans may include green purchasing policies, waste-diversion practices,
green-building design and drought-tolerant landscaping. Converting the campus into a “living-
learning laboratory” to inspire students, is also gaining currency (Thomashow et al., 2010).
Students exposed to a curriculum embedded with sustainability demonstrate a more positive
attitude towards it, regardless of their program of study (Watson, Lozano, Noyes, & Rodgers,
2013). Students in less developed parts of the world are not always motivated to act on their
knowledge, so the trend is not universal (Abubakar, Al-Shihri, & Ahmed, 2016). Nevertheless,
colleges signing a sustainability treaty are more likely to begin the process of allocating
resources to address climate change issues (Lozano et al., 2014).
Organizational Context and Mission
This study will examine a community college (NorCal College) with one main campus
and four teaching sites, located in rural Northern California. The college is a fixture in the
community. The largest campus is located just north of downtown in the region’s largest city.
In addition to a full academic program, the college offers sports programs, theater productions,
noontime lectures and a small art museum. A second campus, located 17 miles to the south,
offering a full academic program without theater and competitive sports. Other teaching sites
include a 365-acre teaching farm, a specialized Public Safety Training Center for first responders
and a bilingual center focused on English language learners.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 14
As an open-access college accepting all applicants, the college mission includes
preparing students for transfer to 4-year university, providing technical education responsive to
local business, and foundational skill development. Classes are offered for seniors and other
community members. There is a 4-year state university in the county and more than one world-
class private and public university within the region. The college serves approximately 28,000
commuters, including many first-generation college students. The college is designated as a
Hispanic-serving institution and recently celebrated its 100-year anniversary (NorCal College,
n.d.).
NorCal College’s strategic plan was written in 2014 and includes a sustainability goal.
Sustainable efforts include environmental stewardship, support for the economic vitality of the
college, and an equitable distribution of resources (NorCal College, 2014). The mission
describes the college as a diverse and sustainable learning community, “seeking to cultivate
learning through the creative, intellectual, physical, social, emotional, aesthetic and ethical
development of the students attending this college” (Clark and Estes, 2008).
A governing board policy for sustainability was approved before 2014, addressing energy
and water conservation, GHG reduction, fuel reduction, renewable energy expansion, and the use
of environmentally sensitive building materials (NorCal College, 2003). The previous college
president signed the Talloires Declaration in 2011. Despite these actions by the governing board
and college president, the sustainability committee believed the college was falling short. They
advocated for and included a sustainability goal in the strategic plan.
Organizational Goal
The strategic planning goal supporting sustainability is goal E: “to create a strong culture
of sustainability” (NorCal College, 2014). To support this goal, the sustainability committee
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 15
wrote a sustainability plan in 2015. The plan emphasized three areas: ecology (environmental
stewardship), economy (financial sustainability) and equity (fair resource distribution). It
included 18 aspirational goals (“18 for 2018”) that were not always measurable. Regardless, the
goals provided the framework to develop a culture of sustainability. It asserted,
Now our challenge is to develop a process for decision‐making and implementing plans
guided by research, community standards, and state and national goals. We must also
establish a performance measurement system that tracks progress for the strategic plan
scorecard. Based on these guiding principles, NorCal College has agreed upon 18 target
objectives that should be achieved by the year 2018 (the college’s 100th anniversary) to
emerge as a leader in college and community sustainability.
The 18 goals supported the performance of institutional operations (facilities and procurement),
curriculum development and networking opportunities (eco-literacy initiatives, lectures and
events, and coordination among social equity programs), and communication strategies (outreach
and professional development). The operational goals require organizational support and
funding, while the other goals rely on improved communication.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
There are several stakeholder groups at the college: the sustainability committee, the
district’s administration, and the district’s president and governing board. The primary
stakeholders are members of the sustainability committee, a group of students, faculty, staff and
administrators that share an interest in sustainability. The sustainability committee is a
consultative committee to the academic senate, consisting of up to five faculty, four
administrators, three classified staff, two students and five ex-officio members. The ex-officio
members include dean of science, technology, engineering and math, dean of career
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 16
technological education, director of student equity, director of purchasing, and the manager of
energy and sustainability.
The committee is tasked with representing the college community in matters of
sustainability and making suggestions for improvements to policies, procedures and other
initiatives for sustainable practice. The committee is responsible for promoting sustainability
across the domains of economics and social equity, education and culture, facilities and grounds,
transportation and access, and the committee promotes an eco-literate curriculum. Though the
committee does not make policy (the role of the governing board), administrative procedures are
developed at this level.
A second stakeholder is college administration, including the executive leadership team
(vice presidents) and president’s cabinet. The executive leadership team includes the vice
president (VP) of academic affairs, VP of student services, VP of business and finance, and the
VP of human resources. At the beginning of this study, the president’s cabinet also included the
executive director of the foundation, senior dean of learning resources & educational technology
and library & information resources, senior director of information technology, senior director of
capital projects, and director of district and community relations. The VPs are responsible for
developing and executing various initiatives of the college in their respective areas, as prioritized
by the president of the college. The cabinet members also take on responsibility for their specific
areas of influence. The cabinet meets every week.
The third stakeholder group is the president and governing board. The current president
is only the fifth president in the over 100-year history of the institution. This is notable as the
average tenure of a California community college president is less than 5 years. The governing
board consists of seven elected politicians from throughout the county. Board members
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 17
represent a broad spectrum of voters with diverse backgrounds. The county includes a city with
175,000 people, two smaller cities, small towns, many vineyards, ranchers and farmers. The
board provides oversight, and along with the president, develop the college’s strategic vision,
which is implemented by senior administrators.
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
Each of the three stakeholder groups have goals aligned with their role. The governing
board plays a strategic role in developing sustainability policy, as well as to provide motivation
to staff. The administration implements sustainability policy, ensuring participation and
transparency. Sustainability committee members are the subject matter experts and write the
plan. Table 1 lists primary goals for each stakeholder group and describes the connection
between the organization’s mission, performance goal and the primary goal of each of the
stakeholder groups.
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Organizational Performance and Multiple Stakeholder Goals
Organizational Mission
We cultivate learning in our diverse community through the physical, social, aesthetic,
emotional and ethical development of our students. We prepare students for transfer, provide
career technical education, and improve our students’ foundational skills. We encourage
lifelong learning by seeking joy, personal and professional growth. We support the economic
vitality, social justice and equity, and environmental stewardship of our region.
Organizational Performance Goal
The college will establish a strong culture of sustainability that promotes ecology
(environmental stewardship), economy (financial sustainability), and equity (social justice),
aligned with goal E of the strategic plan.

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 18
Table 1, continued
Stakeholder 1 Goal
(sustainability committee)
Write a new sustainability
plan by December 2019.
Stakeholder 2 Goal
(administration)
Motivate the sustainability
committee to write and
implement SMART goals
(specific, measurable,
achievable, reasonable,
timely).

Stakeholder 3 Goal
(president and governing
board)
Understand and support the
sustainability plan and
development process.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
The joint efforts of all stakeholders will contribute to achieving the organizational goal of
creating a strong culture of sustainability. To create a culture of sustainability, all three
stakeholder groups will be required to work together. The first step in creating cultural change is
to write (or revise) a sustainability plan. As authors of the plan, the sustainability committee
(stakeholder group 1) will have a direct impact on changing the culture of the college. While the
administration (stakeholder group 2), president and board of trustees (stakeholder group 3) will
contribute to the organization’s goal, they will do so as supporters of procedure and approvers of
policy, rather than as direct contributors to the writing and implementation of the plan. The
stakeholder group for this study, therefore, is the sustainability committee.
The sustainability committee will review the existing sustainability plan before writing a
new plan. There may be issues from the first plan that will inform the new plan, including the
incorporation of sustainability in the facilities master plan, sustainability requirements for
construction projects, installation of energy monitoring and energy savings technology,
installation of food-producing demonstration gardens, and progress in incorporating an eco-
literate curriculum.
To prepare for compliance with the governor’s and legislature’s future GHG reduction
goals, the sustainability committee may choose to write a plan that meets state legislative and
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 19
gubernatorial goals, chancellor’s office goals, as well as address other campus sustainability
performance gaps. Failure to accomplish these goals may lead to noncompliance with the state’s
GHG reduction goals of 2030 and 2050. Another consideration is the opportunity to educate
society in the importance of the scientifically based findings supporting GHG reduction.
To date, the state has not levied penalties for non-compliance. To assist colleges in
achieving their sustainability goals, the CCCS Board of Governors (BOG) provides support and
financial incentives to reduce energy consumption (California Community College Chancellor’s
Office [CCCCO] BOG, n. d.). Penalties may eventually be levied and may include the
withholding of maintenance or capital project funding, or the ability to meet with the state
architect’s office for project reviews. These penalties would adversely impact the organization’s
ability to add, improve and properly maintain their facilities.
Purpose of the Project
The purpose of the study is to evaluate the capacity of the college’s sustainability
committee to write and implement a new sustainability plan by December 2019. The analysis
focused on knowledge, motivation and organizational influences related to achieving the
organizational goals. While a complete performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders,
for practical purposes the stakeholder to be focused on in this analysis is the sustainability
committee.
Definitions
AB-32: Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, was the
first program in the country to take a comprehensive, long-term approach to addressing climate
change, and required the state to reduce its output of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020,
estimated to be 15% below a “business as usual” scenario. The bill required a “Scoping Plan,”
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 20
intended to provide a path towards meeting the 2020 goal and improving upon it. A significant
outcome of the plan is the establishment of a carbon market, known as “cap and trade”
(California Air Resources Board, 2017a).
ACUPCC: American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment. The
commitment was created in 2006 by 12 concerned presidents of higher educational institutions,
including three from the community college system. The commitment obligates a participating
college to create a greenhouse gas inventory within 2 months of signing the accord, and then
within 2 years, committing to a target date to become carbon-neutral (Second Nature, 2006).
CCCS: The California Community College System, a federation of 73 community
college districts, each with its own governing board, consisting of 114 colleges, and one online
college (CCCCO, 2018b).
CCCCO: The California Community College Chancellor’s Office, the entity that
provides support and guidance to the 73 independent community college districts in the state.
The CCCCO provides advocacy, coordination and interaction with other state agencies,
including the Department of Finance, which is overseen by the state legislature. The
chancellor’s office also has its own BOG and support staff. The office is in Sacramento
(CCCCO, 2018a).
Executive Order B-30-15: The executive order signed by Governor Brown in 2015,
placing California on track to meet a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the State to
80% below 1990 levels by 2050 (California Office of the Governor, 2015)
Greenhouse Gas: Gases that are known to trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere, including
Carbon Dioxide (CO
2
), Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O), and Fluorinated gases – synthetic
gases emitted from industrial processes (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2017).
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 21
SB-32: Senate Bill 32 is an extension to the California Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006 and requires that the state reduce its GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.
Moreover, the act specifically advocates for the protection of the state’s most disadvantaged
communities, noting that those communities are affected first and most frequently, by the
adverse impacts of climate change, and are disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate
change on public health (Legislative Counsel’s Digest, 2006).
Talloires Declaration: The Talloires Declaration is a ten-point action plan for
incorporating sustainability and environmental literacy in teaching, research, operations and
outreach at colleges and universities (ULSF, 1990a)
Organization of the Project
This study is organized into five chapters. This chapter provided the reader with the key
concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about sustainability planning in
higher education institutions. The organization’s mission, goals and stakeholders and the
framework for the project were introduced. Chapter Two provides a review of current literature
surrounding the scope of the study. International and national declarations that support
sustainability, state laws that drive the implementation of green technology policy in California,
and other issues affecting eco-literacy will be addressed. Chapter Three details the knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences to be examined as well as methodology when it comes
to choosing participants, data collection and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results are
assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five provides solutions, based on data and literature, for closing
the perceived gaps as well as recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan for
the solutions.

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 22
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Sustainability policies for higher education institutions (HEIs) in California are created
and implemented for a variety of reasons and are influenced by external and internal forces.
External forces include specific sustainability targets and requirements stipulated by the
governor and the state legislature. Additional external forces include the ability to capitalize on
financial incentives provided by the community college chancellor’s office, utility companies,
and additional incentives provided by local agencies. Internal forces may include a groundswell
from students, faculty and staff, or the desire of leadership to reduce electrical and water use to
save on utility costs.
HEIs play an important role in social change due to their primary mission of educating
society. Moreover, HEIs can play an even greater role in accelerating societal change through
research innovation and by demonstrating leadership in sustainable development (AdomBent,
2013; Aleixo, Leal, & Azeiteiro, 2018; Ferrer-Balas, Buckland, & deMingo, 2009). In addition to
a reduction in GHGs, sustainable development is part of an ecosystem of sustainability.
Sustainable development encourages the implementation of additional sustainable policies in
purchasing, operations, new construction, curriculum development in eco-literacy, and other
areas. HEIs play a symbiotic role with society by reflecting the values of society and evolving
with the societal structures and social norms of a community. HEIs transform along with
communities they serve (Ferrer-Balas et al., 2009).
Sustainability advocates are realizing that HEIs must work in conjunction with regional
planners to make real progress in implementing sustainable measures (Zilahy & Huisingh, 2009).
As a subset of HEIs, community colleges have the responsibility as “all access institutions” to
create policies that specifically reduce social inequities within a community. By creating
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 23
sustainable campuses and buildings, implementing sustainable operations, measuring and
reducing GHG emissions, and utilizing their expanded societal role as change agents, HEIs may
become sustainable development hubs. These hubs include members of a locally and globally
connected community of researchers and knowledge creators, responsible for trans-generational
issues integral to society (Hansen & Lehmann, 2006; Zilahy & Huisingh, 2009). Most
importantly, HEIs educate students through a research and science-based curriculum. Science-
based courses encourage critical thinking skills and demonstrate through evidence-based inquiry
(and the scientific method) the interconnected nature of environmental systems and the
importance of preserving those systems for future generations (AdomBent, 2013). HEIs have the
potential to be change agents for sustainable development (Aleixo et al., 2018; Ferrer-Balas et
al., 2009; Hansen & Lehmann, 2006; Zilahy & Huisingh, 2009).
This chapter provides an overview of the existing literature regarding HEIs and
sustainability initiatives. Specifically, this chapter examines how HEIs interact with
governmental charters at the international and national levels, and how those charters provide
motivational incentives for an organization (and those within the organization) to advocate for
sustainability. The literature review will touch on the role of a college campus as a regional
sustainability hub. It will explore the knowledge needed to implement widely accepted
measurement, assessment and rating standards, to meet or exceed recently implemented state
laws and guidelines. Finally, the role of participatory governance and its influence on the
organization’s ability to support the writing and implementation of a sustainability plan, is also
explored.

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 24
Sustainability in Higher Education Institutions
Research studies show that HEIs signing a declaration, charter, or incentive related to
sustainability are more likely to implement sustainability initiatives in their institutions (Lozano
et al., 2014). However, there is a gap between intent and implementation. Well-meaning
institutions may sign a declaration but lack the initiative and accountability measures that might
compel them to implement meaningful sustainability measures (Sharon & Wright, 2006).
Moreover, the perceived cost of implementing GHG reduction strategies may cause some
institutions to pause, though there are different ways to provide energy efficiency and
conservation at different price points. The success of a program depends on how it is measured
and whether it is valued (Faghihi, Hessami, & Ford, 2014). Many forms of academic
sustainability research speak to the general interest of academics (Huge, Block, Waas, Wright, &
Dahdouh-Guebas, 2016), but the lack of consistent studies and research is a challenge to
academic researchers interested in gaining funding to further pursue the topic (Huge et al., 2016).
Because funding priorities may be a challenge, the use of existing charters or templates is an
efficient way for an institution to begin the process of institutional sustainability. These tools
eliminate one more organizational obstacle to the implementation of a plan.
Frameworks for Sustainability in HEIs
HEIs may take a leadership role in establishing operational sustainability programs while
co-evolving with society, by transforming to a more integrative view of sustainability (Ferrer-
Balas et al., 2008). They play an important role in developing competencies for future society by
generating new knowledge and imparting that knowledge to students (Rieckmann, 2012). They
become change agents in different cultures and contexts by teaching students the skills to
consider complex problems, by performing real-world sustainability research, and by situating
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 25
universities as transdisciplinary agents of change (Stephens, Hernandez, Roman, Graham, &
Sholz, 2008).
Sustainable approaches include addressing social, environmental and financial
sustainability issues, which is sometimes known as the “triple bottom line” (Rieckmann, 2012),
or “the three pillars” of sustainability (Pati & Lee, 2016). Though not explicitly stated, HEIs
generally follow these same categories in the consideration and implementation of sustainable
plans. Environmental sustainability, financial sustainability, and community sustainability, in the
form of social justice and equity, are common themes in HEIs. A dozen or more international
and national declarations, charters, and initiatives have been written over the past 30 years
encouraging HEIs to actively participate in implementing sustainable measures in their
institutions, with over 1,000 institutions having signed one or more of the declarations (Lozano
et al., 2014).
The Kyoto Protocol, Talloires Declaration and the American College and University
Presidents’ Climate Commitment (as well as Assembly Bill AB-32) are common reference
points for those tasked with writing sustainability plans for community college campuses. The
Northbay college of study has already committed to the Talloires Declaration and may consider
signing the ACUPCC. Signing the ACUPCC will obligate the college to assess and annually
report the amount of GHG expended as a way of encouraging a reduction in output. In this
manner, international treaties directly impact those responsible for the work on an individual
campus. Sustainability committee members will take the lead in assessing and measuring the
GHG output on their campuses. The college president (with support of the governing board) will
be held accountable for signing the document and will be required to empower the leadership
team to find ways to execute the terms of the agreement.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 26
Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol (KP) was adopted in Kyoto, Japan on December
11, 1997 and was entered into force on February 16, 2005.
The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change, which commits its parties by setting
internationally binding emission reduction targets. The Kyoto Protocol is seen as an
important first step towards a truly global emission reduction regime that will stabilize
GHG emissions and can provide the architecture for the future international agreement on
climate change. (U.N. Climate Change Website).
The protocol utilizes 1990 levels of GHG as its baseline, which later initiatives are
measured against. The KP has been criticized by the popular press and by the scientific
community alike for different reasons. The scientific community is concerned about the lack of
a strong enforcement vehicle. The popular press suggests that the KP is biased against big
business because developing countries are not held to the same GHG limits as developed
countries.
Nevertheless, all but three of the world’s 195 countries signed the document. The non-
signatories are Afghanistan, South Sudan and the United States, the world’s largest economy and
the largest emitter of GHG. Though early findings demonstrate that the KP did not produce a
significant or persistent reduction in GHG (Almer & Winkler, 2017), the California legislature
adopted a GHG reduction standard with goals on par with those outlined in the KP and created a
market-based carbon reduction strategy. The strategy was executed through legislation and
gubernatorial action, by two Governors of different political parties. The GHG reduction goals
are directly applicable to the community college system because as public agencies, they will be
required to reduce their GHG output accordingly.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 27
While the significance of the KP may be in dispute, the document was the first globally
agreed upon international agreement to address climate change. The influence on policy is
demonstrated by its ability to motivate local, state and forward-looking public institutions (such
as the state government of California) to act. If nothing else, the treaty has influenced
environmentally sympathetic policy makers to embrace the document as a call to action.
Talloires Declaration. The Talloires Declaration was created by 22 college and
university presidents, rectors and vice-chancellors in 1990 at an international conference in
Talloires, France. The declaration called for universities to model environmentally sustainable
behavior in their institutions’ day to day activities, recognizing that the university or college is a
microcosm of the larger community. “By practicing what it preaches, the university can both
engage students in understanding the institutional metabolism of materials and activities and
have them actively participate to minimize pollution and waste” (ULSF, n.d.).
The 10-point Talloires Declaration plan seeks to incorporate sustainability and
environmental literacy in teaching, research and outreach, and to incorporate sustainable
practices in their operations. In signing the Talloires, a HEI joins a community of like-minded
institutions with access to resources and knowledge. The declaration has been signed by over
500 university leaders in over 50 countries to date (ULSF website, n.d.). Because of the
popularity of the document, the declaration is credited with creating a “paradigm shift” in the
world of HEI sustainability (Waheed et al., 2011).
The declaration is a call to commitment by HEIs, encouraging college and university
presidents to take a leadership role in sustainability by calling for environmental management
and sustainable development. The declaration is not without criticism, however. It does not
require specific sustainability actions and allows an HEI to “greenwash” their commitment to
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 28
sustainability (Ramirez, 2015) by allowing college presidents to make a commitment that does
nothing to change the behavior of the organization. The North Bay college of study may suffer
from this malady, and an area of inquiry will be to understand if the college community has seen
measurable environmental improvements.
American college and university presidents’ climate commitment. The American
College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) was founded in 2007 by 12
visionary HEI leaders, including four from the community college system, three of whom were
from California. The commitment builds on previous declarations (including the Talloires
Declaration) by establishing specific GHG reduction targets and requiring that the HEI publicly
report its GHG inventory every year. The ACUPCC recognizes the unique position of HEIs as
educators of future generations and includes membership in a network of information that
includes education, research, and community engagement (Second Nature, 2018).
The specific measurements required by the ACUPCC include completion of an emissions
inventory within a year (and annually thereafter). Moreover, it requires that HEIs develop a
climate action plan that includes steps to integrate sustainability into curriculum, research and
community engagement. Additionally, the ACUPCC requires the HEI to make those initiatives
and inventories available to the public. In doing so, it is hoped that the public and other
interested parties will hold the HEI accountable for meeting their commitments.
A unique feature of the ACUPCC is that it utilizes a “back-casting” framework. This
requires HEIs to set audacious sustainability goals and then work backwards on a plan to achieve
those goals, rather than simply project forward to something easily achievable. Like the
Talloires, the framework includes connectivity to a network of like-minded institutions, and the
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 29
benefit of gaining access to a knowledgeable and established community of like-minded
advocates (Dyer & Dyer, 2017).
The ACUPCC, Talloires Declaration and KP are helpful reference documents for the
Northbay college of study’s sustainability advocates to utilize in writing a sustainability plan.
These international and national treaties are readily available and provide a means to connect to
additional resources. These organizations provide campus sustainability committees (and
individual sustainability advocates) the help needed to write a convincing, measurable and
implementable sustainability plan. Though these declarations are developed at an international
and national level, they are part of a growing list of tools available to HEIs to solve institutional
problems of practice.
GHG Reduction in California Public Institutions
California has become a leader in developing statewide policies to reduce GHG
emissions through a unique combination of executive and legislative actions (Greenblatt, 2015;
Yang, Yeh, Zakerinia, Ramea, & McCollum, 2015; Yeh et al., 2016,). California’s public
institutions are asked to participate in meeting these policies goals by reducing GHG production,
energy and water consumption, and waste reduction in their physical plant operations.
Moreover, the law states that consideration must be given to the impact of pollution on
disenfranchised communities (Legislative Counsel’s Digest, 2006), a community that the CCS
also serves.
State Gubernatorial and Legislative Actions for GHG Reduction
A series of Gubernatorial and Legislative actions make California a leader in the
establishment of sustainability targets. These targets have led to an ecosystem of academic
energy modelers, policy makers and stakeholders. These independent advocates are dependent
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 30
on each other to create and measure effective solutions to the challenge of global warming (Yeh
et al., 2016). Knowledge of these state and regional initiatives provide a framework for action.
The framework provides motivation for sustainability advocates as well as a justification to
prioritize sustainability initiatives to meet these legislative goals.
Gubernatorial executive orders (EO). In 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
signed EO S-3-05, setting an ambitious goal for the state to reduce GHG to 80% below 1990
levels by 2050. This goal matched the level set by the KP, which was not signed by the United
States. In April of 2015, Governor Jerry Brown declared that the state would continue to
demonstrate leadership in the reduction of GHG in public institutions by signing EO B-30-15,
setting an intermediate goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. This
put California on pace with other industrialized nations, mostly in Europe (California Office of
the Governor, 2015), and the EO was later codified into law as SB-32, in 2016 (California Office
of the Governor, 2016). The Northbay college of study’s sustainability committee will be
expected to produce a measurable plan to reduce GHG on campus. Asking the president of the
college to sign the ACUPCC would provide an appropriate framework to begin the path towards
the goal of reducing GHG to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.
California senate bills (SB) and assembly bills (AB). In 2006, the legislature passed
AB-32, the “Global Warming Solutions Act,” declaring that the State of California would reduce
its GHG output to 1990 levels by 2020, 15% below the expected carbon emissions under a
“business as usual” scenario. AB-32 established a California carbon market, known as the “cap
and trade” system (California Air Resources Board, 2006). The system essentially granted “old
economy” (carbon-based) industries the ability to pollute by purchasing credits from new clean-
energy producers. The policy was touted as a market-based solution to creating new “clean”
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 31
technologies by providing incentives to produce cleaner energy. It is hoped that the market will
lead to the eventual phase-out of carbon-based technology by slowly lowering the amount of
carbon allowed by 3% per year (California Air Resources Board, 2006).
Recent international studies of a similar model associated with the KP demonstrate a 7%
to 10% reduction in GHG produced. However, these reductions were offset by increases of up to
14% in carbon credits, thus negating the overall benefit of the offset (Aiche & Felbermayr,
2012). Continued studies about the effectiveness of this program is warranted. Recent California-
based studies are more positive about the ability of the state to meet its midterm (2030) GHG
reduction target (Greenblatt, 2015; Yang et al., 2014; Yeh et al., 2016), though the long-term
target will likely require additional technology and public policy development (Greenblatt,
2015).
California’s other notable initiatives include SB-350, which was passed in October 2015
and requires California to produce half of its energy from renewable sources by 2030 (California
Office of Legislative Counsel, n.d.). Though unrelated to this college of study, a very recent
initiative by the California Energy Commission requires all homes built in California to have
solar panels by 2020 (California Energy Commission, 2018). Finally, SB-32 codified an earlier
EO and established an intermediate milestone to allow scientists to check the validity of the data
collected through 2030. The bill provided policy makers with an opportunity to make midpoint
policy corrections and encourage technology innovations. The bill is expected to position the
state in a stronger position to meet the ambitious GHG reduction goal established by EO S-3-05
by 2050.

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 32
Regional Incentives for GHG Reduction and Energy Savings
Sustainability advocates on community college campuses have access to templates
prepared by the state chancellor’s office. They may be aware of financial incentives provided by
other entities such as PGE. Working from a common template is often more efficient than
creating original material, and templates provide a way to organize data more consistently.
Consistent formatting of energy metrics will allow colleges to measure and report progress by
making the data externally verifiable. Measurement and verification are challenges within the
NGO community generally (Ceulemans, Molderez, & Van Liedekerke, 2015; Crespy & Miller,
2011), and colleges are no exception.
California Community College Chancellor’s Office (CCCCO). In addition to the
general requirements of the State, the CCCCO BOG established a sustainability plan to
encourage energy efficiency and conservation within the system. Financial incentives of up to
3% of construction cost are offered to encourage efficient building systems, energy
independence, and the long-term development and implementation of best practices in energy
conservation, sustainable building and physical plant management (CCCCO BOG, n.d.). The
CCCCO website also includes valuable sustainability templates and links to sites encouraging
colleges to reduce their carbon footprint. The most explanative information is a template
provided by the CCCCO. The template was prepared for Citrus College (northeast of Los
Angeles) and was deemed a success by the chancellor’s office, as evidenced by the fact that it
was posted as a template on the chancellor’s office facilities website (CCCCO, 2012).
The template includes a step by step guide to implementing a sustainability plan in a
community college. Steps include receiving a commitment from the campus administration to
establish and implement a plan; establishing a sustainability committee; defining the vision,
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 33
goals, criteria, and timelines for implementation; selecting and prioritizing the desired programs
to implement; creating and executing the action plans; and monitoring and regularly reporting
progress to the campus community (Newcomb, Anderson & McCormick, 2012). This valuable
guide could save the NorCal College from having to organize the material, should the
sustainability committee choose to use it.
PGE incentives. Another regional energy savings incentive for community colleges is
the PGE “savings by design” program. This program stipulates that a new or renovated project
must exceed the state’s energy code by 10% or more. In return, a lump-sum payment will be
made to the owner of up to $150,000 based on the amount of energy saved. Ideal projects are
30,000 square feet (a common project size for community college buildings) and plans are
submitted to PGE for review and input, prior to being submitted for a building permit (PGE,
2018). Because this NorCal College has a $410M capital improvement bond to upgrade its
facilities and to build new buildings, this incentive would provide a significant boost to spending
for multiple projects, both new and renovated.
Climate Corps Fellows. The Climate Corp Fellows program provides much needed
labor in the form of interns, to assist in tasks associated with the creation implementation of
energy savings programs. While the program comes with some cost to the institution, the cost
for labor is offset by the Fellows program, and Fellows are specifically selected for their
background and training in sustainability. The program provides an opportunity for students to
gain valuable work experience, while providing institutions with a trained workforce to assist in
implementing sustainability policies (Environmental Defense Fund, 2018). The Northbay
college of study could utilize additional labor to assist with implementing the capital
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 34
improvement bond and utilize the extra labor to measure the amount of GHG the college
produces, one of the requirements of the ACUPCC.
The Campus as a Regional Sustainability Hub
In urban, suburban, and rural communities alike, the campus of an HEI is one of the more
dynamic social hubs and often the cultural and intellectual center of the town (O’Mara, 2012).
While socioeconomic tensions sometimes exist between longtime residents and the (sometimes)
wealthier and transient students passing through in 4-year cycles, colleges contribute economic
and social benefits to the communities they serve (Weill, 2009; O’Mara, 2012). Though
community colleges traditionally serve local residents and provide many of the same cultural
benefits to a community as a 4-year HEI, the relationship between a college and the
neighborhood surrounding it is fluid and dynamic. Specific policy initiatives, such as the
implementation of a sustainability plan, are better positioned for success when engagement with
the neighborhood is executed at the highest levels of the college (McComas, Stedman, & Hart,
2011).
In the areas of sustainability, HEIs may take a leadership role by properly managing their
operations. By sharing intellectual resources and new ideas, creating partnerships to influence
other governmental agencies, and providing motivation by taking the lead in implementation, a
college campus can be a living lab for social change. At their best, HEIs may become
responsible for the co-design and co-production of new knowledge, ideas and initiatives
(Trencher, Bai, Evans, McCormick, & Yarime, 2014). Together, cities and colleges are well
positioned to resolve longstanding societal problems by considering strategic partnerships for
mutually beneficial reasons (O’Mara, 2010; Weill, 2009). An HEI can ignite the spark that
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 35
begins a sustainability movement in a larger context (Saadatian, Sopian, & Salleh, 2013;
Trencher et al., 2014; Zilahy & Huisingh, 2009).
Examples of experimentation in HEIs abound, and in areas that may have later
application to larger organizations or to a larger community. One Malaysian HEI found that
through a process of “co-management,” students and administrators successfully implemented a
system of waste collection and recycling. This led to reduced waste management costs for the
university (Zen et al., 2016). In a study of a large university in Texas, a sustainable economic
model was institutionalized, so that energy savings were used to fund additional sustainability
measures. This created a virtuous cycle of incentives that paid for the continued creation of new
energy programs that in turn, brought more funding (Faghihi et al., 2014).
Other studies, particularly around GHG reduction, have proven to be more challenging
and mirror the sometimes-stubborn challenge of reducing GHG beyond the boundaries of the
HEI. Studies in England, India and Norway, suggest that the largest GHG contributors to HEIs
are not produced on campus, but are the “level 3” emissions generated by transportation, the
purchase of goods and services, and construction activity (Larsen, Pettersen, Solli, & Hertwich,
2013; Ozawa-Meida, Brockway, Letten, Davies, & Fleming, 2013; Robinson, Kemp, &
Williams, 2015; Robinson, Tewkesbury, Kemp, & Williams, 2018). Of the studies that
specifically measured level 3 transportation, over 78% of the GHG “generated” by an HEI was
attributed to commuting to and from campus, overwhelmingly in single occupancy automobiles
(Hancock & Nuttman, 2014; Ozawa-Meida et al., 2013). Moreover, a study of a major Australian
university found that a quarter of the students and staff lived within seven miles of the university,
yet half of the students and 80% of the staff travelled to and from campus in a single occupancy
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 36
motor vehicle. The same report noted that half of the students and 80% of the staff owned a
bicycle, but less than 2% rode to campus (Hancock & Nuttman, 2014).
Nevertheless, a campus shares a symbiotic relationship with its local community. Local
culture has an impact on students and their willingness to act on their knowledge. Emanuel and
Adams (2011) studied a group of students from the University of Hawaii (UH), comparing them
with students from the University of Alabama (UA), to test their interest in sustainability issues
and their willingness to act on that knowledge. The states were selected based on their “green”
rating, according to a 2007 Forbes magazine article, which rated Hawaii as the fourth greenest
state and Alabama the 48th. The study found that both sets of students were similar in their
knowledge of sustainability issues and the causes of those issues. Both sets of students were
enthusiastic about sustainability. But the Hawaiian students were much more likely to act on
their knowledge and engage in sustainable practices, including recycling, using environmentally
sustainable products, and utilizing environmentally friendly transportation. The transportation
issue was notable because twice as many UH students commuted to school than UA students.
The study concluded that the difference in local cultural norms was the biggest difference in
what motivated the students to act on their knowledge.
The effects of eco-literacy on a student may not show itself until later. Even a single
college or university course may make a difference in raising awareness and creating long lasting
change in attitude towards sustainability, with potentially far reaching impact, including caring
for the future of society (Emanuel & Adams, 2011; Rowe, 2002). As the effects of climate
change and exposure to extreme climate events becomes more common, an improved
understanding and interpretation of these weather events may change Americans’ perceptions
about the causes of global warming. Those changed perceptions may provide motivation to
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 37
engage in solving the problem (Egan & Mullin, 2017). By understanding how individual actions
affect change, students may feel more incented to ride a bus or to carpool, rather than arrive in a
single occupancy vehicle. Through student advocacy, a college could make bike and bus riding
more convenient, and car commuting less so.
At the local level, it might be of interest to understand the capacity of the sustainability
committee to explore issues associated with becoming a sustainability hub. For example, there
may be a performance gap between the sustainability committee members’ knowledge and
motivation around addressing issues of sustainability beyond GHG reduction, such as waste
reduction and transportation. Regardless, there are tools to assist the Northbay college of study
in measuring, assessing and reporting the success of sustainability in HEIs that are beyond the
basic requirements of the state.
Measuring, Assessing and Reporting the Success of Sustainability in HEIs
Several academic studies attempt to measure sustainability programs in HEIs to provide a
means to compare the effectiveness of programs across institutions of different sizes, but these
the measures are inconsistent (Adams, 2013; Alonso-Almeida, Marimon, Casani, & Rodriguez-
Pomeda, 2015; Ceulemans et al., 2015; Gomez, Saez-Navarrete, Lioi, & Marzuca, 2015; Lozano,
2011). To increase the chances of success, sustainability plans should be integrated with the
strategic mission of the college and supported by the educational and facilities master planning
process. Moreover, when sustainability plans are also linked to the accumulated information
embedded in common declarations and treaties (such as the Talloires and ACUPCC), they have a
higher chance of being implemented (Lozano et al., 2014).
Private corporations are required to report on sustainability initiatives more regularly than
HEIs and are more effective in doing so (Ceulemans et al., 2015). The measures utilized by the
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 38
private sector are not easily transferable to HEIs because reporting is often expressed in return on
investment, a financial measure that HEIs do not always prioritize. Treaties and declarations
related to sustainability, such as the Talloires or ACUPCC, are inconsistent with each other or
unspecific in their reporting requirements, making them less effective (Adams, 2013; Ceulemans
et al., 2015; Lozano, 2011;).
An argument can also be made that a “one size fits all” measurement approach is equally
ineffective, as they do not account for the individual peculiarities of an institution, site or
context. Measurements to judge progress or the effectiveness of a program are most useful when
they are fine tuned to fit the needs of an individual institution (Adams, 2013). Nevertheless,
more focus could be dedicated to studying the implementation process in HEIs, rather than
focusing solely on the results (Alanso-Almeida et al., 2014; Cuelemans et al., 2015).
Understanding the capacity of the stakeholder group may provide an opportunity to focus on
implementation.
The resulting inconsistency in sustainability reporting has made it difficult to measure
success across HEIs, as clear reporting would provide a vehicle to benchmark against other
progressive institutions (Cuelemans et al., 2015). However, environmental rating systems have
been developed by third-party groups outside of academia. When combined with HEI treaties
and declarations, third-party environmental rating systems may provide an effective framework
for institutional measurement and motivation, even if they largely focus on building construction.
These systems include specific rating systems that consider the projected amount of energy and
water to be used in the building. Moreover, they encourage the use of low-VOC materials with
little or no off-gassing properties. Additionally, these systems provide incentives for site-based
features such as proximity to public transportation or the use of renewable energy on site.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 39
Rating Systems in Colleges and Universities
Prior knowledge of rating systems is important, as these third-party standards require
experienced professionals to design and build to meet the rating systems, track points, and
submit the appropriate paperwork to the accrediting agencies. There are additional project costs
associated with the rating systems. However, a successful project may provide positive internal
communication and external publicity (Cuelemans et al., 2015). Rating systems pose a particular
challenge in that they often have costs associated with them, while also providing useful data and
measurement. The ability of the Northbay college sustainable committee to decide which tools
to use given the resources available, may require input from other stakeholder groups, including
the governing board and president.
LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). The LEED accreditation
is offered by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC). Founded in 1993, the LEED
accreditation is the oldest green rating system for specific building projects. It is the best known
within the design and construction community. The rating system is tiered. A building project
will receive one of four distinctions: Accredited, Silver, Gold, or Platinum. The distinction is
earned by gaining points by meeting predetermined criteria, accounted for by a third-party
consultant. The final rating is determined by the number of points gained through the design and
construction process. The final point tally is entered in a database at USGBC headquarters in
Washington, DC (USGBC, n.d.). An official plaque may be placed on the building itself,
indicating the rating achieved. Knowledge about the design and construction process is required,
in addition to an understanding of the LEED tracking process and the accumulation of points.
Finally, the USGBC offers certification as a LEED professional by completing a rigorous
training process, which includes passing a test and taking continuing education classes.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 40
The Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education
(AASHE). AASHE serves as a resource for the ecosystem of interested and committed
sustainability advocates within the college and university system.
AASHE empowers higher education faculty, administrators, staff and students to be
effective change agents and drivers of sustainability innovation. AASHE enables
members to translate information into action by offering essential resources and
professional development to a diverse, engaged community of sustainability leaders
(AASHE, 2018).
Established in 2005, AASHE is comprised of over 900 member institutions, with a four
part vision statement: (a) empower members to be transformational leaders for sustainability by
providing indispensable resources and outstanding professional development; (b) catalyze
sustainability action and innovation through STARS (Sustainability Tracking, Assessment &
Rating System™); (c) accelerate higher education’s contributions to global sustainability through
increased outreach, communications and advocacy; and (d) enhance organizational capacity &
resilience by growing the AASHE member community, optimizing internal efficiency and
improving the customer experience, strengthening organizational leadership and governance,
creating a culture that supports employee well-being and motivation, and ensuring AASHE’s
financial health and stability (AASHE, 2018). A key part of the AASHE ecosystem is the STARs
rating system. This is a tracking system that allows member institutions to share information
about their sustainability activity so that others may use it.
The STARS. The STARS system is a resource to connect the HEI sustainability
community together and is intended to reward and provide public acknowledgement for progress
in the implementation of sustainability initiatives. Using the STARS rating system, which is
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 41
very similar to the LEED rating system, an institution may earn one of four distinctions: Bronze,
Silver, Gold, and Platinum. They may choose to simply become a “reporter,” which gives the
institution access to the data in exchange for sharing their own institution’s data. According to
the AASHE website (2018),
STARS is a transparent, self-reporting framework for colleges and universities to
measure their sustainability performance. STARS is intended to engage and recognize the
full spectrum of colleges and universities – from community colleges to research
universities – and encompasses long-term sustainability goals for already high-achieving
institutions as well as entry points of recognition for institutions that are taking first steps
toward sustainability. (webpage overview).
STARS is designed to provide a framework for understanding sustainability in all sectors
of higher education. STARS enables meaningful comparisons over time and across institutions,
using a common set of measurements developed with broad participation from the international
campus sustainability community (Maragakis & van den Dobbelsteen, 2015). STARS is
committed to continual process improvement and will facilitate information sharing about higher
education sustainability practices and performance (AASHE, 2018).
Though each of these reporting structures provides a different set of data, these efforts
create a set of common goals and the ability to exchange information, linking together a global
network of committed and sustainable college and universities, one of the primary goals of the
Talloires Declaration (ULSF, 1990). A growing number of HEIs are signing onto the Talloires,
the ACUPCC, and other local, national, and international sustainability treaties and declarations
that provide a conceptual framework for sustainability planning. The California legislature and
governor’s office continue to create laws and EOs that provide performance milestones and
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 42
timeframes. The CCCCO (and other agencies such as PGE) provide planning templates and
financial incentives. Finally, third-party agencies (such as ASSHE and LEED) provide ratings,
measurements and other external motivators (such as public recognition). The ability of an
institution to move towards sustainability, therefore, is as accessible as ever. The question then,
is whether the institution has the problem-solving skills (including the required knowledge,
motivation and organizational support) to write and implement a sustainability plan.
Conceptual and Methodological Framework for the Study
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, a systematic, analytical method that helps to clarify
organizational goals and identify knowledge, motivation and organizational influences, will be
adapted to an evaluation model and implemented as the conceptual framework for the study. The
methodological framework is a qualitative case study. Assumed knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences that impact the community college’s goal of writing a new
sustainability plan will be generated based on personal knowledge and related literature. These
influences will be assessed by using interviews and data analysis based on those interviews.
Research-based solutions will be recommended and evaluated in a comprehensive manner.
Knowledge and Skills
According to Anderson and Krathwohl (2001), there are four types of general knowledge:
factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive. A gap in knowledge may be remedied with
information, job aids, training or education, depending on the magnitude of the gap (Clark &
Estes, 2008). The writing of a new sustainability plan by NorCal College is a significant
undertaking as it affects many operational areas of the college, and sustainability committee
members may require additional coaching and education to write a sophisticated plan. If the new
plan is even half as ambitious as the college’s first sustainability plan, written just three years
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 43
ago, knowledge about international sustainability treaties, outside agency rating systems, state
legislative mandates, city sustainability incentives, and curriculum development are the minimal
knowledge requirements to create a more measurable and sophisticated plan. An area of
exploration is whether committee members are willing to reflect upon and evaluate the first
sustainability plan with a critical eye, and whether they are willing to adjust the goals or
implementation processes in the next sustainability plan. A willingness to shift strategies may
demonstrate a deeper understanding of strategy and its implications. At the very least, a willful
decision about how to proceed would illustrate a level of critical reflection and clarity,
demonstrating a higher level of knowledge, what Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) might
characterize as metacognition.
The existing sustainability plan and SMART goal setting. Of the 18 sustainability
goals in the current plan for this North Bay college, nine are related to environmental
stewardship, the most technical of the sustainability categories as defined by the committee.
Three are related to social justice and equity. Surprisingly, none are related to economic
sustainability, although the implementation of energy savings projects will result in operational
cost savings. Five categories were devoted to publicity and communication. Committee
members should familiarize themselves with the existing sustainability plan, consider where it
succeeded and where it fell short.
The existing plan had a variety of goals and sub-goals, with some more aspirational than
realistic. This was acknowledged in the preface, where the authors were clear in their intention
to create a “big picture” plan (NorCal College, 2015), aligned with the 100th year anniversary of
the college. The plan stated that NorCal College aspires “to emerge as a leader in college and
community sustainability” and certainly demonstrated a commitment of time and energy,
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 44
evidenced by the willingness to write an original document. It is not known whether the authors
knew about the CCCCO template, which may have provided a plan, more consistent with other
community colleges in California that had already produced a plan. This may be an area to
explore with committee members, to better understand their commitment to creating a culture of
sustainability when none existed, and how that commitment was expressed in their plan.
Looking ahead to the next iteration of the sustainability plan, the current set of
sustainability committee members should incorporate measurable timebound goals. The
SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, timebound) approach to goal setting (Doran,
1981) is an example of this approach. Though the SMART acronym will be used throughout this
study, it is not the only way to create measurable, timebound goals. Additionally, the committee
may utilize existing templates and well-defined measurement standards such as LEED and
STARS. The value of this approach is the measurable data points that may be used in
comparison to other colleges. In any case, this study will probe both questions to measure their
feelings of success and their willingness to adopt these SMART goals. The ability of committee
members to reflect on their previous experience and to consider whether to modify their
approach, reflects their deep understanding of sustainability.
Table 2 presents information about important knowledge influences and knowledge
types, critical to the implementation of a college’s sustainability plan.

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 45
Table 2
Assumed Knowledge Influences
Assumed Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type
Members of the sustainability committee should know the
18 objectives of the existing sustainability plan and the
sub-points
Declarative (Conceptual)

Sustainability committee members should know about
templates and existing sustainability rating instruments
Declarative (Procedural)
Sustainability committee members should know what a
measurable and timebound (SMART) goal is
Declarative (Conceptual)
Members of the sustainability committee should reflect
upon whether there is value to writing another original
plan, or utilize 3
rd
party rating instruments
Metacognitive

Motivation
Motivation plays a key role in performance and is demonstrated in behavior choices, the
level of activity and involvement, and persistence and management of effort (Dembo & Seli,
2016). Motivation is also affected by an individual's belief system, values, personal goals, and
even the level of confidence brought to the task (Clark & Estes, 2008; Dembo & Seli, 2016).
Motivation is affected by personal goals, which may be categorized as mastery or performance
goals. Those motivated by a mastery goal seek information for self-improvement, regardless of
the performance of others. Those motivated by a performance goal seek to learn, in order to
outperform others (Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett, & Norman, 2010; Dembo & Seli, 2016).
Research evidence suggests that intrinsic motivation is a greater predictor of engagement and
success than performance goal motivation (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). These motivational
concepts affect individual and collective motivation for members of the North Bay community
college's sustainability committee to write a new sustainability plan, and these motivational
factors should be explored.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 46
Expectancy value motivational theory. Expectancy value motivational theory
describes whether an individual student has the ability and desire to perform a task. In simple
terms, the motivational questions are: “Can I do the task?” and “Do I want to do the task?” An
affirmative answer to both questions is needed before a full and sustained effort is given. There
are four related constructs in goal setting: intrinsic value, tasks that are performed for their
intrinsic enjoyment; attainment value, those that are consistent with one’s self-image; utility
value, the value one attaches to personal reward; and the perceived cost of engaging in the
activity (Eccles, 2010).
The sustainability committee’s ability to write a new sustainability plan requires a high
degree of motivation to develop a plan of broad scope and influence and may require patience to
gain new knowledge. Depending on their personal value system, individual committee members
may have an intrinsic interest in executing the plan because of a personal passion for
environmental stewardship, which they would seek regardless of external reward. Other
members may attach an “attainment value” to the implementation of the plan, as their self-image,
social interests, and long-range goals and plans may include advocacy for social justice and
equity. For example, the construction of a distribution pantry for food-insecure students may
appeal to their sense of fairness. There may be committee members whose motivation is simply
transactional, as they may have a long-term interest in lowering the operational costs of running
a large facility and may be seeking a long-term reward for doing so. In fact, an interesting area
to probe would be the differences in motivation of those members who are appointed to the
committee (or must serve because of their title) compared to those that volunteer, and whether
those motivational differences are connected to the committee members’ feelings about whether
to even take on the task, and at what cost (in terms of time). For those that volunteer, fear of
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 47
failure would be outweighed by a task that they see as personally meaningful and interesting
(Eccles, quoting Deci and Ryan, 2010), whereas those that are appointed, may simply be filling
out a requirement to serve on a committee.
Self-efficacy. Another motivational influence that influences task engagement is self-
efficacy, the belief that one can successfully complete a specific task. According to Bandura,
(1977, as cited in Ambrose et al., 2010), “efficacy expectancies represent the belief that one is
capable of identifying, organizing, initiating, and executing a course of action that will bring
about a desired outcome” (p. 77). There are four sources of self-efficacy: previous performance
on a task; observation; positive verbal and social messages from others; and an individual’s
emotional and psychological state (Bandura, 1977, as cited in Dembo & Seli, 2016). High levels
of self-efficacy lead to higher levels of engagement and persistence, and more challenging tasks
are sought after because there exists an intrinsic belief, often based on experience, that the task
can be accomplished with hard work, effort and persistence (controllable factors), rather than
external forces such as luck and timing (Ambrose et al., 2010).
Sustainability committee members receive positive verbal and social messages from
nearly all quarters of the college. They have experienced positive measurable results in terms of
energy and water savings from the previous plan. Recent external acknowledgement includes a
facility master planning award from the CCCCO. The college has received positive feedback
from the state and city, in the form of sustainability grants. These motivational factors should
encourage committee members to continue their work, and to write an implementation plan to
keep up their forward momentum. This study will probe specifically into the degree to which
committee members feel self-efficacious about their ability to continue to execute on the current
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 48
plan. It will also explore their feelings about writing a new plan, and whether they feel the
institution is closer to meeting their goal of creating a culture of sustainability.
Table 3 presents two key motivational constructs that affect the implementation of the
sustainability plan.
Table 3
Assumed Motivation Influences
Motivation Construct Assumed Motivation Influence
Expectancy Value Intrinsic Value – Committee members need to see the value
of writing a new sustainability plan, meeting requirements of
the state to reduce GHG, water, and energy use, and to
implement projects fairly and equitably.
Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy – Committee members need to believe that they
are capable of writing a new sustainability plan, with
SMART goals.

Organizational Influences
Organizational influences, in addition to knowledge and motivation, determine whether
stakeholders can be successful in performing their roles in the organization and achieving their
goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) identify the role of culture and
its influence in educational processes and outcomes, making a distinction between cultural
models and settings. Applied to organizations, cultural models are the shared but unwritten
constructs that guide and influence institutional behavior. They are the implicit rules that those
within the culture understand and operate within, even if the rules are not apparent to the
outsider. One might go as far as to say that “culture is to a group, what personality or character
is to an individual” (Schein, 2004).
The organization’s cultural settings, on the other hand, are occasions where groups of
people come together to accomplish something jointly that they perceive to have value. The
“setting” is not a physical environment, but a regular and habitual action of participants, working
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 49
towards a common goal. Settings include visible manifestations of cultural models such as
policies and procedures within the institution. For example, a new sustainability program
(including effective communication to gain approval from the cabinet, president and governing
board) may rely not on an individual leader, but on the collective expression of a committee’s
recommendation through the advocacy of the academic senate.
Cultural models and settings both influence whether a sustainability plan will be
successfully implemented within a college setting, but in different ways. Cultural settings
influence how things are done, while cultural models influence whether they are accepted. Both
are important to the success of the initiative. Clark and Estes (2008) note that when institutional
goals, policies and procedures are out of alignment with the institutional culture, performance
problems exist. Rueda (2011) notes that organizational structures, policies and practices may
influence whether the performance goals of an organization can be met.
Because policy is carried out and requires acceptance at different levels of the college, it
is important to understand the cultural models and settings that influence policy. Cultural
models include unseen forces such as collegiality, sincerity and trust, while cultural settings
include the work of creating and implementing the policy and procedures expressed in
documents and manuals. Clark and Estes (2008) further identify unique cultural supports
necessary to implement organizational change, including clear vision and way to measure
progress, alignment between existing organizational processes and goals, constant and candid
communication with those involved, and the commitment and support of the initiative by leaders
of the college. These concepts will be explored in this section.
Culture of collegiality and trust. The writing of a new sustainability plan will depend
on the ability of the sustainability committee to act as a single entity, sometimes subjugating
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 50
their own interests for the will of the group. Highly functioning committees can make clear and
timely decisions and move forward with complete acceptance from every member of the
committee, even those who voted against the decision (Lencioni, 2002). In addition, members of
the committee have an incentive to write a clear and specific plan with measurable goals, as they
will be tasked with implementing it. While the overall organizational goal of “creating a culture
of sustainability” is visionary and aspirational, this study should probe committee members
about their feelings about the success of the first plan, so that the next plan can address areas that
were not accomplished.
Implementation of the sustainability plan will require cross-department collaboration, and
The directors of capital projects, facilities operations and purchasing are members of the
sustainability committee and will be affected by the actions of the committee overall. Therefore,
it will be important to explore the perceptions of operational leaders about whether their
concerns are being addressed, and whether the believe that inter-departmental communication is
effective. For example, new “green” purchasing policies prioritizing green materials over
chemically enhanced solvents will require the approval of finance, as the long-term health
benefits may require higher up-front costs.
Institutional and personal leadership. The faculty senate of California community
colleges were granted the right to participate in policy making through AB-1725, passed in 1988.
Over time, this policy has been institutionalized as a “participatory governance” system,
allowing faculty, classified staff and managers to comment on policy before it is approved by the
governing board. To that end, it is important to probe the feelings of faculty, staff and managers
to assess their feelings about the organizational support for a new sustainability plan, as their
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 51
personal motivations will intersect with the willingness of the organization to support the
initiative.
Organizational support can make or destroy workplace motivation. Personal and team
confidence, positive beliefs about organizational and environmental support to achieving goals,
and the positive emotional climate people experience in their work environment, are considered
positive workplace motivators (Clark & Estes, 2008). Empowering the number of people
allowed to solve problems without permission, and the knowledge that mistakes will be tolerated
(rather than vilified), enable the organization to solve a much larger set of problems (Catmull,
2014). Catmull goes on to state that
When a random problem pops up in this scenario, it causes no panic, because the threat of
failure has been defanged. The individual or the organization responds with its best
thinking, because the organization is not frozen, fearful, waiting for approval. Mistakes
will still be made, but in my experience, they are fewer and farther between and are
caught at an earlier stage (p. 164).
On the other end of the spectrum, Clark and Estes (2008) note that vague and constantly
changing performance goals and feedback, dishonesty, hypocrisy and unfairness, unnecessary
rules and work barriers, constant competition with everyone, and negative, critical, biased and
prejudicial feedback are workplace demotivators. These areas should be probed with questions
aimed at understanding the college’s cultural settings and models.
There are inherent challenges of communicating across any large organization, and there
is value in exploring whether the college’s participatory governance system helps or hinders the
implementation of a new initiative. Ownership of a sustainability plan may begin at the
committee level, but personal accountability, motivation and leadership will largely drive
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 52
whether the plan is successful. As more of the community begins to comment on the plan, each
member of the sustainability committee must have the willingness to lead and encourage other
community members to participate in implementation. If the goal is to spread and
institutionalize the desired “culture of sustainability” (Strategic Plan Goal E) throughout the
institution, others must be convinced that it is the right thing to do.
Finally, organizations such as AASHE may serve to incentivize motivated individuals to
act on their own and participate with local advocacy groups to stimulate local change. For
example, the creation of a bike lane through a campus may motivate other bike riders to advocate
with local city officials to install more bike lanes and reduce the number of parking garages.
Seeking and applying for additional sources of funding from outside agencies such as PGE, the
city and state government, and publicizing those efforts, may go a long way towards sparking the
inherent motivation that exists within each member of the sustainability community. Personal
feelings of accomplishment, along with the support of the college, may provide enough
motivation for members of the committee to write the next sustainability plan.
Publicity, public acknowledgement and praise. The controversial nature of climate
change has led to a politicized public discourse around policy solutions to address the challenge
of human-caused climate change (Shreck & Vedlitz, 2016). Debates focusing on absolutes,
rather than consideration of the full body of scientific knowledge, have created a media
environment wherein scientists seem to disagree on the causes of climate change. This could not
be further from the truth (Cook et al., 2016). Unfortunately, this false perception may have
already influenced policy making (Egan & Mullen, 2017; Semenza et al., 2008; Sterman, 2011).
However, a parallel dialogue suggests that public opinion will be shaped increasingly by
exposure to the disastrous effects of extreme weather events. As a result, local efforts may prove
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 53
to be more effective in bringing about meaningful policy change to combat the challenges of
global warming (Egan & Mullin, 2017). In the case of this college, a disastrous wildfire in 2017
affected almost 1,000 students and over 300 staff and faculty. With wildfires again raging in the
spring of 2018 (earlier than usual), it may become easier for individuals to make a personal
connection between global warming and the annual fire season. In any case, local media can
have an influence on public policy, by drawing a connection between these issues. Academic
research suggests that most consumers want to be part of the solution, rather than contribute to
the problem (Semenza et al., 2008). The college’s desire to create a strong culture sustainability
will take the collective efforts of many individuals. It will take persistence over a long period of
time. An area of study is to understand whether sustainability committee members feel
supported by the leadership of the North Bay college.
Table 4 shows the assumed organizational influences affecting the implementation of the
sustainability plan.
Table 4
Assumed Organizational Influences
Organizational
Influence Category
Assumed Organizational Influences
Cultural Model
Influence 1
Sustainability committee members should feel that there is a culture of
collegiality and trust among operating units, in order to change
procedures to support a sustainability plan.
Cultural Model
Influence 2
Sustainability committee members should feel that there is a culture of
individual leadership and responsibility so that they may strive to take
on challenges and implement solutions without fear of criticism when
problems arise.

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 54
Table 4, continued
Organizational
Influence Category
Assumed Organizational Influences
Cultural Setting
Influence 1
The college should incorporate sustainability.
Cultural Setting
Influence 2
The college needs to publicize the work that it is doing in sustainability
to the external and internal community.

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 55
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
Purpose of the Evaluation and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to examine the capacity of NorCal College’s sustainability
committee to write and implement a sustainability plan. The plan will align with state mandates
and the stated organizational goal of creating a “strong culture of sustainability.” California
community colleges (and other public agencies) are beginning to address legislative
requirements to monitor and reduce GHG emissions, reduce energy and water use, divert waste
from landfills and encourage alternative transportation choices. Community colleges will need
plans with measurable goals.
The methodological framework for this study was Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis.
The gap analysis is a research-based, systematic, and analytical method that helps organizations
make decisions by identifying the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that
affect an organization’s ability to implement a plan. The gap analysis is used by organizations to
improve their success by solving real-world problems and is designed to serve a range of
educational institutions (Rueda, 2011). The model will be adapted to perform an evaluation by
utilizing a qualitative case study. The qualitative study is inductive, with findings and hypotheses
emerging from interviews, document review and observations of participants’ environments
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The assumed knowledge, motivation and organizational influences affecting the
organization’s goal of creating a strong culture of sustainability were generated and evaluated
based on personal knowledge of the institution. Observations of sustainability committee
meetings, document review of committee meeting notes, and informal conversations with those
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 56
involved in sustainability issues at the college were included in the study. These influences were
assessed through a semi-structured interview process, document collection and analysis.
As the primary researcher, I sought to understand the context and personal experiences of
the sustainability committee members. Their feelings about the success and failures of the
current sustainability plan, their knowledge and motivation for writing a new plan, and whether
they felt supported by the organization and college leadership were all explored. These are traits
of the gap analysis (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Research-based
solutions were recommended. The research questions were as follows:
1. To what extent do the college’s sustainability committee members have the required
knowledge/skills and motivation to write and implement a new sustainability plan for the
college?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture/context and sustainability
committee’s knowledge and motivation?
3. What are the recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
practice that will allow the college’s sustainability committee to write and implement a
new sustainability plan?
A complete performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders in the college
community. However, for practical purposes the study was timebound and the primary
stakeholder group in this analysis is the college’s sustainability committee. This chapter also
includes a section on data collection and analysis, credibility and trustworthiness, validity and
reliability, ethics, and limitations and delimitations of the study.

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 57
Participating Stakeholders
This study utilized non-probabilistic, purposeful sampling to identify and seek insight
from the group most vested in writing and implementing a sustainability plan, the college’s
sustainability committee. This group was most qualified to provide information-rich data for the
study and fit into a criterion-based selection process. The group was naturally bounded and
shares common characteristics with groups found at other community college campuses across
the state. This is consistent with a qualitative research approach (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The participating stakeholders for the study were nine of the 13 available members of the
college’s sustainability committee. As one of many faculty senate advisory committees, the
committee is represented by faculty, staff, students and administrators. Members may volunteer,
are appointed, or participate due to their job title within the college. The diversified membership
encourages variation in perspectives about sustainability, including environmental stewardship,
economic sustainability, and social justice and equity issues (NorCal College, 2015).
Committee membership include up to five faculty, with four appointed by the academic
senate and one appointed by the faculty union. There are up to two students, with one student
membership due to position. There are up to three classified staff, with one membership of three
due to position. Finally, there are up to eight administrators, with six memberships due to
position.
Committee participants were vetted by a sponsoring entity (faculty senate, classified
senate, student senate, administration or president). Actions taken at meetings were provided as
non-binding advice to the faculty senate or administration. This qualitative study explored the
interplay between the sustainability committee’s knowledge, motivation, and capacity to write
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 58
and implement a new sustainability plan, and the organizational influences affecting its writing
and implementation.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
Given the purposeful nature of a qualitative study, the college’s sustainability committee
fit well into the desired characteristics. They were a controlled group of willing and engaged
participants, and in the best position to provide rich information, knowledge and motivation
about their capacity to write and implement a sustainability plan (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Patton (2015, as cited in Merriam and Tisdell, 2016) suggested that those closest to the inquiry
are most appropriate for study. He asserted,
purposeful sampling derives from the emphasis on in-depth understanding of specific
cases: information-rich cases. Information-rich cases are those from which one can learn
a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the inquiry, thus the term
purposeful sampling (p. 96).
This study utilized purposeful sampling to gain meaning and insight into committee members’
intentions.
Members of the committee were invited to participate but were not required to do so. I
made a presentation at a monthly sustainability committee meeting in September 2018. The
presentation outlined the goals of my study and emphasized my role as a researcher. I stated that
I was recusing myself from the committee for the duration of the study. I explained the purpose
of the study, stated that the committee would receive a copy of my dissertation with
recommended actions, if requested.
I distributed and discussed the standard disclosure forms at the meeting and encouraged
participants to review them before agreeing to participate. I formally made the request with a
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 59
follow-up email, making it clear that participation was voluntary and confidential. The intent of
the email was to allow committee members to make their decision to participate without feeling
pressured by their peers.
There were 13 active sustainability committee members at the time of the study. One
committee member was a direct report of mine and was not allowed to participate. As the
primary researcher of the study, I also did not participate. Two faculty members declined to
participate, leaving nine participants for the study. My hope was to achieve a minimum of eight
participants, so the minimum number was achieved.
Context, setting and data collection. Prior to the creation of the first sustainability plan
in 2015, the college had a board policy addressing sustainability. Nevertheless, sustainability
advocates were motivated to write a formal sustainability plan. They also volunteered to
participate in the strategic planning process in 2014. The interviews were successful in that they
revealed the knowledge and motivation of committee members at that time, as well as the
organizational support for sustainability. This will be discussed further in chapters four and five.
Sustainability committee interview selection criteria. The criteria for the participation
in the interview process is membership in the sustainability committee. Committee members
advocate for funding and resources and have expended time and energy to create and implement
the first sustainability plan. As a new plan is contemplated, these advocates are best positioned
to have the knowledge and motivation to write the next plan. This study will help determine
whether the organization will support their efforts.
Data Collection and Interview Instrument
One of the defining characteristics of qualitative studies is that they attempt to make
meaning from the richness and variety of the human experience. Through the stories of others, a
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 60
phenomenon of interest emerges not from the author’s perspective, but from the perspectives of
those participating in the study. The goal is to understand the meaning that participants bring to
their lives and to understand how they interpret their experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
As the primary instrument of data collection, the researcher is responsible for conveying
the thoughts and experiences of the participants. The process is inductive, and concepts and
theories may build bottom-up from the stories that are conveyed by the participants. Qualitative
research requires patience and as themes emerge from the data. It should not be unusual to
embrace multiple sources and types of data to create a full picture of the phenomena of interest
(Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The ability to understand the participant’s inner
world; how they think, perceive and view the world around them, is best explored through their
own words (Bogden & Biklen, 2007; Merriam, 2016; Patton, 2015). Therefore, the appropriate
way to understand each participants’ knowledge, skill, motivations and feelings about the
organizational support they need to write and implement a new sustainability plan, is primarily
through a one-on-one interview process.
Interviews
A 60-minute interview was offered to the sustainability committee members and with
their consent, the interviews were recorded. The interviews were conducted on campus, in their
office or mine. As suggested by Bogden and Biklen (2007), the goal was to make the interview
more like a conversation between friends (albeit with a microphone). Participants were
encouraged to speak freely about their perspectives without judgement or editorial comment.
Due to the timebound nature of this study and my lack of experience with interviewing,
the semi-structured interview was the best approach. An interview guide was prepared,
containing a list of pre-determined questions. As suggested by Patton (2002), the goal was to
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 61
keep “the interaction focused, while allowing individual perspectives and experiences to emerge”
(p. 344). The interview guide provided a roadmap of the discussion topics, with the questions
designed to establish priorities so that ideas were explored systematically.
Interviews generated pages of rich data from which common and useful themes emerged.
The semi-structured interview format provided consistency in data collection, and meaningful
probes allowed for a deeper dive into areas of interest (Patton, 2015). Even with a clear set of
questions and adequate time to prepare, however, I found my interviews improving over time. I
attribute this to inexperience with interviewing, which according to Patton (2015), should be
expected.
Documents and Artifacts
In addition to the interviews, documents review added another layer of interest to the
data. Existing documentation, including sustainability committee meeting notes, the district’s
sustainability website and board policy, were thoroughly reviewed. Written documents revealed
that the college supported sustainability planning well before the creation of the formal
sustainability plan. This surprising finding is discussed in later chapters.
A review of the strategic, educational and facilities master plans was also included in this
study. These documents left a trail of information about the college’s priorities, demonstrating
where the college fell short of full support for sustainability. At this North Bay college, board
policy demonstrates support for sustainable practices at the highest level of the college, but the
policy did not find support on the ground. At the same time, sustainability is a significant part of
all of the planning documents created in the past three years. This organizational gap is discuss
later in the findings.

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 62
Data Analysis
Data analysis and collection in qualitative design is an ongoing and simultaneous process.
The intent is to make sense out of the data received in the interview process, which involves
segmenting the data and putting it back together in a coherent package (Creswell, 2014; Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). Because the primary instrument is the researcher, the patterns and data that
emerge from the interviews may reveal themselves through more than the words expressed in the
interview. For example, information may be expressed through nonverbal cues. Small pieces of
information may accumulate to form a pattern, later contributing to the emerging hypotheses.
Notations, reflections, hunches, and ideas are part of the data collection process, and may be
captured in memo form, along with notes in the margins (Bogden & Biklen, 2007; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
With the relatively inexperienced with the interviewer, Bogden and Biklen (2007)
suggested spending time in reflection after each interview, considering whether each the line of
questioning was direct and purposeful. They recommend putting what was heard and learned
into context immediately. The goal is to ensure consistency, minimizing bias brought to the
process by the interviewer. They suggest utilizing observers’ comments in margins of the
interview notes. These comments may address specific reflections on the analysis, methods,
ethical dilemmas, conflicts, and even the state of mind of the interviewer.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) state that “the practical goal of data analysis is to find
answers to your research questions. These answers are also called categories or themes or
findings” (p. 203). In the first phase of analysis, called open coding, patterns emerged through
analysis of the data within the conceptual framework. Emerging patterns were categorized using
letters and numbers that referred to the 10 assumed influences. In the second phase of analysis,
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 63
empirical and a priori codes were aggregated into analytical/axial codes. The aggregation of the
initial codes was more than descriptive coding, as it developed from interpretation and reflection
on the meaning assigned by individuals to their context. In the third phase of analysis, pattern
codes and themes emerged in relation to the conceptual framework and study questions.
Common patterns became the master list of concepts within the conceptual framework, and the
outline of the classification system. The process continued through each transcript, and the
challenge was to construct realistic categories that arose from the data, not from internal or
predetermined biases.
In addition to the interviews, documents were analyzed for evidence to support the
emergent findings. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) state that it is “important to determine as much as
possible about the document, its origins, and reason for being written, its author, and the context
in which it was written” (p. 176). Strategic plans were culled from the college’s website. These
documents were produced with the public in mind and provided a positive view of the college.
Meeting notes and board policy were found in harder to reach areas of the website. Regardless,
the documents provided another way to confirm the information collected through interviews.
These written documents along with the transcripts, are stored in a password protected server.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
The credibility of any qualitative research depends on the ethics of the researcher
conducting the study. The study’s findings, interpretations and conclusions may be rendered
invalid if the design and implementation are not handled rigorously at all levels of the process
(Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). From the interviewer’s perspective, positionality is
one such consideration. Creswell (2014) suggests acknowledging personal belief systems and
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 64
cultural, socioeconomic and professional background of the interviewer. Those systems may
influence the research and shape interpretation of the data.
The issue of bias and reactivity in this study is a challenge. As the primary researcher,
there is risk that my personal values may be reflected in the findings. As a previously practicing
architect, I have knowledge of the external rating systems and their design flaws, and I have been
an advocate of the LEED rating system. In colleges that I worked for previously, I have
encouraged energy savings through the construction of solar photovoltaic systems, and water
conservation using grey water to reduce the use of potable water. I have relationships with
members of the design and engineering community in the San Francisco Bay Area and have
supported sustainability planning in more than one institution. As a longtime design and
construction program manager, I lead design and construction professionals through the project
prioritization process of colleges. At times, building projects compete for funding with
sustainability projects, and I must take a data-driven and non-biased approach to prioritization,
based on the goals of the college.
As a researcher expected to study the capacity of this committee to write a sustainability
plan, I must consider this work history and strive to allow answers to emerge from the
participants naturally. As an advocate for sustainability, I need to remain self-aware during the
interviews, being careful not to lead the conversation or to encourage specific answers by
showing inappropriate enthusiasm for comments to my liking.
Positionality may be an issue with this study as well. During the research period for this
paper, I was the internal program manager responsible for the NorCal College’s capital
improvement bond. There could have been a perception that pleasing me would lead to the
funding of additional sustainability projects. Though the governing board makes these decisions
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 65
based on recommendations that are shepherded through a complex committee system, the
perception of my influence in these decisions is challenging. It may be difficult to separate my
role as a researcher from my role as the bond program manager.
Participants in the survey and interviews are colleagues, and culturally, it is important to
maintain positive working relationships. To that end, it will also be important to emphasize that
recommendations will be based on the data created through the survey instruments, rather than
on personal preferences. If one is seen as an “advocate” for sustainability, the data may become
corrupted with answers seeking to curry favor.
Finally, validity threats are addressed in the findings section of this research paper. Both
Maxwell (2013) and Creswell (2014) offer checklists of validity strategies and validity checks,
important strategies that test the validity of a researcher’s conclusions. This study included four
validity check strategies. The first was triangulation between interview subjects to confirm
themes and findings. The interviews were also triangulated against the documents. The second
was a disclosure of inherent bias and positionality of the interviewer. The third strategy included
detailed descriptions provided by the participants. The fourth strategy was to include negative or
discrepant information in the findings, so that a full picture is painted about the emergent
patterns.
Ethics
As a member of the committee and the primary researcher for the project, I recused
myself from participating in the committee for the duration of the study. To ensure the integrity
of the process and to protect the participants, established ethical principles from the U.S.
Government’s “Belmont Report” were incorporated. Principles included the following: 1)
respect for all persons, with a particular recognition that participants are autonomous agents and
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 66
those with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection; 2) beneficence is understood and it is
noted that all persons are protected from harm and all efforts will be made to assure their well-
being; and 3) justice will prevail with the equal distribution of benefit and fairness of burden
(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1969).
In addition, the following five common principles of institutional review board review
were recognized: 1) participants were provided with enough information about the study to make
an informed decision about participating; 2) participants had the ability to withdraw from the
study at any time without penalty; 3) participants knew that all unnecessary risks were
eliminated; 4) participants knew that the benefits to subjects and society outweighed the risks of
participating; and 5) participants knew that the study was administered by a qualified
investigator (Glesne, 2011). All of these items were disclosed in an information sheet provided
before the interview process, and which was signed.
Finally, information was provided about the voluntary nature of participation and the
confidential nature of the study. It was disclosed that all written data is stored under lock and
key and electronic versions of documentation is stored in the cloud under an unnamed, password
protected site. At the beginning of each interview, the participants were asked if they consented
to have the interview recorded. Verbal permission is found on the original recording.
A list of real and perceived conflicts is listed here: 1) In the credibility and
trustworthiness section of this paper, issues of bias, reactivity and positionality are discussed; 2)
In the section addressing participant recruitment, it is clear that I am a doctoral student and my
role is to interview participants solely as a researcher; 3) my recommendations will not be
influenced by my job as a college administrator; and 4) to address concerns about conflicts of
interest, I recused myself from the committee for the time that this study is being executed.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 67
These actions were intended to prevent data from being corrupted by inappropriate responses
based on positionality, biases or other incorrect assumptions about the nature of the study. Of
utmost importance was that participants did not worry about saying the “wrong” thing.
As stated earlier, there is one organizational conflict of interest. During the research
period, a single staff member on the committee reported to me and did not participate in the
study. Faculty committee members report to department Deans. Classified staff committee
members report to department heads. Students on the committee do not report to anyone
specifically, though their participation is organized through the student services area of the
college. There were no other organizational or structural reporting challenges to disclose.

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 68
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this chapter is to present the results and findings from the qualitative data
collection process. Nine interviews were conducted, and documents were reviewed. The
findings are triangulated between interview participants and compared to findings emerging from
a review of the documents. The results and findings will be compared to 10 assumed influences
on the sustainability committee’s ability to write a new sustainability plan and will be
categorized as “assets” or “gaps.” An asset is defined when five or more participants supported
the finding. When less than five participants support a finding, there is a gap in knowledge,
motivation or organizational support. Assets and gaps are reinforced by findings introduced
through a review of documents.
This chapter will explore the ability of the sustainability committee to write and
implement a new sustainability plan. The committee recently completed an analysis of the first
sustainability plan. The ambitious plan included 18 aspirational and measurable goals, with
multiple sub-goals. Writing and implementing a sustainability plan ties directly into the
college’s strategic goal E: creating a strong culture of sustainability. Additionally, the strategic
plan committed to creating buildings and grounds that are environmentally sustainable.
The first research question explored whether the committee had the appropriate skill and
knowledge to write a new sustainability plan and implement it. Building on the first
sustainability plan, the committee was to self-evaluate whether the 18 goals of the first plan were
met. The second research question explored whether the committee has the motivation to write
and implement the plan. The third research question analyzed whether there are appropriate
organizational supports or barriers to writing and implementing the plan.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 69
This chapter will not reveal the role of any interviewees by name or job title, to reduce
the temptation to guess at the identity of the person. Participants included two classified staff,
three faculty and four managers. Quotes from those interviewed are included to highlight and
reinforce findings and are not attributed to individual participants. When necessary, quotes are
modified to protect the participant’s identity.
A summary of the influences is as follows: There are four knowledge influences, with
two identified as assets and two as gaps. Knowledge assets included a strong awareness of third-
party rating instruments and a strong sense of the themes to address in a new sustainability plan.
Emergent findings revealed that participants had reflected on the themes needing more attention
in the new plan. Two knowledge influences emerged as gaps, including a lack of knowledge
about the details of the first sustainability goals and the lack of knowledge about the use of
measurable and timebound goal setting. A lack of knowledge about existing board policy
regarding sustainability surfaced in a review of documents.
There were two motivational influences, and both emerged as assets. The first influence
explored whether participants were driven by an internal desire or external reward to improve
sustainability in the college. The second factor explored whether participants had the self-
efficacy needed to write and implement a sustainability plan.
There were four organizational factors. Two emerged as assets and two as gaps. Assets
included organizational support for individuals taking on sustainability issues, and a strong
integration of sustainability into the college’s strategic planning documents. A review of
documents reinforced this support, with references to sustainability found in the strategic plan,
facilities master plan, bond spending plan, governing board policy, and district design standards.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 70
Organizational gaps included the lack of a trust-based culture (particularly between managers
implementing the plan), and a deficit of publicity around sustainability initiatives.
Knowledge Findings
The findings in this section relate to the four assumed knowledge influences articulated in
chapter three, and are categorized as factual, procedural, conceptual, and metacognitive
(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Each of the assumed influences will be discussed in more detail,
with specific insights provided from those that were interviewed. Findings are provided, based
on the interviews, with common themes emerging from the qualitative data. A summary of
whether the knowledge influences were validated is provided in Table 5.
Table 5
Assets, Gaps and Emergent Knowledge Influences
Knowledge type Assumed Knowledge Influences Instrument Asset Gap Emergent
1. Declarative Knowledge of the sustainability Interview - x -
(Conceptual) plan, the 18 objectives & sub-
points

2. Declarative Knowledge of sustainability Interview x - -
(Procedural) templates and rating instruments

3. Declarative Knowledge of a “SMART” goal Interview - x -
(Conceptual) & definition of the acronym

4. Declarative Is there value in writing a new Interview x - -
(Conceptual) sustainability plan and in using
rating instruments?

5. Metacognitive Name specific areas of focus for Interview x - x
the new sustainability plan

6. Declarative Know the existing Board Policy Document - x x
(Conceptual) for sustainability & standards
in the facilities master plan

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 71
The First Sustainability Plan (Knowledge Factor 1)
All nine participants knew that the first sustainability plan existed, and five of nine
commented on it. Participants were able to discuss the influence of the first sustainability plan
on the college and expressed the importance of the document as a sustainability marker.
However, only one of nine participants had knowledge of the specifics of the plan, so this
assumed influence is deemed a knowledge gap. One participant asserted,
I think there's a list of things in the [sustainability plan] that talks about achieving net
zero and things like that and I think those are the more aspirational things, but I think
we're chipping away at those things. I don't think we ever thought we'd get there in 2018
and we didn't for most of them, but I think all anybody ever wanted, there are some
people that wanted everything right away, but for the most part, all they ever wanted was
progress (Interview 8)
There was general agreement that “making progress” was important. Some felt that it signaled to
the internal and external community that the college was taking sustainability seriously. The idea
was to use the sustainability plan to broaden the definition of sustainability, thus inspiring a
broader sustainability culture on campus.
This was reinforced through a review of documents. Sustainability was defined as
addressing three concerns: the environment, economics of the college and equity issues. One
participant suggested that another purpose of the document was to pull existing sustainability
measures and advocates together. They asserted,
The [sustainability plan] was kind of an effort that came out of having no official kind of
sustainability document. We had bits and pieces of things, and so that was a small group
of people that kind of pulled that together and just made this like, "Okay, we're going to
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 72
move forward, and we want to move forward with these," and kind of putting out goals
(Interview 1).
The “bits and pieces of things” became the first sustainability plan, and there was general
agreement that the plan was intentionally visionary; perhaps at the expense of achieving
measurable outcomes.
There was disagreement however, about whether the plan achieved the goal of creating a
“strong culture of sustainability” as envisioned in the college’s strategic plan. Surprisingly,
opposing comments were made by two of the longest serving sustainability committee members.
One member stated, “the whole thing about creating a culture of sustainability…I don't think
we're there yet” (Interview 2). While another asserted,
We have a culture of sustainability here. There's nobody I can't go talk to out here that
doesn't know what I'm talking about with sustainability. They may not have the equity,
economics, environment, three pillars or sustainability down, but they understand what
we're trying to do (Interview 8).
That long serving committee members were unable to agree on whether the sustainability plan
achieved its primary goal, and that none of the committee members were able to recite specific
goals of the sustainability plan, may indicate that a knowledge gap exists around goal setting.
The sustainability plan may have had too many goals; the goals may have been too complex; the
goals may not have been clear or specific enough; or a combination of all three.
The two opposing quotes also suggest that the college’s strategic goal of “creating a
strong culture of sustainability” is not easily measurable. Clarity is needed in goal setting, and
organizational culture takes time to change. Additionally, the discovery (through document
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 73
review) of existing board-approved sustainability policies confirms that there is a knowledge gap
around older sustainability initiatives.
Sustainability Templates (Knowledge Factor 2)
All participants were able to name at least one sustainability template provided by outside
agencies, organizations or vendors. In many cases, participants had specific knowledge about
the template. Therefore, the use of sustainability templates was deemed a knowledge asset. The
AASHE STARS template was most familiar to the committee, which is widely used in university
and college sustainability planning. One participant described their preference this way,
As a committee we looked at several different kinds of systems for tracking
accomplishments and things. And we ended up going with the AASHE system because it
was flexible and it gave us lots of directions to move in, which we wanted. And it gives
us an idea of where we can focus our energies and how to quantify (Interview 3).
Seven of nine participants preferred this template over the others. A favorable characteristic is
the ability to compare sustainability measurements against those from other colleges and
universities.
There was a distinct lack of enthusiasm for templates other than AASHE. Two additional
templates were mentioned by four participants, including the community college chancellor’s
office sustainability template (2012) and the LEED sustainability template. Three of four
participants that knew about the Chancellor’s template specifically stated that they did not favor
using it. One participant asserted,
we looked at [the Chancellor’s sustainability template] and you know, it was always kind
of overwhelming to look at it. I think you'd have to have a key person take the lead and I
don't think any of us at that time had the time to think about that (Interview 8).
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 74
Clearly there was concern that the template was too complex and overwhelming. More
importantly, there was concern that additional resources would be needed to fill it in.
Another participant noted that the college culture is to create its own unique in-house
plan. “When the template constrains the users too much [and] knowing how this institution
operates, I think a template is a starting point.” (Interview 9). In the mind of this participant, it
was almost expected that any template would be discarded in favor of writing an in-house
document from scratch.
A second template gaining attention was USGBC’s LEED rating system, which focuses
on construction projects. Of the four participants mentioning LEED, two participants had
extensive knowledge of the LEED rating system. One asserted,
Certification and acknowledgement on a LEED level is more for people in the industry, I
would say, more than anything else. And if you talk to peers; if you say, "we built to
LEED standards, but we didn't want to pay for the certification," they'll probably say,
"Yeah, you were smart” (Interview 7).
An opposing view was offered by the second participant. “There's a lot of attention being
paid…towards energy and reducing energy use. Things are coming down through the state level
anyway” (Interview 1). The implication was that choosing a “silver” LEED rating was hardly
ambitious, given that the silver rating (the second of four ratings) was virtually the same as
meeting the latest version of California’s energy code.
Templates are useful in that they provide a way to write a plan without having to create a
new format. They provide useful measurement tools, and a way to measure progress against
other colleges. The committee had a good handle on a wide range of templates. They will not
be challenged selecting an appropriate template for the college’s use.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 75
Understanding Measurable and Timebound Goal Setting (Knowledge Factor 3)
Despite all nine participants speaking about measurable goals, only one participant
mentioned timebound as an important attribute to goal setting, and one seemed familiar with the
SMART acronym. While there is no requirement to utilize the SMART goal setting technique, it
is one option to ensure that goals are measurable and timebound, the minimum criteria for an
effective goal. While eight of nine participants accurately identified more than three letters of
the acronym, this influence was deemed a knowledge gap. Table 6 summarizes the familiarity of
participants with the acronym.
Table 6
Knowledge of the specific definitions of the SMART acronym
Knowledge of specific SMART acronym Mentioned by participant percent
Specific 3 33%
Measurable 9 100%
Achievable 3 33%
Realistic 1 11%
Timebound 1 11%

The fact that all nine participants declared an interest in “Measurement,” demonstrates
that the culture of this committee, if not the culture of the college, is driven by the accumulation
and use of data in decision making. This characteristic lends itself particularly well to
measurable and timebound goal setting, in addition to the more detailed SMART goal-setting
concept.
On the other hand, the lack of knowledge about Realistic and Timebound goals is
challenging, with only one participant indicating knowledge about these two acronyms.
Additionally, only three participants had knowledge about “Specific” and “Achievable” SMART
goal setting. This may have been reflected in the first sustainability plan, as many goals were
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 76
aspirational and immeasurable. Surprisingly, seven of nine participants felt that the (aspirational
and immeasurable) goals in the plan were achieved.
One participant understood that the sustainability goals of the first plan were not
particularly data driven, asserting,
[we need to] buckle down and say, "What do we want to bring forth…[as] our goal?" I
can bring that up…because we haven't had real metrics. In the first [sustainability plan]
there were not metrics at all. There were goals but they're very ideal-based goals
(Interview 7).
With only one participant able to differentiate between “ideal-based goals” and SMART goals,
there is a need for training in this area.
Though the interviews revealed a lack of discipline around measurable and timebound
goal setting, there is an opportunity to leverage one member’s knowledge about SMART goal
setting throughout the group. In fact, with all nine participants indicating an understanding of
“Measurable,” there is interest within the committee for data-driven results. This characteristic
lends itself particularly well to utilizing the SMART goals, and an increase in knowledge in this
area will contribute to a more data-driven sustainability plan.
Understanding the Value of Writing a Sustainability Plan (Knowledge Factor 4)
All nine participants stated that there is value in writing a new sustainability plan.
Participants are already thinking about the framework of a new sustainability plan, and how to
improve upon the last one. Therefore, this knowledge influence was deemed an asset. When
reflecting upon the length and aspirations of the last plan, one participant asserted, “I really think
we have to do a better job this time around of not overwhelming everybody with too many
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 77
things” (Interview 8). Participants seem interested in specific sustainability topics that they
would like addressed, within a less complex framework.
Participants understood sustainability as a complex system. They understood that an
implementable sustainability policy would require tradeoffs between ecological initiatives, the
economic impacts of those initiatives, and the equitable distribution of resources. The emphasis
on equity issues rather than solely on energy issues, is new to the college. One participant noted,
“I like how it includes the equity piece and curriculum piece. [Also], there's not a lot about
student engagement…that's the area that I feel like we're kind of weak in.” (Interview 6).
Participants seemed empathetic and concerned not only about the college, but also about students
and their quality of life.
Participants were thoughtful in their approach to incorporating the sustainability plan into
the strategic goals of the college. Members of the sustainability committee deliberately joined
the strategic planning committee. One participant noted,
I think we're really poised to have some great success with the new strategic plan. The
committee seems to be one of the…high[er] functioning committees I've been a part of,
where everybody feels really valued. We have strong representation so…it is a really
good stakeholder group, and I think pretty effective (Interview 6).
With a fine-tuned understanding of the inner workings of the college, this participant seems
poised to ensure that sustainability is included in the next strategic plan.
Committee members reflected on their desire to write and implement a new sustainability
plan. These members also considered specific tactics to integrate sustainability into the next
strategic plan. Moreover, they have considered a simplified framework for the next
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 78
sustainability plan. Overall, this group seems keenly aware of the impact of environmental
degradation on future generations, and the inequitable impacts of pollution on their students.
Emerging Knowledge Influences (Knowledge Factors 5 and 6)
Several emerging themes were stated as areas of focus for the next sustainability plan.
Participants had given serious consideration to issues they found lacking in the first sustainability
plan. This type of reflection demonstrates metacognitive thinking, the results of which may
become the foundation for the next sustainability plan.
The review of sustainability documents found that the governing board had a
sustainability policy prior to the writing of the first sustainability plan. However, none of the
participants were aware of it. In fact, longer serving committee members specifically stated that
the board was an impediment to increasing sustainability initiatives on campus, so this
disconnect is worth noting. It demonstrates the lack of transparency and communication
between the highest level of the college and those tasked with implementation “on the ground.”
Common themes explored in the interviews (knowledge factor 5). Several common
and emerging themes were identified by participants with reflection and advocacy provided for
specific areas of interest. This knowledge influence is an asset. However, it is notable that all
five of the emergent themes identified by participants were part of the first sustainability plan.
This is a good example of the vague and non-descriptive types of goals found in that plan and
should be used to illustrate the importance of SMART (and simple) goal setting. Emerging
themes receiving three or more mentions are illustrated in Table 7. Though these common
themes were expressed by only half of the participants, they are noted because they emerged
from the interview process without prompting.

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 79
Table 7
Emergent Knowledge Influence for the next sustainability plan
Emergent Knowledge Influence (metacognitive) Quote mentions
1. Create office of sustainability One of the things I would love to see 3
happen, [is] to create an office of
Sustainability (Interview 4)

2. Define & establish the “culture of sustainability” The whole thing about creating a culture 4
of sustainability, I don’t think we’re there
yet (Interview 2)

Yeah, I would say we’re over the hump for
the institution having a culture of
sustainability (Interview 8)

3. Encourage alternative forms of transportation I think transportation is our hugest issue 4
(bus, bicycle, pedestrian) and I think we need to make bigger changes
in that area, quicker (Interview 3)

4. Create curriculum pathway for sustainability & I know we need to work on curriculum 3
highlight sustainability in the course catalogue more (Interview 1)

5. Highlight social justice and equity Equity is at the center of the funding 3
formula…but if we really want to look at
our environmental footprint and reduce it,
then we need to embed it in those institutional
planning processes (Interview 6)

Office of Sustainability. Emerging knowledge influence 1 is a holdover from the first
sustainably plan. Creating an office was a high priority, but unsuccessful. That members
continue to advocate for it indicates that they understand the value of having a physical presence
on campus. An office would validate the long-term existence of sustainability as a priority for
the District and connects those with similar interests. Funding would be required.
Define and establish a strong culture of sustainability. The culture of a college is
understood by members of the college community without requiring explanation. Culture exists
in the conscious and unconscious understanding of who they are, what they value and what they
do (Clark & Estes, 2008). The “feeling” associated with culture is not measurable, but a
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 80
community will know when cultural norms have changed. That there is disagreement about
whether a true “culture of sustainability” exists, indicates that there may have been significant
change, but the culture of sustainability has not been completely assimilated.
Encouraging alternative means of transportation. This emerging item was important to
those mentioning it. With a direct tie to GHG emissions, a strong sense of urgency was
expressed by a participant. “I'd really like the college to communicate with the city
better…specifically on transportation and a vision for transportation that is not so based on
individuals in cars” (Interview 3). The college has embarked on a transportation assessment and
continued work in this area seems inevitable. Measurements are commonly understood and
achievable, so this item fits well into the SMART goal format.
Curriculum pathways toward sustainability. Curriculum is developed by faculty and
reviewed by the academic senate. Pathways for transfer to four-year institutions must be cleared
at a higher level than the college. According to one participant, “Even with Environmental
Studies programs, they're very different at every school, so it's kind of hard to have one
particular major. I would say we need to find a way to breathe some life back into the major”
(Interview 1). Faculty are aware of the issue, and modest targets may be encouraged as part of a
new sustainability plan.
Equity. Participants indicated a strong understanding of the connection between social
issues and resource distribution. There is a new state funding formula focused on more equitable
distribution of resources, and an awareness at the local level of the challenges that community
college students face. The opportunity to implement local solutions to meet these needs is
apparent.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 81
Though these common themes fell short of being mentioned by most participants, they
arose from the interviews without prompting, indicating a strong level of common concern. In
addition, these expressions of concern represented a high degree of knowledge and reflection.
Therefore, these common themes could be a good starting point for the next sustainability plan
and should be considered a knowledge asset.
Existing board policy for sustainability (knowledge factor 6). None of the
sustainability committee members seemed knowledgeable about the governing board’s existing
sustainability policy. The policy goals were written for implementation of a previous capital
improvement bond. Approved in June 2012, before the more recent strategic plan and
sustainability plan were written, board policy states that,
the District’s operational and planning decisions will incorporate the following: prudent
use of energy resources, prevention and/or minimization of energy-related pollution and
wastes, fostering a sense of personal responsibility for energy management, emphasize
water conservation and environmental protection, continuous improvement in college
energy management performance, and internal deployment of resources to reflect the
District’s commitment to environmental protection through efficient energy management
and sustainable practices (District, 2012).
The policy is largely focused on energy and water conservation for construction projects.
However, the policy adequately addresses high impact sustainability areas, and were easily
implemented due to the availability of bond funding. An argument could be made that the
decision to focus on the replacement of poorly performing buildings was one of the most
productive uses of funds in the service of sustainability. The fact that committee members were
unaware of the policy, chose not to mention it, or simply felt that it was not developed with their
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 82
interests in mind, is a demonstration of a level of mistrust, lack of communication, or other
cultural challenge that affected the ability of the college to change the culture.
This emergent finding reinforces the lack of knowledge about available written documentation
and the lack of communication between the governing board, faculty and staff. Given the data-
driven nature of the institution, sustainability committee members should familiarize themselves
with these documents. A new sustainability plan should be in synch with board policy. There
may be reason to revise the policy through college council. Communication and participation
about sustainability should be increased across campuses. However, this emergent finding is a
significant knowledge gap for sustainability committee members.
Motivational Findings and Assumed Influences
The findings in this section relate to the two assumed motivational influences articulated
in chapter three. Two specific motivational influences explore whether participants had the
intrinsic motivation to write a new sustainability plan and the self-efficacy and confidence to do
so. Through the interviews, both motivational influences were deemed assets. A summary of
these motivational influences is provided in Table 8.
Table 8
Expectancy and Self-Efficacy Motivational Influences
Category Assumed Motivational Influences Instrument Asset Gap
Expectancy Members have the intrinsic motivation Interview x -
to write a new sustainability plan

Self-efficacy Members feel capable of writing a Interview x -
new plan, with SMART goals

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 83
Intrinsic Motivation (Motivational Influence 1)
The first motivational influence relates to whether participants have the internal drive and
desire to write a new sustainability plan. Of the nine participants in this study, five participated
directly or indirectly in writing the first sustainability plan. One participant was acknowledged
with having done most of the writing. The other four contributed expertise and participated in
the sustainably workshop where the document was vetted and approved. This influence was
deemed a motivational asset.
Writing a plan takes a high degree of personal motivation. Participants described their
involvement in the environmental movement in personal terms. Comments about sustainability
included: “a longtime interest of mine” (Interview 1); “I’ve always cared, like, my whole life”
(Interview 2); “I came from a sustainability background” (Interview 6); and “a lot of things have
happened just because we all are working on something we care about” (Interview 8). These
comments demonstrate that participants are invested in sustainability beyond the external
rewards available through their work at the college. These participants would be writing and
implementing a sustainability plan whether they were personally rewarded for it.
At the same time, publicity for the college and increased influence in the community is a
collective external motivator. One participant asserted, “I think it helps build forward
momentum by getting…recognition. And it helps promote sustainability as well, by saying we
have a committee that does focus on [sustainability]” (Interview 4). Another asserted,
it makes a difference…if they [faculty] talk about climate change in their classes, or even
socioeconomic disparities and housing issues; everything. It all ties in…to where we
want our community and our world to be (Interview 3).
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 84
Studies demonstrate that an institution can inspire and spark change within the larger community
around it (Trencher et al., 2014). Participants advocated that the college assume a leadership
role. In acting on their personal self-motivation, the college may become a sustainable model for
the community around it.
Intrinsic motivation is highest when individuals are performing tasks that they find
enjoyable or personally meaningful (Eccles, 2010). Participants are not rewarded for joining the
sustainability committee, nor are they rewarded for writing and implementing a sustainability
plan. Their reward is personal, knowing that they created college policy, inspired subsequent
action on campus, and potentially influencing other members of their community to take action.
Self-Efficacy (Motivational Influence 2)
The second motivational influence relates to whether participants have the self-
confidence necessary to write and implement a sustainability plan. This influence was deemed a
motivational asset. The collective confidence needed to write and implement a sustainably plan
on a college campus is not to be taken lightly. Confidence may be expressed by setting
transformational goals and objectives, but an objective test of a committee’s determination lies in
the willingness of the committee to press forward through difficult challenges.
Participants carried a high degree of confidence in their abilities to write a new
sustainability plan, with eight of nine participants anticipating the process. The first
sustainability plan just finished implementation and was felt to be a great success. For example,
energy and water saving projects were funded through the capital improvement bond and were
relatively easy to achieve, as access to funds were available. There is a feeling of growing
momentum around the work of the committee.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 85
One participant cited engagement of the committee as a reason to believe. “Well, I think
they can [write the plan], 100%. That is such an engaged group” (Interview 7). Another
expressed confidence by referencing three of the five SMART goals and made note of the
challenges inherent in measurement. “I'm confident we could create something. It'd be good to
make sure that it's achievable and realistic and that there are measurable goals. It's just some of
these things are hard to measure” (Interview 1). A third participant noted that there are many
more “hidden” sustainability advocates to engage and suggested that these advocates would be
willing to help, asserting,
I think there are advocates out there that we don't know about. I think you look in the
parking lot and you see a lot of electric cars and a lot of Prius', a lot of electric vehicles.
There's a lot of people out there that are willing to do something and be part of the
change and we just have to tap into that (Interview 3).
The hopefulness suggested in this quote is built upon the “snowball-like” effect that is possible
when the college community sees progress. A more visible sustainability plan may motivate and
encourage others to join the campus sustainability movement.
On the other hand, enthusiasm may also lead to complacency. A longtime campus
sustainability advocate warned,
When people who aren't doing the work see that stuff is happening, they get complacent
and think they don't have to do anything, and that's always a problem with the
environmental movement. That people get satisfied with the work being done by other
people and so they don't really have to contribute anything. And that's what I'm worried
about now, that enough is going on. "Oh we have all these solar panels. Things are good,
it's being taken care of. I don't need to do anything to help." And I'm worried about that.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 86
That people just get lazy. Other people will get lazy and not join the movement because
it's being taken care of (Interview 2).
If there were feelings of complacency, they have been replaced with enthusiasm. With the
capital improvement bond, there are many new sustainability features on campus. But the
confidence should be balanced by whether progress is sustainable. When the bond is depleted,
the test will be whether additional sustainability measures are implemented that do not require
capital improvement funding.
Finally, every effort should be made to fulfill the promises made in the planning phases.
Creating a plan with measurable and timebound (or SMART) goals will require discipline and
continued implementation. One participant warned that the lack of follow through can be
demoralizing. “the worst thing… for any committee is, you spend all this time writing a plan
and then no one follows the plan…that's where it could be demoralizing” (Interview 9). It is
important to maintain visible progress.
Finding consensus in “how” and “what” to measure will be a worthwhile debate.
Aspirational goals will require the same discipline as any other goal, in that they will need to be
timebound, realistic and achievable. The self-efficacy of this committee is high and the
motivation to write a new plan is unquestioned. But delivering on the goals and promises will
require discipline and a dose of reality in order to execute projects in a timely manner.
Organizational Findings and Assumed Influences
Organizational findings are divided into four categories of assumed influences. The first
is based on trust within the institution. Does trust exist between individual between departments
to achieve change in a meaningful way? The second assumed influence is the ability of
individuals in the organization to take a leadership position, taking chances to implement new
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 87
initiatives without fear of criticism when problems arise. The third assumed influence is to
ascertain whether the college is incorporating sustainability within the institutional planning
guidelines and implementing sustainability initiatives within the operational procedures. The
fourth assumed influence seeks to understand whether the college is gaining publicity for
sustainability initiatives.
Of the four assumed cultural influences, two were deemed organizational assets and two
were deemed organizational gaps. A summary of results of the assumed organizational
influences is provided in Table 9.
Table 9
Assumed Organizational Influences
Category Assumed Organizational Influences Instrument Asset Gap
Cultural Model A culture of trust & collegiality must interview - x
exist between operating units within
the college

Cultural Model A culture of individual leadership & interview x -
accountability should exist

Cultural Setting The college should incorporate interview & x -
sustainability measures documents

Cultural Setting The college is publicizing sustainability interview - x
to internal & external communities

Trust and Collegiality (Organizational Influence 1)
The findings suggest that there is disagreement about whether the district embraces a
“strong culture of sustainability” (NorCal College, 2014), though progress has been made
towards this strategic goal. Implementation of the sustainability plan will require trust between
individual operation units, and the support of all parts of the community. However, the issue of
trust is currently a challenge for the college. This influence is considered an organizational gap.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 88
Context and background. This study was authored during a tumultuous faculty
contract-negotiation period (AFA, 2018). College leadership was seeking a means to address a
financial operating deficit and cancelled summer school without input from students, faculty or
staff. Worse yet, the decision was made with very little communication. Students expressed
concern about their ability to earn summer units needed to transfer. Tenured and adjunct faculty
were frustrated by the impact on their income due to the loss of summer teaching hours.
Classified staff and managers were equally blindsided by the abrupt decision (Press Democrat,
2018). The anger generated by this top-down decision permeated every level of the college.
The decision led to a vote of “no confidence” in the administrative leadership of the
college by the faculty senate. The vote of no confidence may have impacted the willingness of
participants, particularly faculty members, to fully express their feelings about questions relating
to trust. Even in cases where the question was asked as a way of evaluating the level of
cooperation between managers of operating units, rather than within the college overall, there
may have been impacts. At a minimum, the culture of the institution was damaged by the
summer school decision.
Shared governance in the CCCS was briefly discussed earlier in this paper and finds itself
manifested through the committee structure at this college. The college council oversees the
composition of each committee, and committees advise the academic senate or the president.
Sustainability committee meetings are well represented by faculty, students, staff and managers
(Sustainability Committee, 2018). One of the benefits of a diverse community is that committee
recommendations benefit from the collective wisdom of the entire college. Individuals
contribute their expertise so that the committee receives the benefit of a well-balanced and well-
considered opinion.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 89
This cultural norm is important to understand because the validity of an “assumed
influence” may not be exposed through individual comments but may become clearer through
the recommendation of the committee. Therefore, an organizational asset should be considered
through a collective lens. There are challenges as well. Recommendations are validated with the
active participation of all committee members. The committee chair must manage the strong
voices so that they do not overpower the lesser voices of those that have strong feelings, but do
not choose to express their opinions forcefully.
In order to implement institutional change within an educational organization, trust must
be held between different parts of the institution. Institutional leaders must be informed and
ready to collaborate with each other (Gould & Caldwell, 1998; Moye, Henkin & Floyd, 2006).
Trust should exist between executive leadership, faculty, staff and front-line managers; between
individuals that lead departments, and between those seeking to write and implement a new
sustainability plan. When a new initiative is developed collaboratively, constituents may
recognize their contribution to the plan, even if it does not reflect a full incorporation of their
input. These “blended decisions” represent the will of the entire organization, rather than one
constituency.
Trust and implementation. At this college, trust will need to be re-built within the
organization in order to move forward effectively. One participant asserted,
With the summer [school] cuts and then the [the faculty union] negotiations going to
impasse, cutting summer [school] in a non-transparent way created a lot of distrust. I
think the former leadership was very authoritarian and created some lasting concerns
(Interview 6).
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 90
For months, the vote of “no confidence” roiled the campus community (Espinosa & Ruano-
Gonzales, 2018) and affected decisions at every level of the institution. The controversy led to
the retirement of two vice presidents. The president’s cabinet was also affected, effectively
replaced by the “president’s consultation council” (PCC). This new committee included the
presidents of the faculty and classified senates and presidents of the faculty and classified unions
(SRJC committee website, 2019).
College leadership recognized that next step was to rebuild trust. The PCC acted as a
discussion forum with all parts of the college represented. The hope was to increase
communication and provide better decisions, with input from all parts of the college community
(SRJC committee website, 2019). An important secondary goal was to find a way to return the
college to its cultural norm. One participant hopefully asserted,
I'm not sure if the right things are happening now to kind of help heal. It's like we need
good news…because last year seemed amazingly difficult. Not because of sustainability
in any regards. It was just overall…[a] kind of discontent was happening…I think more
communication and more transparency [is needed]…I feel like some of the important
decisions get made [in] sidebar conversations instead of in the committee, and that's not
transparent (Interview 4).
This comment about trust and transparency illustrate how cultural models can be violated, and
how decision making within a committee structure was expected.
Of the nine interview participants, five raised the issue of trust as an issue on campus.
Two participants specifically noted that the administration needed to work hard to regain the
trust of faculty, staff and students, and avoiding the perception that decisions are made from the
“top-down.” But there were also notes of hopefulness. One participant expressed,
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 91
Sustainability really brings people together. It's like mom and apple pie. It's really hard to
kind of fight over sustainability goals and processes…Everybody wants to save the planet
and usually it's good for the bottom line. I find that if anything can bring people together
and be less contentious or political, it could be sustainability. I mean, that said, as you
know, we're in a very contentious environment and even sustainability, I think, is not
impermeable to the politics that are at play right now. I think it could be a useful tool for
bringing people together, but it would still need to be done very cautiously to avoid a top-
down perception (Interview 6).
The participant understood that the work of the sustainability committee was widely popular. But
even then, the writing of a new sustainably plan would need to be inclusive and vetted through
the shared governance process.
For any community college initiative to be well received and implemented, the
community must be supportive. Sustainability initiatives have a long-term impact on people’s
work environment. Decisions about the placement, design and construction of buildings and
their operation will impact the college for years, if not decades. Trust must exist between the
managers tasked with implementing new procedures, between those that are directly affected by
projects, and between the various components of the shared governance process. Students,
faculty, staff, the administration and governing board must all have a chance to weigh in.
Successful implementation requires the input of all five groups.
Individual Leadership and Responsibility (Organizational Influence 2)
Despite recent challenges faced by the president, the district has a reputation for stable,
long-term leadership. In over100 years, the college has only had five presidents. The benefits of
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 92
a stable leadership team are many, but there are downsides when leaders are not keeping abreast
of cultural changes within the institution.
The previous leadership (governing board and president) did not embrace sustainability
as a core value. This led to a level of frustration within faculty and staff. One participant went
so far as to suggest that the previous administration and governing board actively blocked
sustainability initiatives from taking shape. “Impediment, that's the word I'm looking for; so
there have been obstacles in positions of power that we needed to just wait until they could retire
and get out of the way” (Interview 2). Continuing, this participant stated, “we have a better
board now; again, it's people on the board…before they were…so conservative. I don't know all
the [board members], but the board was one of the big obstacles before” (Interview 2). Because
of the previous president’s long tenure and long tenure of the governing board, there was no
incentive for front-line managers and department heads to take on a new initiative that did not
have support at the executive level, even if the college community was advocating for it.
Sustainability planning and implementation did not gain traction until the change in board
members, the president, and a change in specific department heads. The same participant
asserted,
[the director] was such a disaster. We called him a consummate bureaucrat. He just did
not have a sustainable bone in his body. He was all about the bureaucracy. So, things sat
still. And things were holding still because [the previous president] left. [The current
president] changed things, and then [with the director] disappearing, [it] changed
everything (Interview 2).
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 93
With new leadership, sustainability policy implementation gained traction, but it took the
retirement of the president, a change in the governing board, and finally the resignation of a
director to affect change.
Despite these challenges, many participants credit one campus leader for quietly
implementing modest sustainability measures during the old board’s tenure. The contribution
was described by one of the interview participants. “I always saw [them] as a supporter, and
kind of an ally of greater sustainability…at [that campus]…we had these…[sustainability] sub-
groups that included more and more people.”
Continuing, this participant asserted,
[that campus] was able to get [sustainability initiatives] done more quickly, even though
it still took a long time there. Just because the process of say, getting permits or having to
think about all the intended consequences, so that took long, but I kind of like that they've
been able to do things on their own. I certainly think that we should be sharing and
coordinating, but it's good for them to keep that as their own priority too (Interview 1).
Sustainability advocates at all levels of the college were implementing modest standalone
projects and allies of sustainability were working behind the scenes. It was just a matter of time
before they were able to initiate a full vision of sustainability. This might explain why
sustainability policy was implemented quickly with a new leadership team.
Coincidentally, this campus leader then became co-chair of the strategic planning
committee. Sensing a cultural change, members of the sustainability committee joined the
strategic planning committee, the facilities committee and faculty hiring committees. Their plan
ensured that sustainability was considered in all parts of the college. One participant asserted,
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 94
The new leadership has more sustainability background. I mean, I think we had
supporters in all the leadership, probably even still today…But it's one thing to be a
supporter, and it's another thing to be an advocate. I think we have a different knowledge
base in there now that could really help us culturally (Interview 6).
With renewed excitement about sustainability, individuals began to take the initiative on these
issues without fear of criticism if a mistake was made.
The idea that individuals could assume leadership positions and without fear of criticism
is the second of four assumed organizational influences. This was shared by 100% of the
participants. Therefore, this assumed influence is an organizational asset.
Examples of individual leadership. All nine of the interview participants contributed
comments about the change to the culture of the institution, once key leadership changes were
made. One participant noted an increased level of personal empowerment, leading to a
quickening in the pace of change. They asserted,
There's a lot more happening kind of just outside the committee, where people are taking
on things and going ahead and moving forward with them, which I think is great. I would
say I'm happier with the pace than I was with the pace prior (Interview 1).
Another participant, an academic leader in the institution, appreciated a sustainability display
that one of the committee members had taken on, without explicit support from administration.
They noted,
I really like the displays that [this staff member] has been putting around that really
emphasize that coffee cups and straws are not recyclable…I think that they're doing a
really good job addressing both the small, this is what you can do in your everyday life;
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 95
and also the big projects…this is gonna take years, but there's a big pay-out at the end
(Interview 9).
The perspective from the committee member creating these displays is also revealing. It is
further proof that individuals are no longer discouraged from trying new ideas. In fact, they are
finding success. The author of these “un-approved” displays asserted,
One good touchpoint was when we all went to Santa Barbara last summer, to the CHESC
[sustainability] conference, right? I did my slideshow on the waste displays and people
were like, "How did you get the administrator's permission to do that?" I'm like, "I just
kind of asked a few people and nobody says no, so I do whatever I want, and nobody
complains; so every time I do it, I make it a little bit bigger. And if no one says anything,
I just keep going (Interview 5).
With sustainability displays becoming acceptable on campus and individuals unafraid of taking
the initiative to create them, there is growing evidence that the college culture around
sustainability is beginning to change.
Implementing new sustainability displays and strategies are one way to change culture.
Another way is to ensure that new hires share the values of the committee. In fact, seven of nine
participants noted that the change in college values to incorporate sustainability was due to “the
people” that are hired. One comment illustrated the slow change in culture from a faculty
perspective. They asserted,
That's a thing with an institution like this, the people keep evolving; so who knows, you
know as I retire and new people come; like I made sure that when [G] retired that I got
[A] in. I fought the hiring committee, [I said] ‘we have to have an environmentalist. I
need help with this’ (Interview 2).
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 96
Another related comment addressed administrative (management) hires. One participant felt that
these positions are also important to changing the culture. They asserted,
I think the trend line's going the right direction, because the more people that are hired
into administrative positions, the more the hiring committee is asking questions about
sustainability and valuing it. When [this new hire] talked to the facilities department for
the first time, [they] said, "sustainability" three times. I almost yelped a little gleeful
noise (Interview 5).
This demonstrates that in administrative positions and in other areas of the college, new hires are
more knowledgeable about sustainability. Hiring committees are also more sensitive to the
issue. It is not hard to imagine a point in the near future when a tipping point is reached, and
employees will be expected to understand sustainability and will incorporate those values into
the workplace.
As one participant emphasized that the key to hiring is to find those with passion for
sustainability, regardless of position. They asserted,
[G] has such a passion for sustainability. Not that [the] position requires that. It's just a
personal interest…So [G’s] kind of an example of someone I see as being a sustainability
advocate in their position. It's not… a sustainability position, per se (Interview 4).
As the college encourages individuals to contribute individually, the overall goal of creating a
“strong culture of sustainability” will arrive much sooner.
Organizational change occurs over time and with the individual contributions of many
people. The sustainability plan will continue to be implemented so long as the college
administration is passively, if not actively, supportive. An individual’s self-confidence about
completing a task is the most important factor in their actual commitment to completing the task
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 97
(Clark & Estes, 2008). This narrative demonstrates with many examples, ways in which the
confidence to create a culture of sustainability is building built, person by person.
Incorporating Sustainability Measures (Organizational Influence 3)
Through interviews and a review of documents, this assumed influence examined the
level to which the district incorporated sustainability initiatives into the strategic planning
process, and whether those plans were operationalized. With 100% of the participants having
awareness of the strategic plan, the sustainability plan, the educational master plan, the facilities
master plan and bond spending plan, this finding is an organizational asset. Despite this finding
however, gaps remain in operationalizing the sustainability plan.
Strategic plan. The district’s strategic plan was written in 2014. A product of the
“strategic planning task force,” this comprehensive document included a vision and mission
statement, eight values flowing from the vision and mission, and eight specific goals and
objectives for the college. Sustainability is addressed at each level (vision, mission, goals and
objectives) of the strategic plan.
At the very highest level of the district, the vision is to “aspire to be an inclusive, diverse
and sustainable learning community that engages the whole person” (NorCal College, 2014).
Following the vision plan, the mission statement flows from, and aligns with this vision. It
places sustainability as the third of six statements, indicating its relative importance. The
mission defines sustainability as addressing three areas, stating that “we support the economic
vitality, social equity and environmental stewardship of our region” (NorCal College, 2014).
Following the mission statement, district values are listed, with sustainability listed as the
third of eight values. The five sustainability values include “the teaching of sustainability
principles and concepts; research on sustainable development projects/issues; incorporating
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 98
ecological values and practices in the district's operations; support and promotion of
sustainability efforts in our community; and fiscal solvency and stability” (NorCal College,
2014).
Finally, following the values statement are the specific goals and strategic objectives of
the district. Goal E (the fifth of eight) states that the district will “develop a strong culture of
sustainability” by “establish[ing] a culture of sustainability that promotes environmental
stewardship, economic vitality, and social equity” (NorCal College, 2014). Goal E specifically
seeks the following commitments from the college leadership, faculty, staff and students: 1)
expand, support, and monitor district-wide sustainability practices and initiatives; 2) infuse
sustainability across the curriculum and promote awareness throughout district operations; 3)
promote social and economic equity in the communities we serve; and 4) ensure economic
sustainability by leveraging resources partnering with our communities and contributing to the
economic growth of the region” [italics added] (NorCal College, 2014). Goal E specifically
underpins the sustainability plan, the district’s first. Written in 2015, it reinforced the three-part
definition of sustainability and was branded as “18 goals for 2018.”
Sustainability plan. As a college that supports the use of data in planning, strategic
planning goals carry the authority of a shared governance process. Several committee members
shared tactics about incorporating sustainability into the strategic planning process in 2014. One
committee member asserted,
We were just talking about how you get sustainability into the mission of the college.
How do you get an institution to make it a priority all the way to the top and throughout
the student body? So, at that time [when] we were just getting started, we actually started
working on this because we knew the new strategic planning process was coming. So, in
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 99
anticipation of that we said, "Well we need to have our stuff together." We need to see
who the stakeholders are and see if we're kind of spread out throughout the institution so
that we can strategically engage to a point where we'll be included in whatever that
strategic plan looks like (Interview 8).
Another committee member asserted,
Once the strategic plan was underway, we infiltrated and we just like, pushed and pushed
and pushed and pushed. Yeah, that was a concerted effort for a while, because [the
president] was…in the beginning…very interested in inclusivity. And he wanted to get as
many voices as possible. And he got [the strategic planning leader] on board and she was
also very, very into sustainability and very inclusive. So…it's the combination of people
(Interview 2).
These participants knew that incorporating sustainability into the strategic plan was the best way
to gain leverage. Gaining membership in the strategic planning committee was a critical task.
The sustainability plan was the result of a clear strategic goal. Members of the
sustainability committee were deliberate in how they went about adding their voice to the
strategic planning process. Through their efforts, they were able to write a succinct plan with
broad institutional support. This is confirmed in the following quote,
Do you want to be more green? Most people will say yes. That's a common goal that I
think everyone at the college agrees on, so the organizational institutional support I think
the sustainability committee has been receiving…has been good. I don't think you get as
much pushback for the initiatives that the sustainability committee wants…the pushback
you're gonna get is not from the institution, the pushback you're gonna get is behavioral
from individuals needing to change their own personal behavior (Interview 9).
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 100
This participant suggests that sustainability now enjoys broad support throughout the college.
The participant also suggests that the implementation of sustainability will rely on the behavior
change of individuals, a more difficult task.
As with any initiative, the college will need to choose how to spend its resources.
Cultural change will come from within, as individual attitudes change about sustainability within
the college. In Seven Keys to Unlock the Four Levels of Evaluation (2016), Kirkpatrick notes
that behavior change is possible when individuals have the appropriate knowledge, skills and
attitudes that may be gained through training. Behavior change, and therefore cultural change,
can be accelerated through an effective program. As an educational institution, effective training
shouldn’t be difficult to locate.
Operations. The district is beginning to implement sustainability initiatives at all levels
of the college. One example illustrates the challenges of incorporating sustainable measures into
implementable procedures. The quote reveals the complexity of integrating a seemingly simple
policy initiative. It illustrates the concept and importance of trust within an institution (an
identified gap), as a necessary cultural norm when policy is operationalized.
[I asked the custodial team,] "when it comes to cleaning products, what are you using?
What are the chemicals? What's green? Do you know what's out there? Can we source
our vendors and see what they're doing? Can we see what the industry standards are?”
And I know what [active chemicals] are and we want to be disinfected, but is there a
[safer] equivalent? (Interview 7).
This simple purchase stands the intersection of three departments. The facilities department is
responsible for cleaning without harming the employees tasked with doing so. The purchasing
department may not have easy access to the desired “green” products through the public
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 101
procurement process, and finance may be concerned about the cost premium for “green”
solvents. With the benefit of an improving climate of trust on campus, however, and peer
schools considering similar initiatives, there may be information available to support changes in
procedure, but only if the three departments work together to resolve the challenge.
The example further illustrates two findings related to operationalizing a large-scale
sustainability plan: the lack of time available for staff to modify procedures and processes that
may benefit a sustainability plan, and a natural inclination to work in silos. One sustainability
advocate summed up the challenge, stating “I think people don't have the bandwidth to do a lot. I
already spend 50 hours a week teaching my classes, I don't have a lot of bandwidth to put into
sustainability, even me, you know?” (Interview 3). A majority of participants specifically stated
that they lack the time to take on new initiatives.
This situation will only become more challenging as a budget shortfall will require a
reduction in staff. The district is introducing an early retirement incentive and will not replace
all positions (Press Democrat, 2019). “There are a lot of people that are overworked, a lot of
people that have lost employees under them or taken on more things. It takes some space and
some perspective and some support in order to create change” (Interview 5). Management and
classified ranks will stand to see the greatest contraction, as the district is obligated to keep
greater than half of its positions for faculty, by law.
However, as noted by a participant,
With the budget constraint, if that's put more work on people's plates or even changed the
atmosphere here, I don't think that's caused people to drop away from the sustainability
committee. It probably changes the mindset of what resources we can ask for from the
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 102
institution, but I don't think it's dulled their participation from the committee or on
different initiatives (Interview 9).
As noted earlier in this chapter, members of this committee are motivated by an internal drive
that may cause them to keep working towards sustainability, regardless of workload.
Interest in sustainability remains high and there is growing confidence that the
sustainability initiatives will not disappear easily. “I feel much more confident about it also
because like what you're thinking of, the policy part, is kind of in place. Like that can't be
reversed, you know?” (Interview 2). As policies are implemented and through training and other
organizational supports, the culture of the college will continue to become more sustainable. The
challenge will be to fund programs as the college works its way through its budget challenges.
Facilities and educational master plans and bond spending plan. The facilities
master plan is evidence that sustainability is incorporated into college planning. Not long after
the district completed the strategic planning process, the president announced that the district
would pursue a capital improvement bond for approval by the voters. In hindsight, the timing of
the strategic plan and the inclusion of “goal E, creating a strong culture of sustainability,” could
not have been better.
In November 2014, the voters in the county passed Measure H, a $410M capital
improvement bond, to improve the facilities of the district. With an expected additional
contribution of matching funds from the state of approximately $40M for three projects, the
district had access to over $450M in capital improvement funding. With this windfall came the
opportunity to replace energy and water inefficient buildings and landscape at the district’s four
teaching sites. In addition, funding was set aside for maintenance, repair, improvements to
infrastructure, replacement computers and classroom instructional equipment.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 103
Before embarking on the design and construction of specific building projects, an
educational plan was needed, linking the strategic plan to a facilities master plan for each
campus. A set of criteria was developed to ensure that funding would be distributed equitably to
each of the district’s teaching sites, and a bond spending plan (BSP) was developed and
approved by the governing board.
The district convened a committee to hire a qualified facility planning team, and the
successful vendor included a dedicated sustainability specialist. One participant provided his
thoughts on that event, stating,
I think the idea that the Facilities Master Plan was also being written at that time, and
there…was this sustainability expert from [the planning team]…I think that was
motivating for people, that they actually had somebody who…I mean a lot of this is about
what people see. Even if there's not anything behind it yet. It's just this perception that,
"wow, [the planning team] is actually speaking sustainability” (Interview 8).
This was an unanticipated but well received outcome, because the sustainability specialist was
not required in the proposal but was considered a differentiator in the selection of the winning
team.
With several sustainability initiatives beginning to take shape, the combined initiatives
created momentum. As the sustainability expert began engaging with the sustainability
committee, it was clear that many of the goals listed in the sustainability plan had a chance of
being implemented. At a minimum, architectural design standards would include sustainability
features, and the governing board already had a policy on energy savings. The question was
whether the BSP would include a sustainability project list, and whether the governing board
would approve it.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 104
An unexpected event led to the approval of sustainability projects in the BSP. The
enrollment of the college was tapering off. The VP of business and finance was seeking
operational cost savings, specifically in electrical, water, and waste. Projects addressing those
areas included photovoltaic arrays at the two largest teaching sites, a grey water recapture system
for irrigation, a new central plant, a major underground geothermal loop, electrical vehicle
charging stations, the replacement of inefficient computer servers, and a downsizing of the
district server farm. The sustainability project list became important not only for the college’s
sustainable footprint, but as a solution to ease the budget shortfall. The result was a $32.5
million commitment to sustainability projects.
However, there was still a question of whether the governing board would approve the
BSP. The election of November 2016 ended the speculation. Until then, the governing board
included a slate of tradition-bound trustees, some of whom had been on the board for over 20
years. Beginning in 2012 however, a series of progressive candidates began winning elections
and in 2016, formed a more progressive board. The $32.5 million sustainability project list was
approved.
Though enthusiasm is high and sustainable projects are being implemented, there is some
disappointment in the number and scale of the projects. For example, one interview participant
asserted,
I think the other area we have to [work on], and I don't know the answers to this, but the
bike-pedestrian [bridge] and just figuring how to make this place more accessible to
bikes, safer for bikes, [with] more secure bike parking (Interview 8).
The lack of clear bike lanes through and around campus and a safe storage area for bicycles
(sometimes referred to as a “bike barn”) were also cited as a priority.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 105
Another participant expressed similar disappointment with alternative transportation
choices for students by stating, “I think the campus plan, the facilities master plan could be
written with bike lanes and pedestrian paths in mind ahead of time in a very visible way, and it
hasn't been [done]” (Interview 3). The same participant noted that the college could collaborate
more effectively with the county to advocate for a more favorable set of bus lines to serve the
college.
I don't think the college has worked with the city enough to make it a major part of their
bus plan. [The county] just re-did their bus plan and while the [college] is really central to
that plan, it could be more central, and needs to be more central (Interview 3).
As reflected in the knowledge findings, alternative transportation to campus is a priority for the
committee, and there is a high level of knowledge and vision about these issues.
Finally, another participant recognized the value in having less cars on campus, stating,
I think we'd need to raise awareness and really promote the benefits of parking farther
away and encouraging a more walkable campus. One thing that struck me, too, when we
were doing the facilities master plan, it seemed like all the groups that we brought in
talked about that (Interview 4).
Despite challenges with the implementation of alternative transportation modes to campus, there
is strong recognition of the benefits of improvement in this area. Organizational support for
improvements in this area will nicely complement the knowledge finding that transportation is an
area of focus for the new sustainability plan.
One participant, new to the college, noted that the college is pursuing sustainability
aggressively. They asserted,
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 106
I'd say on the project side, we are aggressive [about sustainability], very aggressive. We
are out there; we're doing things and we're finding the funding and we're putting the
projects into place. And I'd say more so in comparison to other campuses. And when I
compare it, I'm saying [we’re more aggressive than] four-year institutions, both public
and private. I think we'd probably be at the forefront (Interview 7).
The comment is valuable because of their outsider’s perspective and experience at a four-year
university.
While there may be deficits in planning and execution, there has been significant
progress. The creation of a facilities plan and BSP with a significant amount of funding for
sustainability measures is notable. A continued implementation of sustainable projects, with a
renewed focus on alternative transportation features, would be advisable based on the interviews.
Advocacy and collaboration with outside agencies may help in the long term, but participants
should be mindful that those areas are out of the college’s control.
Communicating with External and Internal Communities (Organizational Influence 4)
In order to create a strong culture of sustainability, the college should be raising
awareness both within the college community and outside the college community through
publication, workshops, peer meetings, and other forms of recognition. Seven of nine
participants understood the benefits of publicity but felt more effective communication was
needed. Four of nine were aware of internal communication and none of the participants felt that
external communication was adequate. Therefore, there is an organizational gap when it comes
to communication about sustainability issues.
Table 10 illustrates the gap between the amount of publicity generated, and the belief in
its importance.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 107
Table 10
Publicity measures for sustainability and the belief that it matters.
Assumed Organizational Influence - Publicity Responses
Does the college publicize the work of the sustainability committee internally? 4 of 9

Does the college publicize the work of the sustainability committee externally? 0 of 9

Do committee members understand the benefits of publicity to the internal and external 7 of 9
communities?

Four participants stated that sustainability updates are provided twice yearly to the
college community through professional development activity day (PDA) workshops. One
participant commented,
At each professional development day, there've been workshops…focused around
sustainability. On one hand, I think we're still kind of the core group of people, who are
still the same people. There maybe are more people that are getting involved a little bit,
than I remember seeing. There are different names and different people. I don't know that
... I really don't know, kind of the atmosphere of sustainability, like whether, how it's
changed in other groups, minds. I think it's certainly becoming even more visible, but I'm
not sure whether…the culture of sustainability has been [changed] (Interview 1).
PDA workshops do a good job of attracting sustainability “regulars” but may not be effective in
spreading sustainability culture. PDA day keeps interested members of the college community
informed, but the challenge is to increase interest in sustainable activities.
One participant suggested that greater internal communication might be a way to increase
interest. With progress shown in a short amount of time, they asserted that “people need to see
markers of progress because then it motivates them to do their own little thing in their own little
area” (Interview 8). Another person reiterated this point by recognizing the power of external
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 108
activities tied to known sustainable markers outside of the college, such as the president’s
climate commitment (formally known as the ACUPCC). They asserted,
I think recognition for the college is really important. And recognition for what the
committee's doing…like [successfully implementing] the president's climate
commitment, and things like that. Just the fact that the word gets out there that these
things are happening” (Interview 3).
These participants understood how publicity raises awareness and may motivate others to action.
Two other participants connected individual motivation to greater collective action. One
asserted, “I feel like a lot of things [are happening and] people don't realize the impact they're
having as an individual” (Interview 4). Another asserted,
when everyone at the institution says, “wow we really met that goal,” I think that's
positive affirmation for all the little actions that were taking place in offices, in their
departments. I think it motivates them more (Interview 9).
These comments indicate an understanding of how motivating publicity can be for the college,
even if these “early adapters” are intrinsically motivated. They are not interested in their own
reward but have connected their individual activity to the greater good. By publicizing these
efforts, individuals may be motivated to continue their efforts in order to meet the collective
goal.
None of the interview participants felt that there was adequate activity in external
reporting to the community, despite recent progress. One participant lamented that it is almost as
if the college is culturally unable to publicize and receive credit for the recent sustainability
work.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 109
I would love us to be recognized as an institution for this work, because I feel like we
don't do a very good job at that as a whole. I watch a lot of things come across as you
probably do, and it always seems to be other colleges and I just wonder if it's not as much
in our culture to apply for those things? Or maybe it's happened more than I think and
we're just not getting it? I don't know. But I know [the current president] is competitive
too. I would love to get more of those and then when the college gets the recognition, it
takes the individual out of it. It's more about what we do, and I think there's a lot of
power in that. There's a lot of power in the community outside realizing that we're doing
good things (Interview 8).
While institutional modesty may reflect the current culture of the college, there are reasons that
the college may want to take a more active leadership role in sustainability.
One sustainability committee member suggested that the size of the college was ideal for
setting a standard for others in the surrounding community to follow. They asserted,
We're in a position to show the surrounding community a new way. We're a much
smaller, more controlled system. If we want to ban plastic bottles, we can do it. If we
want to use all compostable materials, we can do it. [We can] report it out and have the
county departments and the city and other cities go, "Hey, [the college] is doing that,
that's cool!” (Interview 5).
Publicity will not only inspire individuals within the college to continue their efforts but may
also help inspire other agencies throughout the community to take similar action.
Sustainability advocates at the college understand how publicity benefits their cause, both
internally and externally. They understand that publicity is one way of bringing people together
to achieve collective success. They understand that the culture of the college will change when
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 110
individuals act. They understand that the role that the college can play to influence the city
around it.
Conclusion
Through a gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), this evaluation study focused
on the ability of a college’s sustainability committee to write and implement a new sustainability
plan. There were four assumed knowledge influences. Two additional knowledge influences
emerged through the process of axial coding. The participants’ lack of knowledge about existing
governing board policy is a knowledge gap. The discovery that participants held common
themes for the next sustainability plan is a knowledge asset. Of the assumed influences, a lack of
knowledge about “SMART” goal setting and detailed knowledge about the existing
sustainability plan, are knowledge gaps. However, participants had an abundance of knowledge
about third-party sustainability templates, engaging in discussions about their merits and
relevance in writing the next plan. Also, committee members thought deeply about areas of
continuing concern and demonstrated knowledge about specific issues to address in the next
plan. These two items should be considered knowledge assets.
There were two motivational factors. The committee demonstrated confidence in their
ability to write a new plan and were intrinsically motivated to do so. These are both deemed
motivational assets. Despite financial setbacks at the college, sustainability measures continue to
be incorporated in the institution. One promising sign is the willingness of individuals to take on
additional work and responsibility without additional reward. However, with the college
downsizing to meet falling enrollment projections, participants expressed concerned about taking
on additional responsibilities. For the time being, the sustainability committee enjoys a
reputation as a high functioning and effective committee.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 111
There were four organizational influences. The lack of trust between various parts of the
organization (specifically between managers that must implement the sustainability plan), and
the lack of publicity for sustainability are the two organizational gaps. A poor decision by
college administrators to cancel summer school damaged trust between bargaining units and
within the college generally. No operational area was spared, and interview participants were
clear that there were lasting challenges to overcome. However, there was also a perception that
the college is on a path towards transparency and trust is being restored. Institutional solutions,
such as the creation of the PCC, are seen as effective. The lack of publicity for sustainability
efforts remains a challenge, and improvements in this area should be considered.
Individual leadership around sustainability and the consistent incorporation of
sustainability measures in strategic planning documents are organizational assets for this college.
Sustainability committee members have taken the initiative to raise awareness about
sustainability through displays on campus and feel supported in doing so. The organization
relies on data-driven decision making and the institutional planning documents (including the
strategic plan, sustainability plan, facilities master plan and BSP) all incorporate sustainability.
Additionally, the governing board’s sustainability policy encourages energy conservation, but
does not reflect the broader set of sustainability values as currently defined by the sustainability
committee.
While the institution has made excellent progress towards “creating a strong culture of
sustainability” (NorCal College, 2014) in a short amount of time, the college still has work to do.
Chapter 5 will provide a framework and specific recommendations to meet the institutional goals
of the college.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 112
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS
Organizational Context and Mission
NorCal College is one of the 114 Community Colleges in California serving over 2.1
million students annually. This community college serves close to 30,000 full and part time
students, with a full-time equivalent student enrollment of approximately 17,500 students
(NorCal College, 2019). The mission of the college is summarized in Chapter One, Table 1 of
this study. In summary, the college provides educational services to enable students to transfer
to a four-year university, develops vocational skills and training programs to enable students to
join the local workforce, and provides learning enhancements to improvement student’s
foundational skill development. The mission of the college also contains a statement supporting
economic vitality, social justice and equity, and environmental stewardship of the region (NorCal
College, 2019).
As a public entity within the California system of higher education, the college must
develop and implement sustainability measures to meet goals established by the State Legislature
and Governor. This includes a significant reduction in the use of energy, water and waste.
Legislative goals include reducing the amount of GHG produced to 80% below 1990 levels by
2050, with intermediate GHG reduction goals in 2020 and 2030. The state met the 2020 GHG
reduction goal in 2016, four years early.
Though 2019 was a good year for rainfall, California suffers from a chronic shortage of
drinking water. The source of this water in California is the Sierra mountain snowpack.
Snowpack is the amount of snow accumulated during the winter, which becomes drinking water
as it melts and flows into reservoirs. This water is shared by both farmers and cities and in any
given year, arguments break out between farmers and cities competing for water. With a $50
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 113
billion agricultural economy (Schribman, 2019), California’s farmers carry as much clout as the
people living in cities. With recent droughts, these arguments are becoming more common.
As public entity, the CCCS is encouraged to reduce its GHG output and use of drinking
water. The Chancellor’s Office of Facilities created a common sustainability planning template
that addresses these (and other) issues, though use of the template is not mandatory. In fact,
community colleges are not required to have a sustainability plan. Colleges that choose to write
a plan develop it independently, depending on the institution and their motivations to write it.
The community college chancellor’s office currently has no enforcement mechanism to
encourage sustainability planning. The chancellor’s office is beginning to align the state funding
with sustainability incentives and the chancellor’s office will connect individual colleges to
alternative funding sources, such as utility companies and other grant-providing institutions.
While enforcement mechanisms are weak, the time is coming when public institutions
will be required to become more sustainable. Wealthy counties across California already seek
additional funds through the issuance of general obligation bonds, paid for by local taxpayers
based on property values. These funds are often applied towards constructing sustainability
projects such photovoltaic panels, which offset energy bills. This creates inequality in the
overall system, as less affluent regions don’t have access to these bonds and have a harder time
lowering their operating overhead.
It is simply a matter of time before the chancellor’s office is compelled by the legislature
to align facilities funding to reduce the GHG output to meet state mandates. The state assembly
has shown its willingness to drive change before. Most recently, Assembly Bill AB-705 changed
the funding formula for community colleges, ensuring that colleges provide pathways towards
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 114
graduation within a six-year timeframe. The legislature could apply the same lessons towards
reducing GHG, energy, water and waste.
Organizational Performance Goal
The Norcal College strategic planning goal is to “create a strong culture of sustainability”
(NorCal College, 2012), by writing and implementing a new sustainability plan in 2019. The
first sustainability plan was created in 2015, with a completion date targeted for 2018. The
sustainability committee will write and implement a new sustainability plan to address a tripartite
mission as defined by the first sustainability plan. Those areas are environmentalism (or
ecology), economic viability, and equity. Environmental concerns are addressed through
traditional ecological issues such as conserving energy and a reducing GHG output. Economic
concerns are addressed by considering the long-term cost of ownership, rather than least cost.
Equity concerns are addressed by supporting programs that ensure that resources are distributed
fairly.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
There are three primary stakeholder groups influencing the writing and implementation
of a new sustainability plan. They are described in chapter one. Each group plays a significant
role with little overlap. The stakeholders are the college president and governing board, the
administration (VPs), and members of the sustainability committee. This study will focus on the
sustainability committee, tasked with writing and implementing the second iteration of the
college’s sustainability plan. The committee will require the input of various leaders in the
college, including the administration. The president and governing board will provide strategic
and motivational support to the committee as approvers of policy and strategy, and as
representatives of the public.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 115
Goal of the Stakeholder Group for the Study
For the college to make progress towards the organizational goal of creating a strong
culture of sustainability, it is imperative that the sustainability committee learn to create goals
that fit the “SMART” goal setting template. The first version of the sustainability plan was a
public marker for the college, demonstrating to the local community that the college was taking
sustainability seriously. To the extent that the committee has grown in significance and
influence within the college, the first sustainability plan was a success. To take the next step, the
sustainability plan should be clear and concise. Progress towards the legislative and
gubernatorial goals should be more easily measured. In so doing, this college can leapfrog over
other colleges regionally, setting an example for other colleges to follow.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the capacity of the college’s sustainability
committee to write and implement a new sustainability plan by the end of 2019. The analysis
will focus on knowledge, motivation and organizational influences related to achieving the
organizational goals. While a complete performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders,
for practical purposes the stakeholder to be focused on in this analysis is the sustainability
committee. The research questions for the study are:
1. To what extent do the college’s sustainability committee members have the required
2. knowledge/skills and motivation to write and implement a new sustainability plan for the
college?
3. What is the interaction between organizational culture/context and sustainability
committee’s knowledge and motivation?
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 116
4. What are the recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
practice that will allow the college’s sustainability committee to write and implement a
new sustainability plan?
This section recaps the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that affect the
sustainability committee’s ability to write and implement the next iteration of the sustainability
plan.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
The purpose of this section is to provide a summary of each of the assets and gaps for the
10 KMO assumed influences and two emergent influences. When KMO gaps were identified,
evidence-based solutions are provided to cure those gaps. More specifically, this chapter
addresses the third research question, providing recommendations to allow sustainability
committee members to modify their behavior in order to gain the skills, knowledge and
organizational support needed to write and implement a new sustainability plan.
Four knowledge influences, two motivational influences, and four organizational
influences were explored. Two of the four influences were deemed knowledge assets two were
deemed knowledge gaps. Knowledge assets included an understanding of third-party
sustainability planning templates and a thoughtful reflection of the value of writing a new plan.
Knowledge gaps included a lack of detailed understanding of the goals of the first sustainability
plan, and the lack of knowledge about SMART goal setting. Recommendations are included to
cure these two knowledge gaps.
Both assumed motivational influences were deemed to be assets for the college. They
included the internal drive to create a new plan, and the confidence to implement the plan. These
motivational influences are assets, and no recommendations are provided.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 117
Four organizational influences were explored, with two assumed influences deemed to be
organizational assets and two deemed to be organizational gaps. Assets included organizational
support for individual leadership and initiative and the use of data-driven decision making. The
latter is demonstrated in the consistent integration of sustainability in strategic planning
documents. Two organizational gaps included the lack of trust within the organization, and the
lack of publicity and recognition for the college’s sustainability work. Recommendations are
included for these two organizational gaps.
The overall framework for analyzing the findings and recommendations is based on the
new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2012). According to the authors, “it
is…important to emphasize that changing behavior is under the control of the manager whose
subordinates were trained. Therefore, these concepts, principles, and techniques are equally
important to trainers and managers” (p. 75). Thus, the model may have been developed as a
training tool, but any action leading to increased learning, skill development and improved
motivation is applicable to both trainers and managers. The goal is to improve the performance
of the institution through the improvement of the individuals.
Knowledge Recommendations
There were four areas of knowledge which were explored. The questions deliberately
sought to understand the committee members knowledge about the existing sustainability plan,
the tools available to assist in writing the plan, the concept of “SMART” goal setting, and to
ascertain whether committee members felt that there was value in writing a new plan. The
questions were organized as factual, conceptual, procedural, or metacognitive, following
Krathwohl’s four types of knowledge (2002). The intent was to understand what each committee
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 118
member knows about the plan, and their ability to write and implement a clear and measurable
set of goals.
The first assumed knowledge influence was to determine if the sustainability committee
understood the existing sustainability plan in detail. According to Krathwohl’s taxonomy of
knowledge (2002), this is declarative (conceptual) knowledge, intended to explore whether
committee members had mentally organized the goals contained in the existing plan. In order to
write a new plan, each committee member should know how the plan was organized, the types of
goals contained in the plan, and a sense of which goals were prioritized (Krathwohl, 2002).
Committee members should understand how the pieces of plan functioned together and the
relationship between each of the 18 goals. Because they did not, this influence was deemed a
knowledge gap.
The second knowledge influence explore was whether committee members knew about
third-party sustainability templates and rating instruments. These instruments are available
through outside agencies as free or paid subscriptions. They provide colleges with a way to
measure their ecological footprint, including GHG emissions, energy and water use and other
environmental metrics. This is declarative (procedural) knowledge, measuring whether the
committee knows how to do something (Krathwohl, 2002). Information is organized into a set
of steps that will reduce the college’s ecological footprint and provide a rating. Rating systems
include categories or stars with a goal of receiving positive publicity. The committee’s
knowledge of these rating instruments was deemed an asset.
The third area of knowledge was whether committee members understood SMART goal
setting. This knowledge type is characterized as declarative (conceptual), because it is
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 119
characterized by the organization of information related to goal setting. Because few of the
participants were familiar with this type of goal setting, this was deemed a knowledge gap.
The final area of knowledge explored in this study was to ascertain whether committee
members knew the value a new sustainability plan. According to Krathwohl, the ability to
undertake a creative endeavor is characterized as metacognitive knowledge, requiring complex
thought and self-knowledge about a subject without a “right” answer. (Krathwohl, 2002).
Creating a new sustainability plan while judging the success of the first plan, determining the
needs of the institution, and planning how to implement the plan are characteristics of
metacognitive knowledge. This area was deemed a knowledge asset.
Table 11 describes the knowledge (K) influences, whether the influence is a knowledge
asset or gap, the urgency of addressing the issue (Y or N), the research citation, the specific
recommendation to cure the knowledge gap and suggested supplementary material for
knowledge assets. In addition, the recommendations for “context-specific recommendation for
the college’s sustainability committee” shall be provide by the sustainability chairperson. If the
chairperson (elected each term) does not have enough knowledge to perform the task, and
independent trainer will be hired by the college to provide the recommended support and training
for sustainability committee members.

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 120
Table 11
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence

K Asset
or Gap
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation for the
College’s Sustainability
Committee
Declarative /
Conceptual.
Sustainability
committee
members should
have knowledge of
the first
sustainability plan,
the 18 objectives
and the additional
sub-objectives
(declarative –
conceptual).
Gap Y Learning is highly
dependent on “goal-
directed practice” and
“targeted feedback”
(Ambrose, 2010).

Creating schemata
helps learners to
organize declarative
knowledge in a
domain (Schraw,
Veldt, & Olafson,
2009).
Review key goals found in the
first sustainability plan, making
sure to also review the secondary
objectives in the plan

Deconstruct one of the key goals
in the plan to understand the
difference between an
aspirational goal and SMART
goal

Declarative /
Procedural.
Committee
members should
have knowledge of
third-party
sustainability
templates and
rating instruments
Asset Y Procedural knowledge
increases when
declarative knowledge
required to perform
the skill is available or
known. (Clark et al.,
2008).

Provide a job aid that includes a
clearly structured chart of the
various types of third-party rating
systems and decide which system
to utilize.
Committee
members should
have knowledge of
what a measurable,
timebound goal is.
The SMART goal
is an appropriate
system and
members should
know the definition
of the acronym,
and knowledge
about how to apply
it (declarative –
conceptual).
Gap Y Use a sorting task to
expose students’
knowledge
organizations
(Ambrose, 2010)

Creating schemata
helps learners to
organize declarative
knowledge in a
domain (Schraw,
Veldt, & Olafson,
2009).

Learning is highly
dependent on “goal-
directed practice” and
“targeted feedback”
(Ambrose, 2010).
Provide training with example of
each goal. Explore the meaning
of each letter of an acronym
through examples.

Provide a job aid that includes a
clearly structured chart of the
SMART acronym, for easy
reference.

Provide training in goal setting,
so that all committee members
understand what a SMART goal
is.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 121
Table 11, continued
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence

K Asset
or Gap
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation for the
College’s Sustainability
Committee
Metacognitive.
Committee
members should
agree whether there
is value in writing
and implementing a
new sustainability
plan, utilizing
SMART goals
setting and third-
party measurement
templates
Asset Y Learning is highly
dependent on “goal-
directed practice” and
“targeted feedback”
(Ambrose, 2010).

Provide training with authentic
SMART goal setting, expertise-
based demonstrations, and
practice by committee members
with feedback from expert
sustainability advocates.
Declarative /
Conceptual.
Committee
members have
suggested several
specific areas to
address in the new
sustainability plan
Emergent
Asset
Y Generating involves
representing the
problem and arriving
at alternatives
(Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001)
In the kick-off meeting, have the
chairperson write down the
desired goals in order to
determine priority, overlap, and
clarity.
Declarative /
Conceptual.
Committee
members should
know the existing
governing board
policy and
sustainability
standards in the
facilities master
plan
Emergent
Gap
N Between 50 – 90% of
expert knowledge are
automated and
unconscious, which
allows the expert to
perform complex tasks
quickly, accurately
and effortlessly (Clark
& Estes, 2008)
Review the existing governing
board energy policy, facilities
master plan sustainability goals.
Incorporate or identify board
policy or master plans that need
updating.

Declarative knowledge solutions. Of the four knowledge influences, two were deemed
to be declarative (conceptual) knowledge gaps. The sustainability committee did not know the
main goals of the first sustainability plan, nor did they write measurable, timebound goals. The
recommendation to resolve these two knowledge gaps is the same. Conduct a training session,
led by the chair of the committee, to review and understand the 18 existing goals in the first
sustainability plan, deconstructing at least one of those 18 goals to better understand the
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 122
difference between an aspirational goal and a SMART goal. Reviewing the information
together, deconstructing each goal, and organizing information allows committee members to fill
in knowledge gaps to create an organized mental schema (Ambrose, 2010). This would also
provide the committee with the tools to decide whether the 18 goals were achieved, and whether
to attempt them again. If the chair does not have these skills, a knowledgeable facilitator should
be hired to run the workshop.
For example, the first sustainability plan called for an increase in bicycle lanes
throughout the city. While this is a noble goal, it does not fit SMART goal criteria, being neither
Achievable or Realistic (the A and R in SMART goal setting). The college neither owns the right
of way to city streets, nor can it create transportation policy for the city. A SMART goal
approach would state that the committee could advocate for the installation of a specific bicycle
lane adjacent to the college, by attending a specific city council meeting and presenting a signed
petition with at least “x” number of signatures on it.
Underlying this advocacy is the ability and willingness to become specific and strategic
in setting the goals in the new iteration of the sustainability plan. As noted by Ambrose (2010),
learning is highly dependent on “goal-directed practice” and “targeted feedback.” A training
workshop to teach SMART goal setting with exercises designed to better understand goal setting,
would also provide for feedback and discussion. To allow for “big picture” thinking, aspirational
goals may still be placed in a “parking lot” of big ideas and would be segregated from the goal
setting required in the next sustainability plan.
Finally, a “job aid” with the SMART acronym spelled out would be distributed. As
noted by Schraw, Veldt and Olafson (2009), a schema designed to remind participants of the
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 123
components of a SMART goal would assist in creating a mental map of the acronym. As
expertise is gained, goals are faster to develop.
Procedural knowledge solutions. Interviews revealed that committee members had
adequate procedural knowledge about the existence of third-party templates and rating systems
measuring sustainability. Templates are useful tools to assist in the writing of a sustainability
plan, and the issue will be to select a rating system appropriate for this college. According to
Clark (2008), procedural knowledge increases when declarative knowledge required to perform
the skill is available or known. The committee should reach out to peer colleges for input and
best practices, discuss the merits of recommended templates, and select most appropriate.
Metacognitive knowledge solutions. The committee has adequate metacognitive
knowledge to write a new plan and are discussing goals for the next iteration of the plan.
Improving the conceptual knowledge of committee members through a review of the existing
sustainability plan and SMART goal setting is important. But finding time for individual
reflection is critical, as active engagement in self-assessment and self-monitoring behaviors leads
to the development of metacognition (Baker, 2006). This behavior has been demonstrated by
committee members, with active discussions about specific goals and self-assessment of
activities already taking place.
Current Motivational Promising Practices
Two motivational influences were explored through the interview process, whether
committee members had the self-confidence to write and implement a new sustainability plan,
and whether committee members were motivated internally, or by external reward. In both
cases, motivation influences were determined to be an asset. If knowledge provides the
committee members with “how” to do something, motivation is what helps the process start,
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 124
keeps it moving, and provides an indication of how much time to spend on a task (Clark & Estes,
2008). Motivation is a key component and not to be undervalued, as committee members are not
provided with “release time” from work responsibilities or other financial incentives. Motivation
must come from within. Moreover, as sustainability members continue to change the culture of
the college, their expectations for success rise accordingly. This is an example of self-fulfilling
expectations created when “meaning-making beliefs [are] linked to achievement-related
activities and events” (Eccles, 2010).
Motivational influences are presented as promising practices, with the encouragement to
continue forward with current practices. It can be argued that with continued success, self-
efficacy will become a self-fulfilling prophesy and lead to a virtuous cycle of sustainable
activity. A summary of results is presented in Table 12. Citations for continued actions are
presented, with evidence noted in the context-specific recommendation column.

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 125
Table 12
Summary of Motivation Influences and Promising Practice (Continue Practices)
Assumed Motivational
Influence

M Asset of
Gap
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Current Promising
Practice (continue to
practice)
Intrinsic Value.
Committee members
should see the intrinsic
value of writing a
sustainability plan,
meeting requirements of
the state to reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG),
water & energy, and
implement projects fairly
& equitably (at minimum,
express an intrinsic or
extrinsic motivation)
Asset Yes,
continue
current
practice
Individuals are more
likely to engage in an
activity when it
provides value to them.
(Eccles, 2009).

A goal’s importance,
often referred to as its
subjective value, is one
of the key features
influencing the
motivation to pursue it
(Ambrose, 2010).

Wigfield and Eccles
(1992, 2002) suggest
that value is derived
from several sources,
including attainment
value, intrinsic value,
and instrumental value.
Intrinsic value
represents the
satisfaction that one
gains simply from
doing the task
(Ambrose, 2010).
Members of the
sustainability
committee
demonstrated a high
degree of intrinsic
motivation.

Sustainability
committee members
volunteer to without
the financial support
and believe their
actions contribute to
saving the planet.

Sustainability planning
at this college has
significantly improved,
and satisfaction has
increased with the
successful deployment
of sustainable
initiatives.
Self-efficacy. Committee
members need to believe
that they can write a new
sustainability plan, with
SMART goals
Asset Yes,
continue
current
practice.
Self-efficacy is
increased as
individuals succeed in
a task (Bandura, 1997).

The committee has
successfully
implemented parts of a
self-written
sustainability plan.
Committee members
have the metacognitive
knowledge
(Krathwohl, 2002) to
write a new plan, and
are discussing and
reflecting upon the
new goals of the plan.

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 126
Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that there are three indicators of motivation in task
performance – choice, persistence and mental effort. Choice is going beyond intention to start
something. Persistence is continuing to pursue a goal in the face of distraction, and mental effort
is seeking and applying new knowledge to solve a novel program or perform a new task.
Committee members exhibit a high degree of self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation. They chose
to write and implement the first sustainability plan without the formal support of the college.
They persisted in advocating sustainability when the college’s governing board was not
supportive. They continue to expend mental effort to pursue grants and other sources of funds.
The college’s sustainability manager applied for and was successful in receiving a $4.95 million
grant to create a microgrid on campus. The grant will increase resiliency of the college and
further demonstrates persistence and self-efficacy possessed by members of the committee.
Committee members successfully advocated for goal E, “to create a strong culture of
sustainability” in the college’s 2014 strategic plan and are planning to join the strategic planning
committee to assist writing the next iteration of the strategic plan. Committee members
advocated for a facilities master plan that included sustainability, and funds from the college’s
capital improvement fund were inserted to support sustainability projects. Success has increased,
and along with it, self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Both motivational influences are deemed assets,
and no further recommendations are made.
Organization Recommendations
Clark and Estes (2008) referencing Dixon (1994), state that there must be alignment
between structures and key business processes for a new initiative to find success. There must
also be clear and candid communication about the initiative throughout the organization. A lack
of resources, specifically time or money, indicate that the stakeholder and organization’s goals
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 127
may be misaligned. This misalignment may have a detrimental impact on those attempting to
initiate change. Clark and Estes (2008) assert,
All types of organizational structure and environments can have neutral, helpful, or
destructive effects on human performance. What is accomplished at work is due in large
measure to an interaction between the work environment and people’s knowledge, skills,
and motivation (p. 115).
Organizational support is critical to motivating those tasked with implementation. Organizations
may encourage or unintentionally disempower when resources do not follow the rhetoric.
Four organizational influences were explored to determine whether the organization
willingly supported the sustainability program. The end goal was to judge whether the college
supported sustainability generally and whether there were obstacles to overcome in writing and
implementing the next iteration of the sustainability plan. Resource distribution, decision making
processes and cultural models and settings must align throughout the organization’s structure to
achieve the mission and goals. As indicated in Table 13, two of the four influences were deemed
as organizational assets, and two were deemed as organizational gaps. Table 13 also shows the
recommendations for the two organizational gaps, based on theoretical and research-based
principles.

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 128
Table 13
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organizational
Influence

Asset or
Gap
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendations &
Promising Practices
Committee members
should feel that there is a
culture of collegiality &
trust among operating
units, in order to change
procedures to support a
sustainability plan
(pointing out challenges
& issues, as they see it).
Gap Y Organizational
performance increases
when processes and
resources are aligned
with goals established
collaboratively (Clark
& Estes, 2008)
Sustainability
Committee Chair’s
Action:
1) By Sept 2019, the
president’s consultation
council (PCC) shall
receive a briefing on
green capital projects,
green purchasing and
the environmental
studies academic
programs. 2) By Oct
2019, initiate the first
team meeting between
front-line managers that
are expected to
implement the
sustainability plan. 3)
By Dec 2019,
discourage silos by
creating a monthly
meeting to check
progress. 4) Report
back to PCC every
other month.
Committee members
should feel that there is a
culture of individual
leadership &
responsibility so that they
may strive to take on
challenges & implement
solutions without fear of
criticism when problems
arise.
Asset Y Job satisfaction
increases when all
organization
stakeholders agree on
culture, mission,
goals, and resources
required to achieve
goals (Clark & Estes,
2008)
Promising Practice:
Continue to raise
awareness by creating
learning displays,
participating in
professional
development, and other
community events
(Continued action by
Facilities Staff)

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 129
Table 13, continued
Assumed
Organizational
Influence

Asset or
Gap
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendations &
Promising Practices
The college should
incorporate sustainability
(see Board policy,
strategic plan, facilities
master plan, building
projects, operational
procedures).
Asset Y Organizational
performance increases
when individuals
communicate
constantly and
candidly to others
about plans and
processes (Clark &
Estes, 2008)
Promising Practice:
Continue to advocate
and improve strategic,
facilities and other
planning documents.
Share resources to
address other areas of
sustainability, including
equity, financial &
academic (Action by
District Facilities
Planning Committee)

By Dec 2019, convene
new sub-committee to
review existing Board
sustainability policy.
Share findings with
college council by Feb
2020. Propose changes
by May 2020, for
consideration by Board
by summer 2020.
The college should
publicize the work that it
is doing in sustainability
to the external & internal
community

Gap Y Organizational
performance increases
when top management
is continually
involved in the
improvement process
(Clark & Estes, 2008)

Sustainability
Committee actions:
1) By Oct 2019, present
plan to PCC and
receive buy in. 2) By
Oct 2019, create a
presentation for PDA
day and create an
update formula for the
following spring
semester. 3) By Dec
2019, create action plan
to incl. help from
Publication Office to
create a social media
platform. Goal is to
share sustainability
initiatives with outside
and inside constituents.
4) By May 2020,
publish one article in
local newspaper.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 130
Organizational cultural model influence. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) suggest
that culture is a shared mental schema about how the world works. This cultural schema shapes
what is valued and idealized by a group and sets boundaries for what to enact and avoid. The
schema sets the rules for interaction with others within the culture and the purpose for those
interactions. Cultural models are so familiar that they can be invisible to those that share them.
At NorCal College, the expectation of shared information, transparency and decision making is
so ingrained that when this shared culture is challenged, the college community is profoundly
affected.
A poorly communicated decision to cancel the 2018 summer session led to the early
retirement of two senior administrators and a general distrust between administrators and faculty.
Additionally, a 2017 wildfire haunted the residents of the area when over 5,000 homes were lost.
These extenuating circumstances contributed to the perception that the accepted cultural model
was developing cracks and fissures. Decisions small and large were becoming controversial,
leading to dissatisfaction and disappointment for much of the academic year.
The sustainability committee’s work was a bright spot. The facilities master plan
included a significant sum for sustainability projects, including energy and water reduction
projects. But the sustainability plan was complex, with 18 goals and an uncounted number of
sub-goals, many of which were not in the college’s control. Policy complexity can lead to the
purposeful subversion of the policy by those asked to implement the plan (Friedman, 2006).
Moving forward, there should be an agreement on the sustainability goals and the types of
policies to implement. The suggestion of a green purchasing policy without input from the
Director of Purchasing or Vice President of Business and Finance will lead to failure.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 131
To mitigate this issue, front-line managers should be encouraged to participate in the
crafting of the next sustainability plan. Though sustainability goals might be less ambitious as a
result, incremental change is often more successful over time. The need to include specific actors
in policy development highlights the incremental nature of public policy itself. Public policy
related individual action to institutional contexts (Laws & Hajer, 2008). Collective decisions
may build trust not only between managers, but also between the faculty, staff and students that
felt stymied by the lack of transparency in other recent decisions.
Finally, budgets reflect the values of an institution. The capital improvement bond has
funded many sustainable facilities improvements on campus, but academic and equity related
sustainability initiatives go lacking. With solutions to the structural deficit not far away, the
finance department may be able to better respond to requests in the future. Hummel-Rossi and
Ashdown (2002), citing Levin (1988), suggest that program assessment should consider more
than monetary values and include student achievement. The focus on student success over the
bottom line is something that better reflects the cultural model of this college.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The model that informed this evaluation of the district sustainability committee’s plan is
the “new world Kirkpatrick model.” Based on the Four Level Model of Evaluation (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2006), Kirkpatrick (1959) developed the model to evaluate the effectiveness of
corporate training in the workplace. There are four stages: reaction, learning, behavior
modification, and evaluation. Reversing the model to begin with the evaluation stage provides a
way to bridge recommended solutions to the organization’s goals, making them both easier to
identify and more closely aligned with the organizational goals. Secondly, reversing the order
provides a way to sequence the three other actions: 1) the development of solution outcomes that
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 132
measure the change of committee behavior, 2) recording of measurements that demonstrate that
learning occurred during the recommended strategy implementation, and 3) an evaluation on
whether the committee was satisfied with the implementation strategy. Designing the
implementation and evaluation plan in this manner forces a connection between the college’s
goals and the immediate solutions and ensures “buy in” by committee members along the way
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The mission of NorCal College is to cultivate learning in its diverse community through
the physical, social, aesthetic, emotional and ethical development of its students. The college
prepares students for transfer, provides career technical education, and improve students’
foundational skills. The college encourages lifelong learning by seeking joy, personal and
professional growth. The college supports the economic vitality, social justice and equity, and
environmental stewardship of their region (NorCal College, 2014).
The college will establish a strong culture of sustainability, promoting ecology
(environmental stewardship), the economy of the district (financial sustainability), and equity
(fair distribution of resources) as aligned with goal E of the strategic plan. The sustainability
committee is the primary author and implementer of the sustainability plan. Achieving the goals
of the plan will not only add to the economic and ecological resiliency of the college but will
contribute to the overall reduction of greenhouse gases mandated by the state.
Ultimately, the primary goal of sustainability planning is to encourage development to
meet the needs of today, without compromising the needs of future generations (Brundtland
Commission, 1987). Reducing the college’s dependency on the hydrocarbon economy will
reduce the amount of global warming in the earth’s atmosphere. According to the IPCC (2015),
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 133
doing so will slow the melting of the poles, reduce the rise of oceans and protect the coasts,
inhibit the spread of unpredictable weather, and slow the extinction of species due to changes in
the global climate (IPCC interim report, 2017). Most importantly, this learning institution will
provide future generations with the tools needed to make informed decisions about the
consequences of global warming through written plans and action.
Therefore, the sustainability goals of the college follow two strands. The first set of goals
address external sustainability goals set by the State Legislature and Governor. Primarily, the
reduction in GHG to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
The second set of goals are internal, respecting the three-part definition of sustainability that is
now incorporated into the strategic plan and mission of the college.
The internal goals include a focus on the long-term economic health of the college and
the college’s commitment to equity and social justice. Though the sustainability plan clearly
addressed a “three-part” definition of sustainability, the goals associated with economics and
equity were not discussed by participants in the same manner. Though the BSP addressed the
economic issue by creating projects that led to cost savings, those items did not seem to attract
the same attention of the interview participants. Similarly, for issues related to equity, such as
the creation of a food pantry and possibility of below market student housing, the issues were not
featured by participants at the same level. However, participants did include advocates for both
areas, and their supporting comments for those areas, were noted.
Finally, there are inherent tradeoffs between economics and ecology, and economics and
equity. For example, the cost of environmentally conscious cleaners is more costly than standard
cleaners, and the cost to subsidize public transportation for students is paid for in higher student
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 134
fees. These tradeoffs are not reconciled in this study, but over the long term, should be
considered, as the college assimilates sustainability into the institution.
Writing and implementing a sustainability plan provides the governing board and
president a leadership opportunity for other local public agencies to follow. College
administrators may demonstrate sustainability leadership in the CCCS. College staff and
students may participate in the implementation of a strategic goal. Faculty will have a contextual
teaching opportunity. Most importantly, students will have an opportunity to participate in
“hands-on” policy making.
The plan will utilize SMART goal setting, or some other form of measurable and
timebound goal making. Metrics gathered will be formatted using a suitable third-party template
so that the college may measure their progress against other college and universities.
Implementation of the plan will occur over years, but progress will be tracked so that by 2030,
the college is able to meet the state’s intermediate GHG reduction goal. The college will reduce
its financial overhead, becoming more resilient. The college will create programs to ensure that
its most vulnerable students may complete their degree or certificate. Through presentations at
conferences (and other outward facing media opportunities), the college will share their data and
process, becoming an exemplar in the CCCS.
As the sustainability plan is developed, it would behoove the writers of the plan to
analyze the existing governing board policy addressing sustainability. There may be a need to
revise the policy to incorporate a broader set of principles, as the current policy addressed
ecological issues, but is silent on whether to address economics and equity. In fact, the policy
depends greatly on the principle of implementation of ecological measures, only if justified by
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 135
cost. This may be too narrow of a determinant as the college delves more deeply into the three-
part nature of their definition of sustainability.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
At NorCal College, results and leading indicators are intentionally bifurcated into
external and internal goals. External goals are outward facing and public. Leading indicators
would include awards, conference presentations and news articles, acknowledging the college’s
success in this area. Internal goals include the successful implementation of the collaboratively
developed plan in a timely manner. The leading indicator would include increased
communication and cooperation within the organization, leading to permanent cultural change.
Table 14 shows the proposed Level 4 results and leading indicators in the form of
outcomes, metrics and methods for both external and internal outcomes for NorCal College.
External and internal outcomes exist in a symbiotic framework. External outcomes 1 through 3
will help the college achieve state mandated GHG and water reduction goals. Internal outcomes
5 through 8 are arguably more important as the drivers of a successful delivery process.
Assuming the college successfully implements the plan, external outcome 4 will be realized.
All activities shall begin in Sept 2019, with the return to school of the sustainability
committee. Some activities are ongoing and shall continue as such. Results shall be reported to
the sustainability committee before the end of March 2020, for compilation and evaluation at the
last meeting of the school year, in April (or May) 2020. The work shall be completed by the
sustainability manager and sustainability fellows. Ideally, the results will be compiled into an
“end of year” report that will also be shared with the PCC. The progress report may be used to
justify the continued prioritization of activities and help justify additional sustainability measures
in the updated strategic plan.

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 136
Table 14
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes (based on implementation of the plan)
1. Ecology: Reduce the
amount of GHG produced
directly and indirectly by the
college in order to meet the
state’s 2030 and 2050 GHG
reduction goals.
1a. A reduction in the amount of
GHG produced directly by the
college’s fleet, electrical production
& consumption, and other GHG
producing instruments.
Sept 2019: Solicit data (i.e.,
calculation of GHG output, source
of electrical production and
purchase, measure GHG output of
equipment).
Ongoing: Continue to implement
Measure H plan, studying
engineering document prepared by
PAE for possible next projects.
1b. A reduction in the amount of
GHG produced as a result of
transportation to and from campus.
Sept 2019: Solicit data on the
number of students taking
alternative means of transportation
to school (bus, bikes).

Sept 2019: Implement bike path
portion of facilities master plan,
utilizing Measure H funding and
pursue additional grants.
Ongoing: Continue to provide free
bus passes for students. Advocate
for improved bike lanes throughout
the city.

Sept 2019: Encourage city to
complete the 101 overpass by
advocating with city staff (and city
council if necessary).
2. Economy: Reduce
college operating overhead
by reducing the amount
spent on utilities.
Reduce use of electricity, water and
waste.
Sept 2019: Solicit data on the
amount spent on electricity, water
and waste.
2a. Reduce the amount of energy
purchased from outside sources and
create resiliency plan to meet PGE
requirements.
Ongoing: Install alternative energy
sources, including solar
photovoltaic and batteries. Utilize
capital improvement bond, seek
grant funding.

Ongoing consideration: If
additional parking lot created on
campus, explore P3 delivery
method for additional panels.

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 137
Table 14, continued
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes (based on implementation of the plan)
2b. Reduce in the use of potable
water on campus.
Ongoing: Install water storage for
irrigation; install water
conservation devices in new
buildings & retrofits; increase
native species, reduce grass.

Ongoing: Continue to implement
facilities master plan with available
Measure H funding.
2c. Reduce waste. Ongoing: Install composting bins,
replace paper with air dryers,
encourage water bottles. Continue
to advocate for waste reduction.

Sept 2019: Revamp purchasing
policy to reflect best practices for
green purchasing.
3. Equity: Expand equity by
improving student outcomes.
3a. Reduce housing insecurity Ongoing: Advocate for on-campus,
affordable housing. Support
current district initiative to provide
housing using P3 model.
3b. Reduce food insecurity Ongoing: Create a food distribution
pantry and advocate for additional
urban gardens.

Sept 2019: Identify additional
location for gardens and add to
facilities master plan.
4. The college will become a
leader in sustainability in the
CA community college
system
Awards and grants from local and
statewide sustainability
organizations and agencies.
Sept 2019: Increase influence and
college sustainability brand at
Statewide conferences. Seek grant
and awards with local city and
county agencies.

Nov 2019: Share knowledge at
annual CCFC conference, and
other conferences.
Internal Outcomes (based on writing the plan)
5. Increase in support for
sustainability initiatives by
writing a comprehensive
sustainability plan, with
input from entire college
community.
Continued funding for initiatives. Sept 2019: Growth in committee
membership and continued
advocacy by committee.

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 138
Table 14, continued
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes (based on implementation of the plan)
6. Create a culture of trust
between managers
Implement plans based on shared
goals, in timely fashion. Eliminate
second guessing and late
disruptions from important
individual that was not included
early in plan-making.
PDA Fall 2019: Invite participation
of larger community in order to
gain early buy in of sustainability
goals.

Sept 2019: Discuss impact of
goals, so that managers understand
the impact of implementation.
7. Committee confidence
and satisfaction with
sustainability goals and
implementation.
7a. Include sustainability in
campus-wide survey, by including
key questions about ecology,
economy and equity.
April 2019: Compare annual
survey results.
7b. Solicit positive/negative
feedback from committee members
about goals and achievements of
committee.
Sept 2019: Set aside regular times
for 1:1 conversation (“Pull up a
chair”) between sustainability
committee members and managers
affected by implementation of plan.

Sept 2019: Casual conversations to
ensure support for plan – pivot if
needed.
8. Create a culture of
sustainability, so that it
permeates throughout the
organization and become
institutionalized.
Internal publicity and participation. Ongoing: Growth and influence of
sustainability principles, so that all
aspects of decision making filter
through the three “E”s of
sustainability.

Ongoing: Consideration of the
Brundtland Commission’s
definition of sustainability becomes
institutionalized.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The stakeholders of focus are the members of the sustainability
committee, tasked with writing and implementing a new sustainability plan. The first critical
behavior is to understand the concepts contained in the first sustainability plan, so that goals are
not duplicated. The second critical behavior is to understand the difference between an
aspirational goal and a SMART goal. The third critical behavior is to agree upon the use of a
single measurement template, so that they may compare their results against the results of other
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 139
colleges and universities. These critical behaviors address the non-validated findings in Chapter
Four.
In addition, critical behaviors will focus on the internal outcomes in Table 15. As stated
previously, the ability of the college to change the behavior of internal constituents will naturally
lead to implementation of the plan. And once the plan is implemented, expected external
outcomes listed in Table 15, will follow.
Therefore, the specific metrics, methods, and timing for each of these behaviors is
focused primarily on internal outcomes and are listed in Table 16. The workshop shall be
scheduled for September 2019, in lieu of the usual sustainability committee meeting.
Table 15
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Sustainability Committee Members
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1. Understand the 18
goals and objectives
of the first
sustainability plan.
The goals in the new
plan will not be a repeat
of the first sustainability
plan (unless a critical
goal was deemed
incomplete).

The goals will address
the State Legislature and
Governor’s GHG
reduction goals.
The committee chair
shall ensure that goals
are clearly articulated
and that there is
agreement that the goal
is not repeated.

The committee chair will
ensure that the goals are
in alignment with the
State Legislature and
Governor’s GHG
reduction goals
Sept 2019: During the
first workshop, there
will be agreement about
setting targets that
address the State
Legislature and
Governor’s goals, as
well as internal goals as
determined by the
committee.

Thereafter – monthly,
so long as previously
successful.
2. Understand
SMART goal setting,
specifically the
difference between an
aspirational goal and
a SMART goal.
Agreement on a realistic
number of SMART
goals that can be
achieved in the plan’s
lifetime (the previous
plan’s timeline was to
be achieved in three
years). Goals will be
Specific, Measurable,
Achievable, Realistic
and Timebound.
Committee chair requests
goals developed through
review of a “job aid” that
includes a definition of
SMART goals.

Practice making goals in
a committee workshop.
Sept 2019: During first
sustainability meeting,
training in SMART
goal setting will occur.

Thereafter – monthly
reminders until concept
is understood.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 140
Table 15, continued
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
3. Work
collaboratively with
other managers to
implement the
sustainability plan
Less backtracking and
second guessing of
goals.

Solid implementation
plans created, with time
certain outcomes.
Comprehensive
development of plan
with larger group.

Consider opening goal
setting workshop to
larger community –
reach beyond
sustainability committee.
Sept 2019: Annual goal
setting workshop at
beginning of the year.

April (or May) 2019:
Check in about progress
at end of school year.
4. Publicize the work
of the sustainability
plan internally and
externally; continue
learning displays
Website, internal
newsletter and external
news articles at least
once per year. Displays
occasionally.
Develop work group to
include internal
publication department
and other assets to assist
in creation of documents.
Dec 2019: Set
deadline for creation
of one newsletter and
one public article
every year.

Ongoing: Create
display once per
semester.

Target one newspaper
article per school year.

Required drivers. Sustainability Committee members volunteer to participate in this
committee and have a high degree of knowledge about sustainability issues. Committee
members include science faculty with environmental backgrounds, students in environmental
science, and administrators and classified staff with a background and interest in environmental
concerns. They know the effects of global warming on the environment, the connection between
global warming and manmade greenhouse gas emissions, and the positive effects of alternative
energy and transportation options. They know that fresh water is scarce and that there will be
increased competition between cities and farms for water. With freshwater dependent upon the
Sierra snowpack, they know that water will become scarcer as the globe becomes warmer. They
know the impact of plastic waste on the environment generally, and in the oceans specifically.
They understand the impact of the greenhouse gas reduction initiatives launched by the
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 141
legislature and governor. In many cases, committee members are advocates beyond the scope of
their jobs with the college.
Committee members are intrinsically motivated to improve the sustainability culture on
campus. With little encouragement or support from the previous governing board, President and
Administration, the committee was nevertheless able to memorialize sustainability in the
strategic and facilities master plans. Continued momentum towards “creating a strong culture of
sustainability” are reward enough.
The challenge for this committee will be to expand on the current momentum and gain
additional organizational support. It will be important to educate and include administrators in
the development of plans. As the capital improvement bond continues in the implementation
phase, members should advocate for higher levels of sustainability on a project by project basis.
Over the longer term, it will be important to hire new faculty, staff and administrators with an
interest in sustainability, particularly for those in leadership roles.
Critical areas of focus will include: 1) reinforcing and encouraging the writing of a plan
with SMART goals, 2) encouraging the use of third-party measurements, including ASCHE and
LEED and 3) rewarding the college through positive publicity and influence in the CCCS. Table
5.6 shows the recommended drivers to support critical behaviors of sustainability committee
members.

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 142
Table 16
Required Drivers to Support Sustainability Committee Members’ Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing Critical Behaviors Supported
Reinforcing
Provide existing sustainability
plan as a reference. Discuss
differences between aspirational
goals and SMART goals to
ensure that committee knows the
difference.
Sept 2019: Ongoing reminders at
sustainability committee
meetings
1, 2, 3
Provide Job Aid with the
definition of a SMART goal.
Sept 2019: At each meeting
during the writing period.
1, 2, 3
Discuss opportunities to
collaborate on sustainability
implementation issues between
managers
Ongoing 3
Manager meeting to troubleshoot
collaboratively and for additional
training.
When needed 3
Encourage creation of
sustainability display
Twice per year 4
Use social media to reinforce
communication outside of team
meetings.
Weekly goal, monthly minimum. 4
Encouraging
Collaboration and peer modeling
during team meetings.
Monthly sustainability meetings 1, 2, 3
Invite graphic design and
internal publicity to create a
sustainability newsletter
Once per year 4
Feedback and coaching from
managers and committee leaders
Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4
Rewarding
Public acknowledgement and
praise.
Board meetings, public forums,
committee meetings
1, 2, 3, 4
Public acknowledgement, such
as a mention at All-Hands
meetings, when team
performance hits a benchmark or
implements a new measure.
Quarterly 1, 2, 3, 4

Monitoring. Three strategies could be used to ensure that the Required Drivers occur: a)
the committee chair can create opportunities at all-hands meetings to share success stories; b) at
the end of the semester, the committee chair can ask the committee to self-report their confidence
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 143
and self-efficacy in implementing tasks; and c) the sustainability chair can assess the
implementation at monthly committee meetings. Additionally, frequent, quick checks between
committee members and managers expected to carry out the initiatives can help the organization
monitor progress and make adjustments and pivots if results do not match expectations at that
time.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following completion of a workshop to begin writing the new version of
the sustainability plan, the stakeholders will be able to:
1. Recognize the 18 goals of the original sustainability plan.
2. Understand the concept of SMART goal setting
3. Recognize the aspirational goals in the original sustainability plan
4. Understand how to reclassify or reinterpret aspirational goals into SMART goals
5. Understand how to limit the number of goals to ensure success and implementation
6. Understand how to determine and select the highest impact goals for implementation
7. Understand how to create an appropriate timeline for implementation
8. Understand how to advocate and fund the implementation of those goals
9. Identify key implementers within the college staff
10. Value the implementation of the plan, so that the next iteration of a sustainability plan
may be developed.
Program. The learning goals listed in the previous section will be achieved with a
training workshop. The workshop will explore how to create SMART goals for the new
sustainability plan. The learners, members of the sustainability committee, will be expected to
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 144
learn and understand SMART goal setting, and recognize the difference between aspirational
goals and SMART goals.
Committee members will also be expected to understand concepts listed in the original
sustainability plan. There will be discussion about those goals and a realistic assessment of
whether they were implemented. It is important to understand and determine whether they were
implementable or were aspirational.
The workshop format should fit the committee’s existing schedule. The committee meets
once per month. Training can be divided into smaller portions and executed through multiple
meetings, if needed. As was the case in the development of the first sustainability plan, however,
it is preferable for the committee to hold an all-day work session offsite to ensure ample time for
discussion.
The workshop will include a large group session to review of the original sustainability
plan. An important component of the discussion will be a sober and realistic assessment of
success. The committee will then be presented with a module on SMART goal setting. This
training will specifically map one the original sustainability goals. The goal will be
deconstructed to illustrate the difference between an aspirational goal and a SMART goal.
The committee will then be broken into small groups of four to five members. The
groups will be provided with a job aid with the definition of a SMART goal. They will each be
given a different goal from the sustainability plan. They will be tasked with deconstructing this
goal on their own. Each group will present their work so that the instructor can ensure
understanding and each group may comment on the work of the others.
Following this exercise, the large group will reconvene to discuss conceptual areas of
sustainability that they wish to focus on. This part of the workshop will be considered a
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 145
brainstorm, and all ideas are welcomed. The only restriction is that the goals will be categorized
into three buckets, addressing ecology, economics or equity. During a break, the instructors will
organize the material into sub-categories around common themes. They will also ensure that
each goal follows the SMART goal format.
The entire group will reconvene to discuss the categorization of the proposed goals, and
the instructors will make minor adjustments until consensus is reached. Each goal will be listed
on a large piece of paper or writing surface. The group will then each be given six green and six
red stickers. Group members will be asked to place a green sticker on six goals that they wish to
include in the plan. They will be asked to place six red stickers on goals that they don’t feel are
important.
Once the stickers are placed, the instructors will tally up the number of green and red
stickers on each goal. Goals with a preponderance of green stickers will be set aside as
priorities. Goals with a preponderance of red stickers will be set aside as future goals (perhaps to
be part of the next iteration of the sustainability plan). Goals with a mixture of green and red
will be discussed until consensus is reached on priorities.
Components of learning. Asking committee members to demonstrate their newfound
declarative knowledge may be necessary as a precursor to applying the new knowledge to solve
a problem. Thus, it is important to evaluate learning for both declarative and procedural
knowledge being taught. It is also important that learners value their training before using their
newly learned knowledge to create a new sustainability plan. They must also be confident that
they can apply their knowledge effectively. Training is used when employees need
demonstration, guided practice, and feedback to perfect a new procedure (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Table 5.7 lists the evaluation methods and timing for these components of learning.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 146
Table 17
Components of Learning for the Program.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks by asking individual committee
members to critique and deconstruct one of the
original sustainability plan goals.
In the workshop, seek knowledge confidence
through small group work.
Knowledge checks through discussions, “pair,
think, share” and other small group activities.
Periodically during the in-person workshop and
documented via observation notes.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
During the post-break portion of the workshop,
using large group discussion to confirm SMART
goal setting.
Second portion (post break) of workshop
Demonstration in groups and individually of using
the job aids to successfully perform the skills.
During the workshops.
Quality of the feedback from peers during group
sharing
During the workshops.
Group application of the skills by prioritizing and
confirming goals.
At the end of the workshop.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment survey
asking participants about their level of proficiency
before and after the training.
At the end of the workshop.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Instructor’s observation of participants’ statements
and actions demonstrating that they see the benefit
of what they are being asked to do on the job.
During the workshop.
Discussions of the value of what they are being
asked to do.
During the workshop.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment item. After the course.
Confidence “I think I can do it.”
Discussions following practice and feedback. During the workshop.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment item. After the course.
Commitment “I will do it.”
Discussions following practice and feedback. During the workshop.
Create the sustainability action plan. During the workshop.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment item. After the course.

Level 1: Reaction
Learning will occur during the workshop session (or sessions, needed) and are highly
dependent on ensuring adequate time for discussion and participation. The workshop space does
not require specialty equipment but should be large enough for large group and small group
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 147
break-out sessions. Ideally, there might be additional small rooms for group work just outside
the workshop area. Minimum equipment requirements include large easels, pens, pin up space
and small (green and red) stickers.
Reactions to the training workshop are important, as is feedback about the quality of the
workshop material, effectiveness of instruction and feedback about the instructors themselves
(Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 5.8 summarizes components to measure reactions to
the workshop program.
Table 18
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Discussion about the merits and challenges in using
SMART goals
Ongoing during workshop discussion.
Participation by all members of committee Ongoing during workshop
Observation by instructor/facilitator During the workshop
Attendance During the workshop
Course evaluation Two weeks after the course
Relevance
Brief pulse-check with participants during
discussion (ongoing)
After every discussion unit in the workshop
Course evaluation At end of workshop
Customer Satisfaction
Brief pulse-check with participants via survey
discussion (ongoing)
At end of workshop via handout (smile sheet)

Course evaluation Next sustainability committee meeting

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the workshop. At the first sustainability committee meeting
following the workshop, there should be a confirmation of the goals and agreements made at the
workshop. The conversation should include confirmation that the participation was active and
engaging. Feedback on the overall interactions of participants with each other, with the material,
and with the instructors should be discussed. There should be confirmation that consensus was
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 148
reached, that the goals meet SMART goal criteria, that the appropriate reporting and
measurement tools exist from third parties. Assuming these items to be true, the committee may
begin the process of writing of the new sustainability plan based on the goals set at the workshop
For Level 1, during the in-person workshop, the instructor will conduct periodic brief
pulse-checks by asking the participants about the relevance of the content to the goals of the
organization, delivery of content, and learning environment. Level 2 will include checks for
understanding using the reporting out among groups in responding to questions and scenarios
drawn from the content.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Following the sustainability
workshop (approximately two months after the implementation of the training), and then again at
the end of the academic year (nine months later), sustainability committee chairs will administer
a survey. The survey will contain open and scaled items to measure from the participant’s
perspective, satisfaction and relevance of the training (Level 1), confidence and value of
applying their training (Level 2), and application of the training to the creation of the new
sustainability plan. Successful measurements regarding the effectiveness of the training will
include 1) the successful writing of a new sustainability plan using SMART goal setting, 2) the
selection and reference to a third-party measurement agency so that results can be compared to
other colleges (Level 3), and 3) references to specific metrics listed in Table 5.1 (earlier in this
chapter).
Data Analysis and Reporting
The Level 4 goal for this college will take three or more years to measure. Specific
metrics will include 1) a noticeable reduction in the college’s generation of GHG such that the
college is well on the way towards meeting State GHG reduction goals; 2) a noticeable reduction
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 149
in the amount of energy and water saved (as measured in reduced utility use or cost); 3) an
increase in student success as measured by their feelings of support from the college due (in part)
to a new student housing project on campus; 3) the number of conferences presented at; and 4)
positive news or social media articles published about the college’s sustainability commitments.
Summary
NorCal College has a longtime tradition of stability and success, a strong tradition of
collective decision making, and stable administrative leadership. These characteristics allow staff
to implement new initiatives that are important to the college community. In a very short time,
the college has become a leader in sustainability. Many individuals contributed to the first
sustainability plan, written only three years ago. More importantly, sustainability committee
members understood the strategic planning process and were able to institutionalize
sustainability in the strategic plan and facilities master plan.
The overall framework for this study was developed by Clark and Estes (2008). Specific
gaps in knowledge, motivation and organizational support were identified. As the college
embarks on writing a new sustainability plan, those tasked with writing the plan were
interviewed. The goal was to understand the sustainability committee members’ individual
levels of knowledge and motivation, as well as their perceptions about the organizational support
they would receive in writing and implementing this new plan.
Four assumed knowledge influences, two assumed motivational influences, and four
assumed organizational influences were identified. Through interviews with nine members of
the sustainability committee, two of the four knowledge areas were deemed assets and two were
deemed as knowledge gaps. Both assumed motivational influences (two) were deemed as assets.
Two of the four assumed organizational influences were deemed assets, and two were deemed as
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 150
organizational gaps. Two knowledge influences emerged from the interviews, with one deemed
an asset and one deemed a knowledge gap. The definition of an asset was when a simple
majority of the nine participants agreed.
Recommendations and implementation are based on the new world Kirkpatrick model.
The original four-step model was developed in 1959 by Donald Kirkpatrick to evaluate training
programs (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). The four steps included 1) reaction to the training,
2) learning from the training, 3) behavior change resulting from the training, and 4) results from
the training. Recommendations are made by considering the results first and working backwards
towards reactions to the training. This provides a means to link the results directly to the gaps in
knowledge and organizational support. Motivational promising practices were encouraged to
continue, as both assumed motivational influences were deemed as assets.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
Clark and Estes gap analysis (2008) and Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s new world
approach (2016) are well suited for evaluating NorCal College’s sustainability and
implementation plan. The Clark and Estes framework provided an organizational framework,
addressing the knowledge, motivations and organizational support structures for members of a
specific group tasked with writing and implementation a new policy. The new world Kirkpatrick
model provided a way to connect the gaps to solutions, with a clear focus on implementation and
results.
The greatest strength of the gap analysis is the ease by which issues were identified.
Participants were eager to share their perspectives and gaps were revealed quickly. The strength
of the Kirkpatrick framework was the direct linkage to evaluation and results. Through training
in a workshop format, deficits in knowledge around SMART goal setting, increasing awareness
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 151
and understanding in the differences between aspirational and SMART goals (as found in the
original sustainability plan) are easily remedied. Organizational changes, including the
rebuilding of trust within the college and increased collaboration between managers tasked with
implementation, will require time. But by identifying and calling attention to the issue, solutions
can be implemented sooner leading eventually to the cultural change needed for success.
One of the challenges of the gap analysis framework is the specific focus on a specific
sub-group within the organization. The interview process quickly yields knowledge, motivation
and organizational gaps, and triangulation between participants is fast and effective. This should
come as no surprise, however, as the participants share the same perspective. Sustainability
committee members are volunteers and intrinsically motivated to participate. Members are not
compensated for their time, and benefits accrued are for the benefit of the college and society at
large. This leads to a highly motivated advocacy from a single perspective, which does not
necessarily lead to a balanced perspective from all parts of the organization.
Finally, long-term evaluation of the sustainability plan will require consistent monitoring
of utility use over many years. While committee members have a high level of knowledge of the
long-term impact of GHG on global warming and other challenges related to environmental
degradation, they may not have detailed knowledge of the specifics of state regulations, for
example. The gap analysis framework provided an immediate recognition of institutional gaps
from the committee’s perspective. But the perspective may not have included a longer-term
perspective required by the state, with goals extending out to 2030 and beyond. This potential
long-term knowledge deficit may be unintentionally repeated in the proposed solution. The
strength of the Kirkpatrick model is the direct linkage to the gap analysis findings. But if the
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 152
findings are flawed, the solutions may not accommodate the time component due to the
participants’ lack of awareness around this issue.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations of the study include challenges of positionality within the organization, and
personal relationships developed over time. Specifically, participants may have felt that they had
the ability to influence the use of capital improvement funds, or that their comments would
encourage additional funding for sustainability initiatives. With momentum building towards a
rewrite of the strategic and sustainability plans, there may have been hope that the interviews
would provide some measure of influence over the coming planning sessions. Writing from an
insider’s perspective changes the nature of the discourse, knowing that the writing is personal,
even if names are not mentioned. Advantages of this perspective include personal
characterizations of known influencers in the college. Disadvantages include the challenges of
separating from writing about personal relationships, previously mentioned issues of
positionality, and difficulty focusing on the research questions. In other words, too much
information makes it hard to keep focused on the issues facing the college.
As with any large organization with a fixed (tenured) workforce, longstanding relational
influences may affect the desire and ability to discuss ideas freely. Comments are carefully
crafted to ensure long-term relationships. This is neither good nor bad, but it may affect the
quality of the responses.
Data collection was based on information primarily available on NorCal College’s
website. Meeting notes were difficult to locate, though board policies were accessible.
Administrative procedures were not available consistently, and internal notes that may have shed
insight into workshops and other informal meetings were not available. A thoroughly interesting
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 153
data source was the narratives provided by longstanding faculty and staff. These stories, while at
times personal and frank, provided insight into organizational support (or lack thereof) by the
previous governing board and president.
The inexperience of the interviewer was noted in an earlier chapter. More detailed
insights may have been gained with a more experienced interviewer. This deficit is notable
given the small sample size of participants. With nine participants from a field of 13, saturation
was achieved. With little previous interview experience, it is hard to know if this occurred
because the interviewer was leading the questioning, or if the participants truly reached
saturation. Probes were intentionally tied to the research questions, but a more experienced
interviewer may have been able to focus on more enlightening data. Finally, toggling between
observation and questioning is an activity requiring practice. For practical purposes of
completing this research paper, practice time was simply not available.
The college experienced a high degree of institutional change from the beginning of this
process to the end. Within the span of writing of this paper, the college experienced a severe
downturn in enrollment, due in part to the October 2017 wildfire, which was a once-in-a-lifetime
event. The college received recompense from the state for three years (through 2020) while
grappling with the loss of students. With dropping enrollment, a structural deficit ensued. To
reduce costs quickly, an ill-fated decision was made to cancel summer school, leading to a vote
of no confidence by the faculty against the president, and the abrupt resignation of two senior
vice presidents. The PCC was formed which included leaders from the faculty and classified
senate and unions. The PCC essentially replaced cabinet. To avoid further intervention from the
state, a hiring freeze was instituted and an early retirement incentive was announced. Nearly 100
long-term employees retired, including many senior leaders of the college.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 154
After the research period, but during the writing of chapters 4 and 5, my personal
relationship to the college changed. In May of this year (2019), I was recruited to become the
Vice Chancellor of another Northern California community college. As I write this conclusion,
my status with NorCal College has changed from insider to outsider. The impact to this paper is
minimal, though there is a newfound appreciation for the stability of leadership at NorCal
College, despite recent challenges. The limitations noted here are relatively minor compared to
challenges faced by other colleges. This college has shown the ability to implement initiatives
quickly compared to its peers, so long as the initiative is supported and well communicated to all
stakeholders involved.
Future Research
Future studies would consider additional areas of interest. The first would be to consider
the influence of two other key parties, the board of trustees and president, and the administrative
leaders of the college. The board of trustees are responsible for the strategic oversight of the
college, ensuring that the college is responsive to the needs of the community. The board would
provide a valuable perspective on the use and effectiveness of bond funds from a taxpayers’
perspective. For example, the payback period for sustainability-oriented capital improvement
projects is measured in years, not months. There are political calculations involved in choosing
projects. The payback period of an unseen underground geothermal loop is less than 10 years,
compared to a highly visible photovoltaic (PV) field over a parking lot, which pays back in 15
(or more) years. Both provide energy and operational savings, but PVs are seen by the
community and are symbols of sustainability, while the more efficient system other is not.
A second area of interest would be to explore whether sustainability programs would
continue if bond funds did not exist. The first sustainability plan was due in large part to the
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 155
availability of capital improvement funds. The taxpayers of this community continued their
support for the college by passing a second capital improvement bond, the county’s largest, in
2014.
A third area of interest would evaluate whether the college saved energy costs as
expected. It may also be valuable for the college to study whether capital improvement funds
were distributed in the most effective manner. Did the solar photovoltaic installation required by
the first sustainability plan yield expected cost savings? Would the funding have been better
spent in higher levels of LEED certification for new building projects, for example? Did the
implementation plan meet the state’s 2030 plan for GHG reduction?
A final area of study would include an analysis of the initiatives implemented to address
equity issues. Was the housing project completed, and did it benefit students as envisioned? Did
the food pantry assist students in the way it was envisioned?
Conclusion
The intent of this study was to evaluate the knowledge, motivation and organizational
support for writing and implementing a new sustainability plan. NorCal College wrote their first
sustainability plan in 2015 with ambitions to complete the plan in 2018, concurrent with the 100-
year anniversary of the college. The plan was in many ways aspirational, but clearly stated that
the college had the ambition of becoming a leader in sustainability within the CCCS. Within
three years the college achieved many of the goals articulated in the original sustainability plan.
This study provides the college with recommendations on how to write and implement
the next sustainably plan, which will be written this year. This study provides specific
recommendations on the use of effective goal-setting techniques. It provides an analysis of the
cultural components of the college necessary to support sustainability planning. It is assumed
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 156
that most committee members are intrinsically motivated to influence sustainability policy,
which was true at this college.
The findings and recommendations provide the college with the tools to refine their
goals. As the college continues to receive grants and other acknowledgement as sustainability
leaders, it will become more important to create plans and documents with an even higher level
of refinement. There may become a time in the not distant future, when plans created at NorCal
College are featured at the State Chancellor’s Office of Facilities Planning, as exemplars for
others to follow. The chancellor’s office has already reached out to learn more and has asked the
college’s sustainability manager to join a statewide task force on sustainability planning and
implementation.
Regardless of these successes, the story is most inspirational. It is a model that other
colleges may follow. This is the story of a small group of dedicated sustainability advocates
deliberately creating the college’s first sustainability plan, without the outward support of the
(then) governing board and college president. With the quiet support of a single administrator
who was responsible for the strategic plan, the committee was able to leverage this goal into the
facilities master plan and the BSP, which eventually led to significant capital improvement
projects and contributed to sustainability planning momentum on campus.
The larger context for the study is motivated by the alarming rate of climate change
globally. With 2019 now half over, the effects of climate change and pollution on the
environment and humankind are increasing. California has taken a leadership role in combatting
the effects of climate change, as well as striking a balance between competing needs of the state.
As stated by the Los Angeles Times newspaper,
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 157
A key issue setting California apart, and setting a standard for the rest of the country, is
climate change. The state has pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40% below
1990 levels in fewer than a dozen years while dramatically increasing renewable energy
and reducing the reliance on fossil fuels…that process – weighing the competing interests
of economic growth and environmental protection – has always been a challenge, often
taken up first in California and then the rest of the country (Shribman, 2019).
With California assuming a leadership role in climate change policy, the second largest
community college system in the world (serving 2.1 million students on 114 campuses) will have
an impact. By embracing sustainability policy and implementation even as a late mover, NorCal
college may find itself providing a template for colleges in other states to follow, through the
influence that California wields as a first mover.
With intermediate GHG reduction requirements from the state debuting in 2030 (with an
eventual path to a higher reduction by 2050), community colleges ought to begin their path
towards sustainability and resiliency sooner than later. One participant summarized his
expectations for sustainability at this college by stating,
I think that the ultimate goal is for the institution to realize that everything we do is about
sustainability. So that we don't even call it sustainability anymore, it's just what we do.
We have to balance our budget; we have to make sure that our services are equitable.
And we have to take care of the environment (Interview 8).
This quote eloquently summarizes the ultimate nature of sustainability planning. There is
awareness of the environmental impact generated by all aspects of the college’s activity; a
recognition that economics cannot be separated from the decision-making process of the college;
and recognition that equity must be considered in the distribution of resources. Once
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 158
sustainability is fully incorporated into the ethos and culture of the college, sustainability
planning becomes second nature.
For many colleges, the first step is the hardest. There are many challenges to overcome
in gaining institutional traction, particularly in a shared governance institution. As demonstrated
at this college however, organizational change is possible with persistence, patience and
determination. Change often begins with a small group of dedicated change agents, with
seemingly little influence. The hope is that this story will inspire individuals at other colleges to
take the first step towards a cleaner future.

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 159
REFERENCES
Abubakar, I. R., Al-Shihri, F. S., & Ahmed, S. M. (2016). Students' assessment of campus
sustainability at the University of Dammam, Saudi Arabia. Sustainability 8(59), 1–14.
Adams, C. (2013). Sustainability reporting and performance management in universities:
Challenges and benefits. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 4,
Issue 3, 384-392.
AdomBent, M. (2009). Exploring universities' transformative potential for sustainability-bound
learning in changing landscapes of knowledge communication. Journal of Cleaner
Production 49, 11-24.
Aiche, R., & Felbermayr, G. (2012). Kyoto and the carbon footprint of nations. Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management 63, 336-354.
Aleixo, A. M., Leal, S., & Azeiteiro, U. M. (2018). Conceptualization of sustainable higher
education institutions, roles, barriers, and challenges for sustainability: An exploratory
study in Portugal. Journal of Cleaner Production 172, 1664-1673.
Almer, C., & Winkler, R. (2017). Analyzing the effects of international environmental policies:
The case of the Kyoto Protocol. Journal of Environmental and Economics Management,
125-151.
Alonso-Almeida, M. D., Marimon, F., Casani, F., & Rodrigues-Pomeda, J. (2015). Diffusion of
sustainability reporting in universities: Current situation and future perspectives. Journal
of Cleaner Production 106, 144-154.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
Learning Works: 7 research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 160
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing.
A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE). (2018).
STARS, a program of AASHE. Retrieved from https://stars.aashe.org/pages/about/stars-
overview.html
Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future. (2015). Talloirs Declaration.
Retrieved from ttp://ulsf.org/talloires-declaration/
Bogden, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education. Boston, MA: Pearson
Education Inc.
Bray, D., & von Storch, H. (2007). The perspectives of climate scientists on global climate
change. GKSS Reports, 2007/11.
Burch, S. (2010). In pursuit of resilient, low carbon communities: An examination of barriers to
action in three Canadian cities. Energy Policy 38, 7575-7585.
California Air Resources Board. (2006). Assembly Bill 32 overview. Retrieved from
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm
California Air Resources Board. (2017a). California Air Resources Board scoping plan.
Retrieved from https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017_es.pdf
California Air Resources Board. (2017b). California's 2017 climate change scoping plan,
executive summary. Retrieved from
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm
California Community College Chancellor's Office Board of Governors. (n.d.). California
Community College Board of Governors Energy and Sustainability policy. Retrieved
from
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 161
http://extranet.cccco.edu/Portals/1/CFFP/Sustainability/BOG_Energy_Sustainability_Poli
cy_FINAL.pdf
California Community College Chancellor’s Office (2018a). California Community College
Chancellor’s Office. Welcome to the Chancellor’s office and its divisions. Retrieved
from http://californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/ChancellorsOffice.aspx
California Community College Chancellor's Office. (2018b). California Community Colleges key
facts. Retrieved from
http://californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/PolicyInAction/KeyFacts.aspx
California Community College Chancellor's Office. (2018c). Facilities Planning Unit,
Sustainability webpage. Retrieved from
http://extranet.cccco.edu/Divisions/FinanceFacilities/Sustainability.aspx#December_201
2
California Department of Finance. (2018). Gross State Product: The value of all goods and
services produced in California. Retrieved from
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Economics/Indicators/Gross_State_Product/
California Department of Food and Agriculture. (2016). California Agriculture Statistics Review.
Retrieved from https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/PDFs/2016-17AgReport.pdf
California Energy Commission. (2018 May 9). Energy Commission Adopts Standards Requiring
Solar Systems for New Homes. First in Nation. Retrieved from
http://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/2018_releases/2018-05-
09_building_standards_adopted_nr.html
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 162
California Legislative Information website, Legislative Counsel’s Digest (2006). SB-32
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: emissions limit. Retrieved from
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB32
California Office of the Governor. (2015 April 29). Governor Brown Established Most
Ambitious Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target in North America. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2015/04/29/news18938/
California Office of the Governor. (2016, September 8). Governor Brown Signs Historic Climate
Change Legislation. Retrieved from https://www.gov.ca.gov/2016/09/08/news19522/
Carlton, J. S., Perry-Hill, R., Huber, M., Prokopy, L. S. (2015). The climate change consensus
extends beyond climate scientists. Environmental Research Letters 10, 094025
Catmull, E., & Wallace, A. (2014). Creativity Inc. Overcoming the unseen forces that stand in
the way of true inspiration. New York, NY: Random House.
Ceulemans, K., Molderez, I., & Van Liedekerke, L. (2015). Sustainability reporting in higher
education: A comprehensive review of the recent literature and paths for further research.
Journal of Cleaner Production 106, 127-143.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Climate Corps. (2018). Environmental Defense Fund. Retrieved from: http://edfclimatecorps.org/
Cook, J., Oreskes, N., Doran, P. T., Anderegg, W. R., Berheggen, B., Maibach, E. W., . . . Rice.
(2016). Consensus on consensus: A synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused
global warming. Environmental Research Letters, 11, 1-7.
Crespy, C. T., & Miller, V. V. (2011). Sustainability reporting: A comparative study of NGOs
and MNCs. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 18, 275–
284.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 163
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. London, England: SAGE.
Dembo, M. H., & Seli, H. (2016). Motivation and learning strategies for college success, A focus
on self-regulated learning. New York, NY: Routledge.
Doran, G. T. (1981). There's a SMART way to write management's goals and objectives. AMA
Forum, 35-36.
Doran, P. & Zimmerman, M. (2009). Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. Eos,
Transactions American Geophysical Union 90. 22-23.
Dyer, G., & Dyer, M. (2017). Strategic leadership for sustainability by higher education: The
American college & university presidents' climate commitment. Journal of Cleaner
Production 140 part 1, 111-116.
Eccles, J. (2010). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from Education.com.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology 53, 109-132.
Egan, P., & Mullin, M. (2017). Climate change: US public opinion. The Annual Review of
Political Science 20, 209-227.
Emanuel, R., & Adams, J. (2011). College students' perceptions of campus sustainability.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 12(1), 79-92.
Espinosa, M. and Ruano-Gonzales, E. (2018, March 30). Santa Rosa Junior College to hold
summer signups, but classes in limbo; administration under fire. Santa Rosa Press
Democrat. Downloaded from: https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/8170883-
181/santa-rosa-junior-college-postpones?sba=AAS
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 164
Faghihi, V., Hessami, A., & Ford, D. N. (2014). Sustainable campus improvement program
design using energy efficiency and conservation. Journal of Cleaner Production 107,
400-409.
Ferrer-Balas, D., Buckland, H., & de Mingo, M. (2009). Explorations on the University's role in
society for sustainable development through a systems transition approach. Case-study of
the Technical University of Catalonia (UPC). Journal of Cleaner Production 17, 1075-
1085.
Friedman, B. L. (2006). Policy analysis as organizational analysis. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R.
E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 482-495). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist 36,
45-56.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming Qualitative Researchers. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Gomez, F. U., Saez-Navarette, C., Lioi, S. R., & Marzuca, V. I. (2015). Adaptable model for
assessing sustainability in higher education. Journal of Cleaner Production 107, 475-485.
Greenblatt, J. B. (2015). Modeling California policy impacts on greenhouse gas emissions.
Energy Policy 78, 158-172.
Grothmann, T., & Patt, A. (2005). Adaptive capacity and human cognition: The process of
individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environmental Change 15(3), 199-213.
Hamilton, L., Hartter, J., Lemcke-Stampone, M., Moore, D., & Safford, T. (2015). Tracking
public beliefs about anthropogenic climate change. PLoS ONE 10(9), 1-14.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 165
Hancock, L., & Nuttman, S. (2014). Engaging higher education institutions in the challenge of
sustainability: Sustainable transport as a catalyst for action. Journal of Cleaner
Production 62, 62-71.
Hansen, J. A., & Lehmann, M. (2006). Agents of change: Universities as development hubs.
Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 820-829.
Harris, F. (2012 August 30). Memorandum. Subject: Announcing the new sustainability webpage
with tools and information for students, faculty, staff and administrators. Retrieved from
http://extranet.cccco.edu/Portals/1/CFFP/Sustainability/Sustainability_Website_Announc
ement.pdf
Howell, C. D. (2010). An assessment of the implementation of shared governance provisions of
AB 1725 (1988) at Selected California community colleges. Community College Journal
of Research and Practice, 21(7), 637-649.
Huge, J., Block, T., Waas, T., Wright, T., & Dahdouh-Guebas, F. (2016). How to walk the talk?
Developing actions for sustainability in academic research. Journal of Cleaner
Production 137, 83-92.
Kirkpatrick, D. & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (3
rd
Edition). San Francisco, CA: Brett Koehler Publishers, Inc., pp. 1-114.
Kirkpatrick, D. (unknown). Seven Keys to Unlock the Four Levels of Evaluation.
Hummel-Rossi, B., & Ashdown, J. (2002). The state of cost benefit and cost effectiveness
analysis in education. Review of Education Research, 72, 1–30.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report.
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 166
Larsen, H. N., Pettersen, J., Solli, C., & Hertwich, E. (2013). Investigating the Carbon footprint
of a university - The case of NTNU. Journal of Cleaner Production 48, 39-47.
Laws, D., & Hajer, M. (2006). Policy in practice. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of public policy (Chapter 19, pp. 409-424). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five disfunctions of a team. Strategic Government Sources, 1-7.
Lozano, R. (2011). The state of sustainability reporting in universities. International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education 12, Issue 1, 67-78.
Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K., Alonso-Almeida, M., Huisingh, D., Lozano, F., Waas, T., . . . Huge,
J. (2014). A review of commitment and implementation of sustainable development in
higher education: Results from a worldwide survey. Journal of Cleaner Production 108,
1-18.
Marakagis, A., & van deb Dobbelsteen, A. (2015). Sustainability in higher education: Analysis
and selection of assessment systems. Journal of Sustainable Development (8) 3, 1-9.
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
McComas, K. A., Stedman, R., & Hart, P. S. (2011). Community support for campus approaches
to sustainable energy use: The role of "town-gown" relationships. Energy Policy 39,
2310-2318.
McCright, A. M., Dunlap, R. E. (2011). Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among
conservative white males in the United States. Global Environmental Change 21, 1163-
1172.
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 167
Newcomb, Anderson & McCormick. (2012 June). California Community Colleges’
Sustainability Plan Guidebook, Citrus College. Retrieved from
http://extranet.cccco.edu/Portals/1/CFFP/Sustainability/CCCStnbltyPlanTemplateFiles/C
alifornia_Community_Colleges_Sustainability_Template_FINAL_v3_PDF.pdf
O'Mara, M. P. (2012). Beyond town and gown: University economic engagement and the legacy
of the urban crisis. The Journal of Technology Transfer 37, 234–250.
Ozawa-Meida, L., Brockway, P., Letten, K., Davies, J., & Fleming, P. (2013). Measuring carbon
performance in a UK University through a consumption-based carbon footprint: De
Montfort University case study. Journal of Cleaner Production 56, 185-198.
Pati, N., & Lee, J. (2016). Benchmarking presidents' compensation in institutions of higher
education relative to sustainability and other institutional practices. Benchmarking: An
International Journal 23(6), 1500-1521.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Pew Research Center (2015). An elaboration of AAAS Scientists’ views. Downloaded from
http://pewinternet.org/files/2015/07/Report-AAAS-Members-Elaboration_FINAL.pdf
Ramirez, M. J. (2015). Commitments of university leaders to the Talloires Declaration: Are they
evidenced in industrial design teaching and learning? In B. L. Leal Filho W. (Ed.),
Integrative approaches to sustainable development at university level. (pp. 225-244).
Switzerland: Springer International.
Rieckmann, M., (2012). Future-oriented higher education: Which key competencies should be
fostered through university teaching and learning? Futures 44, 127-135
Robinson, O., Kemp, S., & Williams, I. (2015). Carbon management at universities: A reality
check. Journal of Cleaner Production 106, 109-118.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 168
Robinson, O., Tewkesbury, A., Kemp, S., & Willimas, I. D. (2018). Towards a universal carbon
footprint standard: A case study of carbon management at universities. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 172, 4435-4455.
Rowe, D. (2002). Environmental Literacy and Sustainability as Core Requirements: Success
Stories and Models. Teaching Sustainability at Universities.
Rueda. (2011). The 3 Dimensions of Improving Student Performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Saadatian, O., Sopian, K. B., & Salleh, E. (2013). Adaptation of sustainability community
indicators for Malaysian campuses as small cities. Sustainable Cities and Society 6, 40-
50.
Santa Rosa Junior College. (2012). SRJC board policy and procedures. Retrieved from
https://www.boarddocs.com/ca/santarosa/Board.nsf/Public?open&id=policies#
Santa Rosa Junior College. (2014). SRJC Strategic Plan. Retrieved from https://strategic-
planning.santarosa.edu/
Santa Rosa Junior College. (2014). SRJC strategic vision, mission and values. Retrieved from
https://strategic-planning.santarosa.edu/vision-mission-and-values
Santa Rosa Junior College. (2015). SRJC Sustainability Homepage. Retrieved from
https://www.santarosa.edu/sites/sustainability.santarosa.edu/files/Greenprint_3%2013%2
015.pdf
Santa Rosa Junior College. (2018) SRJC Hispanic Serving Institution. Retrieved from
https://hsi.santarosa.edu/hsi-home
Santa Rosa Junior College. (2018). SRJC Office of Institutional Planning. Retrieved from
https://fact-book.santarosa.edu/fact-book-home
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 169
Santa Rosa Junior College. (2019). SRJC Committees Homepage. Retrieved from
https://committees.santarosa.edu/councils
Savings By Design. (2018). PGE website. Retrieved from
https://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/mybusiness/energysavingsrebates/rebatesincenti
ves/eefficiency/inc/sbd_participating_handbook.pdf
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Shribman, D. (2019, May 27). Think California’s too big and influential? Wait until the
presidential race heats up. Los Angeles Times. Downloaded from:
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-california-sets-national-presidential-agenda-
in-2020-20190527-story.html
Second Nature (2006). American College and University Presidents' Climate Commitment.
Retrieved from http://secondnature.org/climate-guidance/the-commitments/#climate-
commitment
Semenza, J. C., Hall, D. E., Wilson, D. J., Bontempo, B. D., Sailor, D. J., & George, L. A.
(2008). Public perception of climate change: Voluntary mitigation and barriers to
behavior change. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35(5), 479-487.
Sharon, T., & Wright, A. (2006). Giving "teeth" to an environmental policy: A Delphi Study at
Dalhousie University. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 761-768.
Shreck, B., & Vedlitz, A. (2016). The public and its climate: Exploring the relationship between
public discourse and opinion on global warming. Society & Natural Resources 29:5, 509-
524.
Stenhouse, N., Mailbach, E., Cobb, S., Ban, R., Bleistein, A., Croft, P., Bierly, E., Seitter, K.,
Rasmussen G., & Leiserowitz, A. (2014). Meteorologists’ view about global warming: a
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 170
survey of American meteorological society professional members. Bulletin American
Meteorological Society 95. 1029-1040.
Stephens, J. C., Hernandez, M. C., Roman, M., Graham, A. C., & Scholz, R. (2008). Higher
education as a change agent for sustainability in different cultures and contexts.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9 (3), 317-338.
Sterman, J. D. (2011). Communicating climate change risks in a skeptical world. Climate
Change 108, 811-826.
Thomashow, M. S., Reed, B., McLennan, J., Henriksen, H. (2011). The built environment -
Sustainable campus planning. Sustainability 4(1), 22-25.
Trencher, G., Bai, X., Evans, J., McCormick, K., & Yarime, M. (2014). University partnerships
for co-designing and co-producing urban sustainability. Global Environmental Change
28, 153-165.
University Leaders for a Sustainable Future. (1990a). Report and declaration of the Presidents'
Conference, Talloires Declaration. Retrieved from http://ulsf.org/report-and-declaration-
of-the-presidents-conference-1990/
University Leaders for a Sustainable Future. (1990b). Talloires Declaration. Retrieved from
http://ulsf.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/TD.pdf
United Nations. (2018). Kyoto Protocol introduction. Retrieved from
https://unfccc.int/process/the-kyoto-protocol
United States Green Building Council (USGBC) website. (n.d.). Guide to LEED certification:
Commercial. Retrieved from https://new.usgbc.org/cert-guide/commercial
United States Census Bureau. (2017). Quick facts California. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/ca/PST045217
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 171
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2017). Greenhouse gas emissions: Overview
of greenhouse gases. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-
greenhouse-gases
United States Department of Health and Human Services. (1979). The Belmont Report. Retrieved
from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-
report/index.html
Verheggen, B., Strengers, B., Cook, J., van Dorland, R., Vringer, K., Peters, J., Viser, H., &
Meyer, L. (2014). Scientists’ views about attribution of global warming. Environmental
Science & Technology 48. 8963-8971.
Waheed, B., Khan, F., & Veitch, B. (2011). Developing a quantitative tool for sustainability
assessment of HEIs. International Journal of Higher Education 12(4), 355-368.
Watson, M. K., Lozano, R., Noyes, C., & Rodgers, M. (2013). Assessing curricula contribution
to sustainability more holistically: Experiences from the integration of curricula
assessment and students' perceptions at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Journal of
Cleaner Production 61, 106-116.
Weill, L. V. (2009). The President’s Role in Cultivating Positive Town-Gown Relations.
Planning for Higher Education (37)4, 37-42.
White, K. B. (1998). Shared governance in California. New Directions for Community Colleges
102, 19-29.
Willson, R. (2010). Beyond the Inventory, Planning for Campus Greenhouse Gas Reduction.
Planning for Higher Education (39)1, 18-29.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 172
Wuebbles, D., Fahey, D., Hibbard, K., DeAngelo, B., Doherty, S., Hayhoe, K., . . . Weaver, C.
(Eds.). (2017). Climate science special report: Fourth national climate assessment (Vol.
I). Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program.
Yang, C., Yeh, S., Zakerinia, S., Ramea, K., & McCollum, D. (2015). Achieving California's
80% greenhouse gas reduction target in 2050: Technology, policy scenario analysis using
CA-TIMES energy economic systems model. Energy Policy, 77, 118-130.
Yeh, S., Yang, C., Gibbs, M., Roland-Holst, D., Greenblatt, J., Mahone, A., . . . Williams, J.
(2016). A modeling comparison of deep greenhouse gas emissions reduction scenarios by
2030 in California. Energy Strategy Reviews, 13-14, 169-180.
Zen, I. S., Subramaniam, D., Sulaiman, H., Saleh, A. L., Omar, W., & Salim, M. R. (2016).
Institutionalize waste minimization governance towards campus sustainability: A case
study of Green Office initiatives in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Journal of Cleaner
Production 135, 1407-1422.
Zilahy, G., & Huisingh, D. (2009). The roles of academia in regional sustainability initiatives.
Journal of Cleaner Production 17, 1057-1066.

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 173
APPENDIX A
Organizational Mission, Organizational Performance Goal, Stakeholders’ Proficiencies and
Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
We cultivate learning in our diverse community through the physical, social, aesthetic, emotional
and ethical development of our students. We prepare students for transfer, provide career
technical education, and improve our students’ foundational skills. We encourage lifelong
learning by seeking joy, personal and professional growth. We support the economic vitality,
social justice and equity, and environmental stewardship of our region.
Organizational Performance Goal
The college will establish a strong culture of sustainability that promotes ecology (environmental
stewardship), economy (financial sustainability), and equity (social justice), aligned with goal E
of the strategic plan.
Stakeholder Group 1
Sustainability Committee
Stakeholder Group 2
Administration
Stakeholder Group 3
Governing board and President
Stakeholder Group 1
Proficiencies/Competencies
Necessary to Reach the
Organization’s Goal
• Know the 18 current
sustainability goals and
build on them
• Know about goal setting
• Know about international
treaties
• Know about sustainability
measurement
• Know how to develop
interdisciplinary eco-
literacy curriculum
• Know how to coordinate
initiatives within the
institution and with
external agencies
Stakeholder Group 2
Proficiencies/Competencies
Necessary to Reach the
Organization’s Goal
• Motivate committee to
reframe, draft and
implement SMART goals
(Specific, Measurable,
Achievable, Reasonable,
Timely)
• Know program and
project management,
project budgeting and
project scheduling
• Know how to set
appropriate expectations
with stakeholders about
costs and priorities
• Know how to motivate
stakeholders to build
Stakeholder Group 3
Proficiencies/Competencies
Necessary to Reach the
Organization’s Goal
• Understand and support
the sustainability plan and
development process
• Motivate by being present
at workshops and
presentations
• Motivate by publicly
acknowledging work of
committee
• Motivate by providing
useful feedback to the
sustainability committee
& managers.
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 174
• Motivate others by
communicating progress to
the college community
• Know how to coordinate
activities across multiple
teaching sites
support from all parts of
institution.
Stakeholder Group 1 Goals
• Write new plan by mid-
2019
• Ensure that sustainability
is a guiding principle in
the facilities master plan.
Stakeholder Group 2 Goals
• By mid-2019 encourage
the President to sign the
American College and
University Presidents’
Climate Commitment
(ACUPCC)
Stakeholder Group 3 Goals
• By July 1, 2019, adopt
staff recommendations for
a new sustainability plan

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 175
APPENDIX B
Interview, Document and Artifact Protocols
Organizational Global Goal
To establish a strong culture of sustainability that promotes ecology (environmental stewardship),
economy (financial sustainability) and equity (social justice and empathy).
Stakeholder Goal
The sustainability committee will write a new sustainability plan by mid-2019
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence
Knowledge Type Knowledge
Influence
Assessment
Learning Solution
Principle*
Proposed
Solution*
Members of the
sustainability
committee should
know the 18
objectives of the
existing
sustainability plan,
sub-points, and
existing board
sustainability
policy. (K)
Declarative
(Conceptual)

Artifact: Review
District
Sustainability Plan

Artifact: Review
Board sustainability
policy

Interview 1: Tell me
what you know
about the 18 goals of
the sustainability
plan, if anything?

Interview 1: Tell me
what do you know
about the three areas
of sustainability
(ecology, economy,
social justice and
equity) as defined in
the existing plan, if
anything?

Interview 1: Of the
three areas of
sustainability, tell
me about the area
that is most
important to you?
Why?

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 176

Interview 1: How
was your area of
interest addressed in
the sustainability
plan, if at all?

Interview 1: How
does the existing
board policy address
your concerns about
sustainability, if at
all?

Members of the
sustainability
committee should
know about
templates and
existing
sustainability rating
instruments. (K)
Declarative
(Conceptual)

Artifact: Review CA
Community College
Chancellor’s Office
(CCCCO)
sustainability
planning template

Artifact: Review the
Talloires
Declaration and the
American College &
University
Presidents’ Climate
Commitment
(ACUPCC)

Interview 1: What
knowledge do you
have of the existing
CCCCO
sustainability
planning template, if
any?

Interview 1: What
knowledge do you
have about the
Talloires
Declaration or
ACUPCC, if any?

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 177
Interview 1: What
knowledge do you
have about the role
of LEED (leadership
in energy and
environmental
design) in designing
sustainable
buildings, if any?

Interview 1: What
knowledge do you
have about the
STARS (sustainable
tracking, assessment
& rating system)
system, if any?
Members of the
sustainability
committee should
know what a
SMART goal is
(specific,
measurable,
achievable,
realistic,
timebound).
Procedural

Interview 1: Tell me
if you are familiar
with the concept of a
SMART goal, if at
all?

Interview 1: How
did the current
sustainability plan
address the concept
of a SMART goal, if
at all?

Interview 1: How
will a SMART goal
create a strong
culture of
sustainability, if at
all?

Members of the
sustainability
committee should
reflect upon the
value of utilizing an
existing template
(which may include
SMART goal
setting and existing
sustainability rating
Metacognitive

Artifact: Review
LEED and STARS

Interview 1: How
would utilizing the
CCCCO template to
write a sustainability
plan help in creating
a strong culture of

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 178
instruments), as
compared to
writing a
sustainability plan
with a unique
format and content.
sustainability, if at
all?

Interview 1: How
would utilizing a
standard set of
sustainability
measurement tools
(such as LEED or
STARS) help in
creating a strong
culture of
sustainability, if at
all?

Interview 1: How
would signing the
ACUPCC help in
creating a strong
culture of
sustainability, if at
all?
Motivation
Construct
Assumed
Motivation
Influence
Motivation
Influence
Assessment
Motivational
Solution Principle
Proposed
Solution
Expectancy Value
(M)

Intrinsic Value –
Sustainability
Committee
members need to
see the value in
writing a new
sustainability plan,
meeting
requirements of the
state to reduce
GHG, water, and
energy use, and to
implement projects
fairly and
equitably.
Interview 1: How
valuable is it to
write a new
sustainability plan in
order to create a
strong culture of
sustainability at the
college, if at all?

Interview 1: How
valuable is it to
write a new
sustainability plan
with SMART goals,
in order to create a
strong culture of
sustainability, if at
all?

Self-Efficacy (M) Members of the
sustainability
committee need to
Interview 1: How
confident are you
that the

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 179
believe that they
are capable of
writing a new
sustainability plan,
with SMART
goals.
sustainability
committee has the
capacity to write a
new sustainability
plan, if at all?

Interview 1: How
confident are you
that the
sustainability
committee can write
a set of SMART
goals, if at all?
Organizational
Influence
Category
Assumed
Organizational
Influence
Organizational
Influence
Assessment
Research-Based
Recommendation
or Solution
Principle
Proposed
Solution
Cultural Model (O)
Influence 1
The sustainability
committee should
feel that there is a
culture of
collegiality and
trust among
operating units, in
order to change
procedures to
support a
sustainability plan.
Interview 1: How
are new procedures
encouraged and
accepted within the
college, if at all?

Interview 1: How
are disagreements
about new
procedures resolved,
if at all?

Cultural Model (O)
Influence 2
Sustainability
committee
members should
feel that there is a
culture of
individual
leadership and
responsibility so
that they may strive
to take on
challenges and
implement
solutions without
fear of criticism
when problems
arise
Artifact: Review
board sustainability
policy

Interview 1: How
has the college
supported the
initiation of a
sustainability plan, if
at all?

Interview 1: How
has the college
supported the
problems and
challenges
associated with a

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 180
new initiative, if at
all?
Cultural Setting (O)
Influence 1
The college should
incorporate
sustainability
Artifact: Review
District strategic and
facility plans

Interview 1: How
has the college
incorporated
sustainability in its
strategic and
institutional
planning, if at all?

Interview 1: How
has the college
included
sustainability in its
facilities master
plan, if at all?

Interview 1: How
has the college
implemented
sustainable practices
in its new building
projects, if at all?

Interview 1: How
has the college
implemented
sustainability into its
operations, if at all?

Cultural Setting (O)
Influence 2
The college needs
to publicize the
work that it is
doing in
sustainability to the
external and
internal community
Artifact: Review
college
sustainability
website and
publicity website

Interview 1: How
has the college
publicized its
sustainability
efforts, if at all?

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 181
Interview 1: How
has the college
raised awareness in
the public about
sustainability, if at
all?

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 182
APPENDIX C
Interview Protocol
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to participate in this interview. I’m
conducting interviews with you and other members of the sustainability committee as part of my
doctoral dissertation. I want to be clear that I’m here today as a doctoral student and the primary
researcher for this study, and not in my usual role as the director of capital projects.

I want to start by stating that I will ensure your confidentiality. You will be assigned a
pseudonym (such as participant #x) and your answers to the questions will be identified in the
interview notes by the pseudonym only.

I have a few questions that should take us one hour (or less) to complete.

The goal of these questions is to discuss the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that may impact your ability (and the ability of the sustainability committee) to write
the next version of the sustainability plan. The data will be used to develop strategies to support
you and the committee in fulfilling goal E of the strategic plan: creating a strong culture of
sustainability.

Before we start, I’d like to confirm a few things:
1. Did you receive a copy of the information sheet at the sustainability committee
presentation?
2. Are you participating voluntarily?
3. Do you understand that you may stop the interview at any time?
4. I would like to record this conversation. The digital recording will be transcribed by a
third party and destroyed at the end of the study to keep your identity confidential. Do
you consent to being recorded?

Are you ready to begin?
[Questions are categorized as a Knowledge influence, Motivational influence or Organizational
influence and indicated with K, M or O. These will not be mentioned to the participants.]

1. It’s been three years since the first sustainability plan was written. How has the culture
around sustainability changed, if at all? [O]
a. Are you satisfied with the pace of change?
b. What areas of sustainability need more attention, if any?

2. You’ve been a part of the college for some time and may have participated in writing the
first sustainability plan. Why is this work important to you? [M]
a. Is it important to you to receive recognition for this work?
b. Is it important to you that the college receive recognition for this work?

3. Assuming the college writes a new sustainability plan every three to five years, how do
you feel about creating a set of measurable goals? [K]
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 183
a. Are you familiar with the concept of SMART (specific, measurable, achievable,
realistic, timebound) goal setting?
b. What type of goals do you envision for the next sustainability plan?
c. Did the goals in the first plan drive change in the college the way you had hoped?

4. Templates provide an efficient way to measure results. How do you feel about utilizing
measurement templates? [K]
a. Are you familiar with any templates and tools provided by the community college
chancellor’s office sustainability template, LEED, AASHE, etc.
5. True cultural change takes collaboration and trust at all levels of the institution. As a
member of the committee, how do you feel about the organizational support you’ve
received so far? [O]
a. How collegial is the organization, in your opinion?
b. How does the level of trust between administrators and other groups encourage
(or inhibit) progress in areas of sustainability?
c. What do you do on a regular basis, even daily, that makes you feel that the college
is moving towards a strong culture of sustainability?

6. How confident are you that the sustainability committee can write a new plan with goals
that meet your expectations? [M]
a. What might prevent this from happening?

7. Do you have any additional thoughts or concerns to share about sustainability?

Thank you for your time, and I really appreciate your input and insight. Feel free to
contact me if you think of anything that you’d like to add.

I would also like to ask you if you would be willing to meet with me in another month, as
a follow-up. After the transcription process, I would like to confirm that I’ve recorded
everything as intended.

Thank you again.

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 184
APPENDIX D
Informed Consent Form
University of Southern California
Information Sheet for Research

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM, A COLLEGE’S CLIMATE
ACTION PLAN: An Evaluation Study

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Leigh T. Sata, doctoral student at
the University of Southern California. Please read through this form and ask any questions you
might have before deciding whether or not you want to participate.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This research study aims to understand the capacity of the sustainability committee to write a new
sustainability plan by June 30, 2019.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in a recorded interview for
60 minutes, and an optional follow-up interview for up to 30 minutes. You do not have to answer
any questions you don’t want to.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will receive a $20.00 Starbucks card as a gesture of appreciation for participating in the study,
once the follow-up interview is completed.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. At
the completion of the study, direct identifiers will be destroyed and the de-identified data may be
used for future research studies. If you do not want your data used in future studies, you should
not participate.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies
to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 185
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Leigh Sata
(Principal Researcher) at, (415) 828-1099 or jenifer.crawford@usc.edu (Faculty Advisor).

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu.

____________________________________________ ______________________________
Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Sixteen of the past 17 years were the hottest in recorded history. Overwhelming scientific consensus determined that the primary cause of global warming is anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The United States federal government has not joined the international community to address the issue, but the California state legislature and governor have created a set of laws and executive orders to reduce GHG emissions in the state. This qualitative case study examined whether the sustainability committee of a northern California community college (NorCal College) had the knowledge and skills, motivation and organizational support to write and implement a sustainability plan. The overall framework for this study was developed by Clark and Estes (2008). Recommendations and the implementation plan were based on the new world Kirkpatrick model. The four-step model included 1) reactions, 2) learning, 3) behavior change, and 4) results. Recommendations were made by considering the results first and working backwards to reactions. This provided a means to link the results directly to the two gaps in knowledge and two gaps in organizational support that were discovered. Specifically, the sustainability committee will need training to better understand the existing policies and sustainability plans, and training in writing measurable goals. NorCal College will also need help creating a culture of trust and should better publicize its sustainability work. NorCal college could become an exemplar of sustainability planning in the California community college system because committee members understood the strategic planning process and were able to institutionalize sustainability in the strategic plan and facilities master plan.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Diversity initiatives in a California independent school: from plans to reality

PDF

Linking shared governance and strategic planning processes: an innovation study

PDF

Using strategic planning to excel in a changing higher education environment: examining promising practices at an independent liberal arts college

PDF

Teaching quality in Zhejiang University of Technology

PDF

Systemic multilayered assessment of global awareness in undergraduate students: an innovation study

PDF

Creating "excellent" learning experiences: a gap analysis of a university extension program

PDF

Strategy education for winning in a complex world: an evaluation study of the Army University

PDF

The impact of Connecticut legislators on teacher diversity

PDF

Improving math achievement among fourth graders at Al-Corniche Primary For Girls: a gap analysis

PDF

Faculty retention at private colleges in China

PDF

Improved student success at California State University, Dominguez Hills: a promising practice study

PDF

Intercultural integration of students at a Sino-foreign cooperative university in China: an evaluation study

PDF

Implementing comprehensive succession planning: an improvement study

PDF

An evaluation study of effectiveness of continuous professional development in Ethiopia

PDF

Increasing international student enrollment at an East Asian university: a gap analysis

PDF

Increasing international student enrollment at public research universities: a gap analysis

PDF

The impact of faculty interactions on online student sense of belonging: an evaluation study

PDF

Advancing Black identity and culture in predominantly White colleges and universities: a promising practice study

PDF

Development of intraorganizational post-merger collaboration plan: an evaluation study

PDF

College and career readiness through high school STEM programs: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Sata, Leigh Tadakazu (author)

Core Title A California community college's climate action plan: an evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Global Executive

Publication Date 08/12/2019

Defense Date 07/15/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag community college,facilities master plan,gap analysis,greenhouse gas,implementation,OAI-PMH Harvest,Planning,policy,strategic plan,sustainability

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Crawford, Jenifer (committee chair), Seli, Helena (committee member), Tambascia, Tracy (committee member)

Creator Email leigh.sata@gmail.com,leighsata@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-213712

Unique identifier UC11663148

Identifier etd-SataLeighT-7771.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-213712 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-SataLeighT-7771.pdf

Dmrecord 213712

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Sata, Leigh Tadakazu

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA