Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Leveraging opportunities for campus sustainability: a case study of water resources

Leveraging opportunities for campus sustainability: a case study of water resources Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy http://ejournal.nbii.org ARTICLE Leveraging opportunities for campus sustainability: a case study of water resources 1 2 Kristan Cockerill & Jana Carp Appalachian State University, University College, PO Box 32080, Boone, NC 28608 USA (email: [email protected]) Appalachian State University, Department of Geography and Planning, Rankin Science, 572 Rivers Street, Boone, NC 28608 USA Institutions of higher education are well situated globally for transformation toward sustainability. The case of the Water Resources Planning Committee (WRPC) at Appalachian State University in North Carolina, United States of- fers insight into how educational institutions might identify and leverage transformative opportunities. The article sug- gests that a “window of opportunity” can open when diverse actor-groups share a common interest or goal and when individuals are able to “bridge” the groups as a way to create synergy. Once together, these groups can collaborate by sharing knowledge and resources. They do not avoid conflict, but rather constructively use organizational tensions and cultivate flexibility to further common goals. This case study focuses on interrelationships among a public univer- sity’s teaching and research missions and its place within a broader community as it transforms toward sustainably managing campus-water resources. KEYWORDS: educational institutions, sustainability, water resources, organizational behavior, watershed management, local planning, cooperation Introduction change toward institutional transformation. This ar- ticle identifies the significant characteristics, embed- A growing body of literature on creating a sus- ded in a case study, that demonstrate a “window-of- opportunity” approach for leveraging situations ripe tainable university focuses on the role of higher edu- cation in its broader social context (Sharp, 2002; with transformative capacities. The case study fo- cuses on interrelationships among a university’s Cortese, 2003; Calhoun & Cortese, 2005). Integral to these discussions is the need for universities to trans- teaching and research missions, its role as an institu- tion, and its place within a broader community. Our form physically, cognitively, and philosophically. Lozano (2006) identifies numerous organizational approach is consistent with Ehrenfeld’s (2008) ob- servation that the key to institutional transformation barriers to implementing sustainable development principles, including internal power struggles and the is focusing on routine processes to identify how and where to make adjustments. He writes that: radical nature of sustainable development relative to traditional management approaches. In an editorial This process of transforming what at first for a special issue of the International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Adomssent et al. are nonroutine actions into the normal way of behaving is one of the primary objectives (2007) state, “sustainable development, and the process of institutional transformation this requires, of [an] overall design strategy. When the actions become routine, the associated be- remains a considerable challenge for universities.” Sharp’s (2009) recent contribution to this journal on liefs and norms become embodied. As more and more individuals [or institutions] follow the state of the campus sustainability movement indi- cates the depth and breadth of this challenge. the same new routine, the beliefs and norms will begin to enter the collective, social con- While the notion of transformation is inherent in the sustainability literature, what, exactly, institu- sciousness. tional transformation implies, and how it might be achieved, has not been adequately specified. Sharp We argue that institutional transformation re- quires assimilating concepts and practices based in (2009) begins to address this gap by discussing, for example, the role of a “change management func- diverse philosophies and that it resists efforts that would limit either ideas or actions to a single discip- tion” as part of a long-term institutional strategy. However, little attention has been paid to date to line or frame. In preparing this article, the authors have used the theoretical frameworks of complex identify the conditions that catalyze the initiation of © 2009 Cockerill & Carp Fall 2009 | Volume 5 | Issue 2 Cockerill & Carp: Opportunities for Campus Sustainability systems, participatory planning, production of space, dents in 140 major programs. The campus is located and adaptive management, among others as equally in downtown Boone, both a prototypical “college applicable to transformation in general and to our town” with a full-time population of about 15,000 case study in particular. A narrower theoretical focus people and the urban service center of northwest is also antithetical to one of our main findings: in North Carolina. The area is also a tourist destination, seeking transformation, there is no linear, one-size- with forests and golf courses, rock cliffs and ski fits-all way forward. Our inductive approach offers a slopes, and the headwaters of four river basins. De- pragmatic understanding of institutional transforma- spite their importance to unique ecosystems and to tion in the context of one university’s attempt to be- downstream human-population centers, these streams come more sustainable. We find that working toward have not been well studied or protected from human such institutional transformation is not only interdis- impact. Agricultural practices have caused significant ciplinary; it is also an opportunistic, multiscalar re- degradation to water quality and riparian zones. The sponse to external and internal pressures for change. steady growth of population and tourism also These pressures are expressed in multiple opportuni- presents significant land and water-resource chal- ties for action that cannot be prescribed, given the lenges, including development on steep slopes and in complex social-ecological systems that characterize floodplains, as well as issues pertaining to water con- sustainability and the “irrational life of the institu- servation and stormwater management. The univer- tion” that exists parallel with its organizational ratio- sity campus is located in the watershed of Boone nality (Sharp, 2009). Therefore, it is crucial to recog- Creek, a tributary to the New River. Stormwater from nize unprecedented opportunities and to be prepared campus and the dense historic downtown drains into to leverage such opportunities into action that sup- the creek which is culverted along ASU’s main ports significant transformation. access road and daylit through a linear park at the Using the Water Resources Planning Committee campus entrance. Because water is crucial to all life, (WRPC) at Appalachian State University (ASU) in but does not respect political boundaries, it offers an North Carolina as a resource-specific case study, we excellent focal point for addressing complex adaptive describe how, amid uncertainty, windows of oppor- social-ecological systems (Walker & Salt, 2006). tunity have opened that have allowed ASU to ac- tively pursue sustainability. The WRPC focuses on The Water Resources Planning Committee water resources, but it potentially serves as a model In February 2007, WRPC–comprised of faculty for similar sustainability-directed efforts because it from six academic departments, a professional engi- considers such issues from diverse standpoints. While neer from the Office of Design and Construction, and all universities have interrelated environmental, eco- members of three community organizations–was nomic, and social issues, the specifics of what is sus- charged by the ASU provost with developing rec- tainable will differ in each instance. The transforma- ommendations to manage Boone Creek on campus. tive process will determine the particular shape of In less than two years, WRPC evolved from a sustainability for any institution. “green” campus initiative to a nascent prototype for This article is divided into three sections: Back- institutional transformation. The Committee joins ground, Leveraging Windows of Opportunity, and people from operational and academic units, involves Conclusion. The Background introduces the particu- community organizations and local governments in lar actors and highlights the sequence of events that its work, has high-level administrative support for its contributed to the formation of WRPC. The next sec- recommendations, and is growing in resource alloca- tion theorizes the characteristics of the actors who tion and influence despite conflict. The following leveraged the window of opportunity described in the narrative of WRPC’s inception shows how individu- prior section. We describe their interaction using four als and events converged in unpredictable ways to actor-group capacities that characterize transforma- “embrace emerging opportunities [and] constantly tive opportunity: synergy, collaboration, conflict, and shifting priorities and resources” (Sharp, 2002), inad- flexibility. The final section discusses how these re- vertently creating a window of transformative op- lationships are playing out with WRPC as a focal portunity for sustainability. point for considering transformation toward campus Several unrelated events and activities contri- sustainability. buted to the window of opportunity that opened to enable WRPC to be established. Early in 2004, Jana Background to the Case Study Carp’s planning studio course on the stabilization and enhancement of the downtown creek catalyzed an ad hoc citizen’s committee called the Kraut Creek Case Study Setting Committee (KCC) (“Kraut Creek” is the vernacular Established in 1899, ASU is situated in the Ap- name for Boone Creek derived from a mid-20th cen- palachian Mountains and serves about 16,000 stu- Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy | http://ejournal.nbii.org Fall 2009 | Volume 5 | Issue 2 Cockerill & Carp: Opportunities for Campus Sustainability tury sauerkraut factory that regularly released its ef- for diverse use of the riparian corridor for scientific, fluent into the stream). Members represent academic, educational, recreational, aesthetic, and property- political, environmental, and economic development management purposes. Individual time constraints, as interests and advocate protecting and enhancing the well as different attitudes toward the relevance of stream to their separate constituencies. Later that “visioning,” truncated the exercise and an attempt to year, hurricanes brought significant flooding to the generate more detailed objectives from the various region and then, in 2005, the municipal government disciplinary perspectives failed. However, the group released a study documenting the need to increase its did agree on the immediate need for a demonstration water supply. In 2006, KCC began work on a grant- project to signal the general mission of applying funded feasibility study—with formal endorsement available expertise to improve riparian conditions on from town and county governments, ASU, and vari- campus. A biology professor designed an experiment ous local and regional organizations—for improving to assess the effects of grass mowing on riparian in- 1.3 miles of the creek. The university and the local vertebrate populations. A campus-project manager chamber of commerce eventually implemented an serving on WRPC facilitated the logistics of this ex- off-campus collaborative demonstration project. periment with the grounds crew. As expected, the Even before these initiatives, ASU science fa- results (invertebrate population increased when culty had been conducting teaching laboratories in mowing ceased) showed how simple actions with low and along the creek for several years. However, in cost can have large positive impacts. Then, faculty 2005, three newly arrived science faculty began to from physics and chemistry, along with the campus- develop a cross-disciplinary program of creek-related project manager, coordinated a second experiment to research, outreach, and educational activities. In test whether permeable pavement could help with 2006, they instrumented the creek and began col- thermal regulation of stormwater runoff. Once fund- lecting data. Meanwhile, Kristan Cockerill (an envi- ing, timing, and location issues were settled between ronmental policy analyst) arrived at ASU and started WRPC and the Office of Design and Construction, to collaborate with the scientists on grant proposals to the experiment was conducted and showed that this expand the creek-monitoring program. She also be- approach did not reduce thermal pollution. gan to work with a regional nonprofit organization to In 2008, Cockerill became chair of WRPC. One develop a community water-education program. By of the year’s two targets–obtaining more funding to late 2006, with almost a year’s worth of data showing help meet the stated goals–was achieved to a degree. negative impacts on the creek from runoff-induced The Committee secured a small external grant to de- thermal pollution and salinity, the physicist on the velop a workshop about stream health for middle monitoring team met with the provost to propose that school teachers, linking ASU faculty, KCC members, the university proactively manage the creek. The re- and cooperative extension personnel with public sult was WRPC, of which both authors are members. school teachers. The provost also provided approx- Through 2007, WRPC focused on responding to imately US$50,000 for nonrecurring equipment costs the provost’s charge to make recommendations re- in response to a request for more than US$200,000 garding creek management. Members discussed for water-monitoring equipment, support for student creek-remediation concepts and reviewed the up- researchers, and laboratory personnel. The Commit- stream-remediation efforts of KCC and the county tee had asked for funding to conduct several years cooperative extension office. The group decided to worth of research across multiple disciplines. The expand its scope from a single creek to the broader provost noted the fiscal reality that it is easier to buy campus and its watershed. Recommendations in “things” than to buy “people,” and therefore all of the WRPC’s report to the provost included adding low- equipment requested was funded and none of the per- impact development policies to design and construc- sonnel. tion guidelines, establishing a director of sustaina- The WRPC’s second target for 2008–increase bility for campus operations, designating WRPC as input on campus-development activities to advocate the advisory committee to review design and con- for stream health–was also met. The Committee’s struction plans for water-management impacts, and members reviewed plans for a new building and for a funding faculty activities. The provost accepted the creek-rehabilitation project. Both projects received a recommendations without committing to specific generally positive appraisal, with some changes indi- implementation plans and offered unspecified finan- cated. However, water-management measures in- cial support. cluded in the initial building plans were later re- In developing the report, WRPC undertook a vi- moved due to budget limitations. At Cockerill’s re- sioning exercise to establish common ground that quest, the provost convened a meeting of faculty, produced two broad goals: 1) to rehabilitate the staff, and high-level administrators to discuss con- stream to be ecologically healthy; and 2) to provide straints and opportunities for the new building’s wa- Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy | http://ejournal.nbii.org Fall 2009 | Volume 5 | Issue 2 Cockerill & Carp: Opportunities for Campus Sustainability ter-related features and how WRPC might be better for diverse uses, promoting it as an asset to be reme- used in campus water-resource decisions. Important diated rather than an inconvenience for campus de- project information was shared and the responsible velopment. The Committee has also raised external administrator suggested that the committee appoint a funds to use the creek as a teaching “laboratory,” as representative to the planning committees for new well as a focal point for research. buildings or other campus-development projects. While these new opportunities for sustainability While this gesture represented high-level administra- education, research, and advocacy are prerequisites, tive support for WRPC input, several members per- the ultimate goal is institutional transformation that ceived service on these committees as additional un- addresses ecological, social, and economic concerns compensated work, limiting the incentive to partici- in an integrated and habitual fashion. This process pate. Cockerill has attended several planning meet- includes both material changes on campus and cogni- ings, but this is an ongoing concern for the Commit- tive changes in attitude and vision among decision tee. makers. To achieve this step, stakeholders must rec- The WRPC is the first faculty-led committee at ognize the need for change, disclose information, ASU with diverse institutional and off-campus mem- provide resources, and share both power and bership and an official advisory role in campus de- responsibility in process and outcome. For WRPC, velopment. Comparing conditions “before” and “af- such transformation would mean enabling any mem- ter” WRPC helps gauge its effectiveness. Before, ber to become fully engaged, with some form of campus-water resources were not considered com- compensation, in all stages of decision making for prehensively and faculty and community expertise campus planning, even when that role is not part of was excluded in designing campus projects with sig- his or her primary responsibilities. This development nificant water impacts. Now, the Committee’s input would reflect cognitive change among those with is welcomed. Before WRPC, there was limited inte- responsibility for campus functions and increase raction among various disciplines and interests re- shared information, resources, and power. Transfor- lated to campus-water resources. Now, WRPC is a mation would also mean an institutional commitment venue to discuss both disciplinary and collaborative to implementing sustainable water-management approaches to teaching, research, and practical man- practices when the long-term benefits outweigh the agement of water on campus and in the surrounding short-term costs, and reinvesting the resulting opera- community. tional savings in further improvements (Sharp, 2009). The Committee is not the formal “change man- Institutional transformation would also include a agement team” that Sharp (2009) discusses as central consistent working relationship between the univer- to organizing institutional transformation toward sity and the town, along with relevant interest groups, sustainability. However, in the short time it has ex- to sustainably manage water and other common re- isted, and despite its small size, it has taken positive sources. Because water does not stop at the campus- steps toward its two primary goals of promoting property line, the university can be a “good neighbor” stream remediation and encouraging diverse use. by planning its water resources in concert with the These objectives require engaging faculty, adminis- town’s sustainable planning initiatives centered on, trators, and the community in addressing campus- for instance, “smart growth” and “green business,” water management, and WRPC is gradually streng- not only because of the ecological and economic thening this capability. Providing input to campus benefits, but also because the town’s development building-design plans, promoting rehabilitation and political influence affects the university as a projects on and off campus, and continuing to moni- whole. Moreover, there are likely to be consequences tor stream conditions all contribute to improved creek in resisting transformation. Within the North Carolina health. It is, of course, too early to see definitive university system, ASU has been designated as the ecological results, but integrating WRPC expertise state’s “sustainability campus.” For the rhetoric to into campus-building projects has widened the field match the reality, sustainable concepts must become of proposed water-management solutions and in- a material reality and a comprehensive priority for itiated a discussion of long-term impacts. For exam- policy and behavior. In addition, recent legislative ple, the Committee formally made several water- attention to water quality and water supply at federal related recommendations including that rainwater and state levels makes it likely that water- catchment and low-impact development technologies management practices will become more heavily re- be included in the revised campus design and con- gulated in the future. struction manual. Although this document is still un- The window-of-opportunity approach that we der review, indications are that the Committee’s pro- describe below involves three phases of the transfor- posals will be included in the final draft. In terms of mative process: transformative opportunities, trans- the second goal, WRPC supports access to the creek formative action, and institutional transformation. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy | http://ejournal.nbii.org Fall 2009 | Volume 5 | Issue 2 Cockerill & Carp: Opportunities for Campus Sustainability These phases involve multiple parties, their particular perience is integral to the synergy and collaboration responses to external and internal pressures, and the (shared power and resources) required for institu- parties’ willingness to adapt their actions in the tional transformation. process of collaboration. Referring to the WRPC case In this section, we describe the four “actor- study previously described, we show how new (trans- groups” in our case study. While WRPC is a univer- formative) opportunities arose and describe the situa- sity committee, members and partners are accounta- tional characteristics that allowed unprecedented ble to diverse constituencies and professions. By (transformative) action to emerge. Without recog- primary responsibility, they separate into four groups: nizing the dimensions of transformative opportunity, university faculty, university administration, local successful transformative action is unlikely to occur. political authorities, and community-based interests. As noted above, this case study shows that a diverse While the identity of specific actor-groups is unique set of actors was able to leverage windows of oppor- to any case, three types of entities are equally impor- tunity into transformative action, although institu- tant; individuals, informal associations, and institu- tional transformation involving WRPC has yet to tions each provide characteristic assets and capacities occur. The window-of-opportunity concept offers a that can mobilize development processes when they way to identify when and where transformation may are connected and utilized (Kretzmann & McKnight, occur; it cannot offer any guarantee that transforma- 1993). As Figure 1 shows, each actor-group may tion will occur. If, however, we improve our ability to have numerous constituent members. Among the identify transformative potential in particular situa- actor-groups, individuals representing associations tions, we may realize more opportunities to increase and institutions actively “bridge” between two or sustainability in higher education and similar settings. more groups. Yet coordination among actors that results in an Leveraging Windows of Opportunity for “open window” is not a straightforward process be- cause participants’ interests are rarely unitary. Rather Transformation than viewing (virtually) perfect alignment of interests as ideal (Figure 2) or complete autonomy as inevita- In this section, we discuss indicators that cha- ble (Figure 3), we argue that diverse and divergent racterize transformative opportunities and describe interests and responsibilities are characteristic of them at work in the WRPC case. The ideas discussed transformative action (Fazey et al. 2007). here were arrived at through an inductive process An important feature of our window-of- based on our joint observations. First, we identify four “actor-groups” and demonstrate how they inter- relate. We next describe specific capacities characte- ristic of transformative action: synergy, collaboration, conflict, and flexibility. The subsequent discussion uses diagrams to “freeze” the relationships among actor-groups at three points in time to visually depict the convergence that makes institutional transforma- tion possible, as well as to highlight what occurs once a window of opportunity has opened. We find that transformative opportunities cannot be directed in advance, but that participation in transformative ac- tion depends on opportunism and conscientious at- tention to collaboration to take significant steps to- ward the institutionalization of sustainable water- resource management. Actor-groups Actors are significant to the transformation process because power–as the ability to attract and distribute resources–is differentially distributed among them. Knowledge is also unequally distri- buted. But while power and resources are often Figure 1 Each actor-group can be divided into its played against each other in a zero-sum game, constituent parts and each part can be further divided into knowledge can be accumulated and shared to the its various elements, eventually arriving at the scale of the benefit of all, through increased understanding of individual, who may have membership in multiple actor- institutional functioning. Sharing knowledge and ex- groups. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy | http://ejournal.nbii.org Fall 2009 | Volume 5 | Issue 2 Cockerill & Carp: Opportunities for Campus Sustainability Figure 3 An unrealistic (but sometimes perceived as inevitable) situation where all interests are autonomous. search, and service based at the university. The fa- culty members who participate in WRPC range in rank from full professor to adjunct instructor, teach Figure 2 An unrealistic (but sometimes perceived “ideal”) students about water resources, conduct and present situation where all interests are perfectly aligned. externally funded scientific and participatory-action opportunity approach is conceptualizing the situation research, and support various community-outreach not as a “moving target” with one preferred condi- activities. Enabled by their different fields, affilia- tion, but as a fluid field of action in which actors tions, modes of research and pedagogy, and levels of have multiple real and potential mutual interests that resources, the university faculty use several methods can be leveraged toward common goals. of persuasion to encourage campus transformation. The first actor-group, “community interests,” is In contrast, “university administration” is the comprised of individuals and groups associated either actor-group directly accountable for the university’s with WRPC by professional expertise or an allied physical functioning, as well as its institutional lea- community-based organization (or in some cases to dership. This actor-group spans responsibilities for both of these networks) and these ties link com- campus planning, physical plant operation, business munity institutions, advocacy organizations, and affairs and budget, academic mission, fund raising, landowner groups. This actor-group includes people and policy development and implementation. The who are not necessarily water experts, but who un- WRPC includes a representative from the operational derstand the public significance of water problems. In side of campus activities and his participation has addition to networking, community interests can been critical to achieving the transformative actions supply resources, publicity, and educational oppor- described in this article. tunities, as well as the enthusiasm and appreciation The establishment, increasing responsibility, and that encourage the difficult work of transformation. growing influence of WRPC reflect a ten-year history Several individual WRPC members are also members of collaboration among individuals and groups. The of diverse community-interest organizations, includ- experience of working both together and separately, ing KCC, the National Committee for the New River, using various tools and methods, and communicating and the county cooperative extension office. This with different individuals is complex, multivocal, and integration provides a “bridge” linking various ideas divergent. We identify four capacities–synergy, col- and projects. laboration, conflict, and flexibility–as necessary cha- Another actor-group, “political interests,” de- racteristics of windows of transformative opportu- scribes people who influence policy and strategies nity. affecting campus-water resources. Beyond the extent of state property in the town, the size and scope of Synergy university-related activities influence the surrounding Synergy occurs when multiple actor-groups area in terms of housing availability, public services, work to realize similar outcomes. Specific events traffic, economic opportunity, and community cha- contribute to each actor-group’s focus on an issue racter. Water-related projects typically “spill over” and recognition of a common direction with other into the town, requiring collaboration between cam- actor-groups. In the WRPC case, flooding events in pus and community-based political interests. Thus, 2004, coupled with the 2005 town report on supply political actors are significant advocates (and adver- limits, focused attention on water throughout the re- saries) in attempts to transform the university’s ma- gion. Common direction among diverse entities, terial conditions. This actor-group includes elected however, is signified by different forms. The interor- and appointed officials and government staff. While ganizational, multiscalar context of our case involves, none of the current members of WRPC are elected for example, curriculum change, advocacy, scientific officials, some do serve on town boards and are key experimentation, technological innovation, political to “bridging” campus and political interests. negotiation, fundraising and financial investment, “University faculty” is the actor-group whose citizen involvement, and community festivals. De- primary activity occurs on behalf of education, re- Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy | http://ejournal.nbii.org Fall 2009 | Volume 5 | Issue 2 Cockerill & Carp: Opportunities for Campus Sustainability spite their differences, every actor-group recognizes facility-planning activities. While collaboration that addressing water-resource degradation with creates opportunities (Wondolleck & Yaffey, 2000; feasible strategies for change requires coordinated Cockerill et al. 2006), it is not a panacea for ad- action among entities with diverse expertise and re- dressing complex issues (Roberts & Bradley, 1991; sponsibilities. Lubell, 2004). As the next sections address, collabo- While the actor-group provides the legitimacy ration does not necessarily reduce conflict and it re- and organization necessary for action, it is individu- quires flexibility to be sustained. als who create the relationships that bring groups into contact. As noted, actor-groups in our case included Conflict several individuals bridging government, university, Although conflict is present in most, if not all, and community organizations. They leveraged per- group activities, published case studies often ignore it sonal and professional relationships to share infor- when reporting “lessons learned” and this is a lost mation, request consideration, and negotiate agree- opportunity to fully explore how transformation is ments. These individual actions collectively sustain likely to become manifest. From our combined dec- the synergy among actor-groups. While such synergy ades of initiating collaboration in research, commu- does not minimize conflicts, it can support a network nity service, and various workplaces, we have found of action in the face of occasional conflict and pro- that stakeholders, especially those that are not in- vide energy and motivation. These circumstances volved in professionally facilitated collaborative pave the way for collaboration, the second capacity. processes, often consider conflict to be a negative aspect of the process. However, conflict can enable Collaboration stakeholders to see the various tradeoffs and make Collaboration is demonstrated in sharing know- decisions with that full knowledge, thus helping to ledge and resources, typically toward achieving a achieve consensus (Putnam, 1986; Dooley et al. common goal. It is clear to all actor-groups that there 2000). Most decisions made by WRPC required is no single disciplinary approach and no overarching working through conflict or conflict avoidance when authority holds responsibility for managing the creek members withdrew from discussion. In this particular as a complex adaptive social-ecological system case, evidence of conflict became manifest in discip- (Walker & Salt, 2006). This common awareness linary incommensurability and divergent perspectives promotes collaboration among actor-groups; sharing on the history of the group and its purpose. knowledge and resources from a variety of different One source of tension has been evident in mem- areas of expertise is needed to improve local water- bers’ understanding of the impetus for WRPC. Some resource management. For example, riparian land- faculty criticize the lack of previous attention to the owners are aware that scientific research is needed on creek and hold that the monitoring program and its the efficacy of stream-remediation strategies, while data collection were the key to the provost’s support. scientists require cooperating landowners to grant Others note that the success of Carp’s studio classes, access to waterways for gathering data. Engineers the role of KCC, and various stakeholder activities need community and political leaders to help identify from 2004-2006 laid the necessary groundwork. Si- and support potential projects, while almost anyone milarly, members disagree about the validity of di- developing grant proposals needs to identify match- verse research strategies. Evidence of serious study ing funds among stakeholders, political entities, and for some members requires the accumulation of community organizations. quantitative data; for others it is careful inventory and Collaboration on common goals both within and analysis of physical conditions; while still others find among actor-groups maximizes communication community-based design alternatives significant. To among stakeholders, encourages individual initiatives varying extents, individuals with these perspectives in relation to an overall project vision, and provides a have created loose “factions” within WRPC and the meaningful experience of collective efficacy (Carp, conflicting frames influence discussions about 2008). The forms of collaboration are varied and the WRPC goals and specific activities. relationships involved are dynamic, with interaction In addition to conflict within WRPC, there are levels ebbing and flowing as issues, projects, rela- tensions among actor-groups. For example, relation- tionships, and actors evolve. The WRPC relies on ships among ASU scientists and KCC reflect a clas- significant cooperation at multiple levels, for exam- sic science/non-science communication barrier. The ple, drafting language that captures multidisciplinar- KCC needs information to plan future projects, but ity, collaborating between faculty and a campus- the scientists provide data, not information project manager to coordinate the logistics with (Environmental Law Institute, 2007). So the scien- groundskeepers and contractors for university-based tists say that the rehabilitation efforts are happening research, and communicating with administrators on in a “data vacuum” while KCC finds that the re- Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy | http://ejournal.nbii.org Fall 2009 | Volume 5 | Issue 2 Cockerill & Carp: Opportunities for Campus Sustainability searchers sidestep requests for the results of moni- ous committee members take leading roles and others toring activities, such as compiling nonscientific re- choose not to participate, but the mix of leaders and ports for use in discussing municipal stormwater nonparticipants is fluid. The lack of direct engage- policy. Equipment installation uncovered tensions ment does not always reflect paucity of support, but between the researchers and the town when officials is simply a matter of time/energy management for ignored requests for placement information. Also, each individual member. A nonparticipant in one ac- because it is easier for the administration to purchase tivity may well be a leader in another. equipment than to provide personnel resources, Interdisciplinary flexibility also occurs in ar- Committee members that required research equip- guing over terms such as “restoration” and establish- ment received internal funding, generating a sense of ing realistic expectations, guidelines, and actions for WRPC as a “pork barrel” for the monitoring team. creek remediation (Bradshaw, 1987; Hilderbrand et There is also constant potential for conflict with the al. 2005; Palmer & Allan, 2006; Walter & Merritts, university administration. Some faculty who teach 2008). Early in the development of WRPC there was water-resources management are put in an awkward a particularly forceful discussion about whether position when students identify management defi- “stream restoration” was an appropriate goal for the ciencies on campus. As Pittman (2004) reports for creek. This was resolved by making clear distinctions many universities, at ASU there is significant rhetoric between “restoration,” “rehabilitation,” and “contin- about being sustainable, but actual decisions are still ued degradation,” so that Carp, for example, was largely based on short-term economics. At the same willing to drop the popular umbrella term “restora- time, WRPC’s increasing role in advising campus- tion” in favor of the more precise, but less politically building efforts risks complicating the design and attractive, term “rehabilitation” that Cockerill pre- construction process. fers. This conflict was not just about semantics; it Frustrating meetings and communication gaps enabled the group to define a more distinct goal that coexist with synergy and collaboration, capacities is not only shared incidentally by individuals, but is that in turn enable WRPC to surmount the political an experience of synergy on which future WRPC difficulties of conflict and maintain consistency, via- actions have been built and to which discipline- bility, dynamism, and creativity. Furthermore, con- specific initiatives can appeal for relevance under the flicts offer opportunities germane to transformative WRPC umbrella. action, including the self-reflection that enables Concurrently, many WRPC members are per- members of an empowered organization to bridge sonally involved in an intense conflict among depart- divisions that constrain conscious interdependence–a ments concerning restructuring the university’s gen- key tenet of sustainability (Kaplan, 1996). Working eral education program. However, they are able to through the conflicted issues has strengthened step aside from this intellectual collision to sustain WRPC’s capacity to address difficult challenges. The their collaboration specific to stream rehabilitation flexible nature of the group and its operation is and water resources. The authors are themselves on another key to its accomplishments. different sides of this schism, yet value our synergy to the extent that we are able to collaborate on this article, which we intend to represent both conflict and Flexibility Flexibility is an essential capacity for leveraging flexibility at multiple scales from individual to actor- group interactions. windows of opportunity into transformative action because it enables collaboration to continue, thus ex- As participant-observers, we have developed a greater awareness of flexibility in relation to activi- tending synergy, despite ongoing conflicts within and among actor-groups. Flexibility holds the possibility ties in which we are personally involved. However, the expansion of WRPC’s responsibilities on campus for conflict resolution, but it also allows actors and actor-groups to maintain a positive relationship in the indicates flexibility in other actor-groups, evident as a shared capacity to consider different standpoints. presence of unresolved tensions. This situation does not mean that the activity of one group is shaped ac- This situation sometimes leads to modifying agendas, actions, language, or expectations, such as the prov- cording to the will of another. Flexibility is evident when actors or actor-groups consider the positions ost’s willingness to expand the scope of WRPC to include research funding and review of building and standpoints of others, even when inconvenient or in opposition, and do not obstruct others’ initiatives. The range of disciplines represented within These terms tend to be defined on a case-by-case/publication-by- WRPC results in diverse agendas within the group: publication basis. In WRPC, a key point of discussion was that “restoration” can imply a return to a presettlement condition, scientific monitoring, educating secondary school which is idealistic for urban streams. “Rehabilitation,” in contrast, teachers, and revising the campus design and con- has been used to suggest improving ecological conditions without struction manual. As specific activities develop, vari- the sense of an indeterminate historic baseline. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy | http://ejournal.nbii.org Fall 2009 | Volume 5 | Issue 2 Cockerill & Carp: Opportunities for Campus Sustainability plans. Support for faculty involvement from the Of- fice of Design and Construction surprised several faculty who were familiar with the previous bright line dividing the academic and physical sectors of the campus. The WRPC has also been flexible as colla- boration with the administration has proceeded. The group has learned more about the considerable com- plexities inherent in campus development from the administrative standpoint and thus now recognizes that our influence on development policy will vary accordingly. For example, an initial WRPC recom- mendation for including pervious sidewalks in plans for a new campus building was retracted as the building designers explained that delivery vehicles must use the sidewalks and current pervious pave- ment technology is inadequate for the weight loads required. Conclusion In public policy, a window of opportunity enables a problem, solution, and political support to come together. This space allows advocates to pro- mote their intervention and is typically of short dura- Figure 4 Using WRPC as an example of the “window-of- tion (Kingdon, 1984). In some policy domains, win- opportunity” idea. dows are predictable (e.g., budget cycles). In our use of the concept, windows of transformative opportu- The “future” stage shows that continuing rela- nity occur organically and cannot be intentionally tionships among these actor-groups are unknown. generated, although it is possible to recognize when Common interests and individual participation will one is forming. Our case study suggests that identifi- ebb and flow. The power for identifying transforma- able characteristics include (1) diverse actor-groups tive opportunities is in exploring the characteristics of with a common interest or goal. These actor-groups intersection among these various groups. To the ex- are likely to include (2) “bridging” individuals whose tent that each actor-group transforms within its cha- overlapping memberships carry the synergy that racter to institutionally support sustainable water- brings the diverse groups together (3) to collaborate resources management, it will provide stability for through sharing knowledge and resources. Once in such management as a common vision. Having a gear, actor-groups (4) use conflict constructively and particular window close does not mean that transfor- (5) cultivate flexibility to further common goals. mation has failed. To the contrary, it may mean that it Figure 4 shows the nature of actor-group rela- has succeeded and the conditions that opened the tionships and the window of opportunity. While the window have changed sufficiently to render that par- figure itself necessarily appears as a static image for ticular window unnecessary. The window needs to be this publication, in reality each actor-group is dy- open only long enough to provide room for synergy, namic in membership, resources, and foci. The “past” collaboration, conflict, and flexibility among actor- diagram reflects conditions just prior to the inception groups to achieve Ehrenfeld’s (2008) notion that the of WRPC. As these actor-groups changed, conditions actions become routine and the norms are embodied: were favorable for them to coalesce, opening a win- transformation has occurred. dow of opportunity as shown in the “present” stage. Here the actor-groups have converged sufficiently to create WRPC as an unprecedented entity on campus: References a collaborative committee among faculty, staff, and Adomssent, M., Godemann, J., & Michelsen, G. 2007. Editorial. community interests with formal responsibility to International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education affect campus (and subsequently off campus) water- 8(4):462. resource management. Within this window, institu- Bradshaw, A. 1987. Restoration: an acid test for ecology. In W. tional transformation can occur, but it requires that Jordan, M. Gilpin, & J. Aber (Eds.), Restoration Ecology: A Synthetic Approach for Ecological Research. pp. 23–30. New the actor-groups sustain the synergy of their common York: Cambridge University Press. goal or goals and continue their collaboration. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy | http://ejournal.nbii.org Fall 2009 | Volume 5 | Issue 2 Cockerill & Carp: Opportunities for Campus Sustainability Calhoun, T. & Cortese, A. 2005. We Rise to Play a Greater Part: Kretzmann, J. & McKnight, J. 1993. Building Communities from Students, Faculty, Staff, and Community Converge in Search the Inside Out: A Path toward Finding and Mobilizing a of Leadership from the Top. 2005 Update in Support of Cam- Community’s Assets. Chicago: ACTA Publications. pus Sustainability Day III. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for Col- Lozano, R. 2006. Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities: breaking through barriers to change. Journal of lege and University Planning. http://www.scup.org/ asset/49750 /scup-csd-101705.pdf. Cleaner Production 14(9–11):787–796. Carp, J. 2008. “Ground-truthing” representations of social space: Lubell, M. 2004. Collaborative environmental institutions: all talk using Lefebvre’s conceptual triad. Journal of Planning Edu- and no action? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management cation and Research 28(2):129–142. 23(3):549–573. Palmer, M. & Allan, J. 2006. Restoring rivers. Issues in Science Cockerill, K., Passell, H., & Tidwell, V. 2006. Cooperative mod- eling: building bridges between science and the public. Jour- and Technology 23(2):40–48. nal of the American Water Resources Association 42(2):457– Pittman, J. 2004. Living sustainably through higher education: a 471. whole systems design approach to organizational change. In Cortese, A. 2003. The critical role of higher education in creating a P. Corcoran & A. Wals (Eds.), Higher Education and the sustainable future. Planning for Higher Education 31(3):15– Challenge of Sustainability: Problematics, Promise, and 22. Practice. pp. 199–211. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Dooley, R., Fryxell, G., & Judge, W. 2000. Belaboring the not-so- Putnam, L. 1986. Conflict in group decision-making. In R. obvious: consensus, commitment, and strategy implementa- Hirokawa & M. Poole (Eds.), Communication and Group tion speed and success. Journal of Management 26(6):1237– Decision-Making. pp. 175–196. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Rober 1257. ts, N. & Bradley, T. 1991. Stakeholder collaboration and Ehrenfeld, J. 2008. Sustainability by Design: A Subversive Strategy innovation: a study of public policy initiation at the state for Transforming Our Consumer Culture. New Haven, CT: level. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27(2):209–227. Yale University Press. Sharp, L. 2002. Green campuses: the road from little victories to Environmental Law Institute. 2007. Lasting Landscapes: Reflec- systemic transformation. International Journal of Sustaina- tions on the Role of Conservation Science in Land Use Plan- bility in Higher Education 3(2):128–145. ning. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute. Sharp, L. 2009. Higher education: the quest for the sustainable Fazey, I., Fazey J., Fischer, J., Sherren, K., Warren, J., Noss, R., & campus. Sustainability: Science, Practice & Policy 5(1):1–8. Dovers, S. 2007. Adaptive capacity and learning to learn as http://ejournal.nbii.org/archives/vol5iss1/editorial.sharp.html. leverage for social-ecological resilience. Frontiers in Ecology Walker, B. & Salt, D. 2006. Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Eco- and Environment 5(7):375–380. systems and People in a Changing World. Washington, DC: Hilderbrand, R., Watts, A., & Randle, A. 2005. The myths of Island Press. restoration ecology. Ecology and Society 10(1):19. Walter, P. & Merritts, D. 2008. Natural streams and the legacy of Kaplan, A. 1996. The Development Practitioners’ Handbook. water-powered mills. Science 319(5861):299–304. Chicago: Pluto Press. Wondolleck, J. & Yaffee, S. 2000. Making Collaboration Work: Kingdon, J. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management. York: Harper Collins. Washington, DC: Island Press. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy | http://ejournal.nbii.org Fall 2009 | Volume 5 | Issue 2 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png "Sustainability: Science, Practice & Policy" Taylor & Francis

Leveraging opportunities for campus sustainability: a case study of water resources

Download PDF
10 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/leveraging-opportunities-for-campus-sustainability-a-case-study-of-lwZmESEbmz

References (27)

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
© 2009 Cockerill & Carp
ISSN
1548-7733
DOI
10.1080/15487733.2009.11908033
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy http://ejournal.nbii.org ARTICLE Leveraging opportunities for campus sustainability: a case study of water resources 1 2 Kristan Cockerill & Jana Carp Appalachian State University, University College, PO Box 32080, Boone, NC 28608 USA (email: [email protected]) Appalachian State University, Department of Geography and Planning, Rankin Science, 572 Rivers Street, Boone, NC 28608 USA Institutions of higher education are well situated globally for transformation toward sustainability. The case of the Water Resources Planning Committee (WRPC) at Appalachian State University in North Carolina, United States of- fers insight into how educational institutions might identify and leverage transformative opportunities. The article sug- gests that a “window of opportunity” can open when diverse actor-groups share a common interest or goal and when individuals are able to “bridge” the groups as a way to create synergy. Once together, these groups can collaborate by sharing knowledge and resources. They do not avoid conflict, but rather constructively use organizational tensions and cultivate flexibility to further common goals. This case study focuses on interrelationships among a public univer- sity’s teaching and research missions and its place within a broader community as it transforms toward sustainably managing campus-water resources. KEYWORDS: educational institutions, sustainability, water resources, organizational behavior, watershed management, local planning, cooperation Introduction change toward institutional transformation. This ar- ticle identifies the significant characteristics, embed- A growing body of literature on creating a sus- ded in a case study, that demonstrate a “window-of- opportunity” approach for leveraging situations ripe tainable university focuses on the role of higher edu- cation in its broader social context (Sharp, 2002; with transformative capacities. The case study fo- cuses on interrelationships among a university’s Cortese, 2003; Calhoun & Cortese, 2005). Integral to these discussions is the need for universities to trans- teaching and research missions, its role as an institu- tion, and its place within a broader community. Our form physically, cognitively, and philosophically. Lozano (2006) identifies numerous organizational approach is consistent with Ehrenfeld’s (2008) ob- servation that the key to institutional transformation barriers to implementing sustainable development principles, including internal power struggles and the is focusing on routine processes to identify how and where to make adjustments. He writes that: radical nature of sustainable development relative to traditional management approaches. In an editorial This process of transforming what at first for a special issue of the International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Adomssent et al. are nonroutine actions into the normal way of behaving is one of the primary objectives (2007) state, “sustainable development, and the process of institutional transformation this requires, of [an] overall design strategy. When the actions become routine, the associated be- remains a considerable challenge for universities.” Sharp’s (2009) recent contribution to this journal on liefs and norms become embodied. As more and more individuals [or institutions] follow the state of the campus sustainability movement indi- cates the depth and breadth of this challenge. the same new routine, the beliefs and norms will begin to enter the collective, social con- While the notion of transformation is inherent in the sustainability literature, what, exactly, institu- sciousness. tional transformation implies, and how it might be achieved, has not been adequately specified. Sharp We argue that institutional transformation re- quires assimilating concepts and practices based in (2009) begins to address this gap by discussing, for example, the role of a “change management func- diverse philosophies and that it resists efforts that would limit either ideas or actions to a single discip- tion” as part of a long-term institutional strategy. However, little attention has been paid to date to line or frame. In preparing this article, the authors have used the theoretical frameworks of complex identify the conditions that catalyze the initiation of © 2009 Cockerill & Carp Fall 2009 | Volume 5 | Issue 2 Cockerill & Carp: Opportunities for Campus Sustainability systems, participatory planning, production of space, dents in 140 major programs. The campus is located and adaptive management, among others as equally in downtown Boone, both a prototypical “college applicable to transformation in general and to our town” with a full-time population of about 15,000 case study in particular. A narrower theoretical focus people and the urban service center of northwest is also antithetical to one of our main findings: in North Carolina. The area is also a tourist destination, seeking transformation, there is no linear, one-size- with forests and golf courses, rock cliffs and ski fits-all way forward. Our inductive approach offers a slopes, and the headwaters of four river basins. De- pragmatic understanding of institutional transforma- spite their importance to unique ecosystems and to tion in the context of one university’s attempt to be- downstream human-population centers, these streams come more sustainable. We find that working toward have not been well studied or protected from human such institutional transformation is not only interdis- impact. Agricultural practices have caused significant ciplinary; it is also an opportunistic, multiscalar re- degradation to water quality and riparian zones. The sponse to external and internal pressures for change. steady growth of population and tourism also These pressures are expressed in multiple opportuni- presents significant land and water-resource chal- ties for action that cannot be prescribed, given the lenges, including development on steep slopes and in complex social-ecological systems that characterize floodplains, as well as issues pertaining to water con- sustainability and the “irrational life of the institu- servation and stormwater management. The univer- tion” that exists parallel with its organizational ratio- sity campus is located in the watershed of Boone nality (Sharp, 2009). Therefore, it is crucial to recog- Creek, a tributary to the New River. Stormwater from nize unprecedented opportunities and to be prepared campus and the dense historic downtown drains into to leverage such opportunities into action that sup- the creek which is culverted along ASU’s main ports significant transformation. access road and daylit through a linear park at the Using the Water Resources Planning Committee campus entrance. Because water is crucial to all life, (WRPC) at Appalachian State University (ASU) in but does not respect political boundaries, it offers an North Carolina as a resource-specific case study, we excellent focal point for addressing complex adaptive describe how, amid uncertainty, windows of oppor- social-ecological systems (Walker & Salt, 2006). tunity have opened that have allowed ASU to ac- tively pursue sustainability. The WRPC focuses on The Water Resources Planning Committee water resources, but it potentially serves as a model In February 2007, WRPC–comprised of faculty for similar sustainability-directed efforts because it from six academic departments, a professional engi- considers such issues from diverse standpoints. While neer from the Office of Design and Construction, and all universities have interrelated environmental, eco- members of three community organizations–was nomic, and social issues, the specifics of what is sus- charged by the ASU provost with developing rec- tainable will differ in each instance. The transforma- ommendations to manage Boone Creek on campus. tive process will determine the particular shape of In less than two years, WRPC evolved from a sustainability for any institution. “green” campus initiative to a nascent prototype for This article is divided into three sections: Back- institutional transformation. The Committee joins ground, Leveraging Windows of Opportunity, and people from operational and academic units, involves Conclusion. The Background introduces the particu- community organizations and local governments in lar actors and highlights the sequence of events that its work, has high-level administrative support for its contributed to the formation of WRPC. The next sec- recommendations, and is growing in resource alloca- tion theorizes the characteristics of the actors who tion and influence despite conflict. The following leveraged the window of opportunity described in the narrative of WRPC’s inception shows how individu- prior section. We describe their interaction using four als and events converged in unpredictable ways to actor-group capacities that characterize transforma- “embrace emerging opportunities [and] constantly tive opportunity: synergy, collaboration, conflict, and shifting priorities and resources” (Sharp, 2002), inad- flexibility. The final section discusses how these re- vertently creating a window of transformative op- lationships are playing out with WRPC as a focal portunity for sustainability. point for considering transformation toward campus Several unrelated events and activities contri- sustainability. buted to the window of opportunity that opened to enable WRPC to be established. Early in 2004, Jana Background to the Case Study Carp’s planning studio course on the stabilization and enhancement of the downtown creek catalyzed an ad hoc citizen’s committee called the Kraut Creek Case Study Setting Committee (KCC) (“Kraut Creek” is the vernacular Established in 1899, ASU is situated in the Ap- name for Boone Creek derived from a mid-20th cen- palachian Mountains and serves about 16,000 stu- Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy | http://ejournal.nbii.org Fall 2009 | Volume 5 | Issue 2 Cockerill & Carp: Opportunities for Campus Sustainability tury sauerkraut factory that regularly released its ef- for diverse use of the riparian corridor for scientific, fluent into the stream). Members represent academic, educational, recreational, aesthetic, and property- political, environmental, and economic development management purposes. Individual time constraints, as interests and advocate protecting and enhancing the well as different attitudes toward the relevance of stream to their separate constituencies. Later that “visioning,” truncated the exercise and an attempt to year, hurricanes brought significant flooding to the generate more detailed objectives from the various region and then, in 2005, the municipal government disciplinary perspectives failed. However, the group released a study documenting the need to increase its did agree on the immediate need for a demonstration water supply. In 2006, KCC began work on a grant- project to signal the general mission of applying funded feasibility study—with formal endorsement available expertise to improve riparian conditions on from town and county governments, ASU, and vari- campus. A biology professor designed an experiment ous local and regional organizations—for improving to assess the effects of grass mowing on riparian in- 1.3 miles of the creek. The university and the local vertebrate populations. A campus-project manager chamber of commerce eventually implemented an serving on WRPC facilitated the logistics of this ex- off-campus collaborative demonstration project. periment with the grounds crew. As expected, the Even before these initiatives, ASU science fa- results (invertebrate population increased when culty had been conducting teaching laboratories in mowing ceased) showed how simple actions with low and along the creek for several years. However, in cost can have large positive impacts. Then, faculty 2005, three newly arrived science faculty began to from physics and chemistry, along with the campus- develop a cross-disciplinary program of creek-related project manager, coordinated a second experiment to research, outreach, and educational activities. In test whether permeable pavement could help with 2006, they instrumented the creek and began col- thermal regulation of stormwater runoff. Once fund- lecting data. Meanwhile, Kristan Cockerill (an envi- ing, timing, and location issues were settled between ronmental policy analyst) arrived at ASU and started WRPC and the Office of Design and Construction, to collaborate with the scientists on grant proposals to the experiment was conducted and showed that this expand the creek-monitoring program. She also be- approach did not reduce thermal pollution. gan to work with a regional nonprofit organization to In 2008, Cockerill became chair of WRPC. One develop a community water-education program. By of the year’s two targets–obtaining more funding to late 2006, with almost a year’s worth of data showing help meet the stated goals–was achieved to a degree. negative impacts on the creek from runoff-induced The Committee secured a small external grant to de- thermal pollution and salinity, the physicist on the velop a workshop about stream health for middle monitoring team met with the provost to propose that school teachers, linking ASU faculty, KCC members, the university proactively manage the creek. The re- and cooperative extension personnel with public sult was WRPC, of which both authors are members. school teachers. The provost also provided approx- Through 2007, WRPC focused on responding to imately US$50,000 for nonrecurring equipment costs the provost’s charge to make recommendations re- in response to a request for more than US$200,000 garding creek management. Members discussed for water-monitoring equipment, support for student creek-remediation concepts and reviewed the up- researchers, and laboratory personnel. The Commit- stream-remediation efforts of KCC and the county tee had asked for funding to conduct several years cooperative extension office. The group decided to worth of research across multiple disciplines. The expand its scope from a single creek to the broader provost noted the fiscal reality that it is easier to buy campus and its watershed. Recommendations in “things” than to buy “people,” and therefore all of the WRPC’s report to the provost included adding low- equipment requested was funded and none of the per- impact development policies to design and construc- sonnel. tion guidelines, establishing a director of sustaina- The WRPC’s second target for 2008–increase bility for campus operations, designating WRPC as input on campus-development activities to advocate the advisory committee to review design and con- for stream health–was also met. The Committee’s struction plans for water-management impacts, and members reviewed plans for a new building and for a funding faculty activities. The provost accepted the creek-rehabilitation project. Both projects received a recommendations without committing to specific generally positive appraisal, with some changes indi- implementation plans and offered unspecified finan- cated. However, water-management measures in- cial support. cluded in the initial building plans were later re- In developing the report, WRPC undertook a vi- moved due to budget limitations. At Cockerill’s re- sioning exercise to establish common ground that quest, the provost convened a meeting of faculty, produced two broad goals: 1) to rehabilitate the staff, and high-level administrators to discuss con- stream to be ecologically healthy; and 2) to provide straints and opportunities for the new building’s wa- Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy | http://ejournal.nbii.org Fall 2009 | Volume 5 | Issue 2 Cockerill & Carp: Opportunities for Campus Sustainability ter-related features and how WRPC might be better for diverse uses, promoting it as an asset to be reme- used in campus water-resource decisions. Important diated rather than an inconvenience for campus de- project information was shared and the responsible velopment. The Committee has also raised external administrator suggested that the committee appoint a funds to use the creek as a teaching “laboratory,” as representative to the planning committees for new well as a focal point for research. buildings or other campus-development projects. While these new opportunities for sustainability While this gesture represented high-level administra- education, research, and advocacy are prerequisites, tive support for WRPC input, several members per- the ultimate goal is institutional transformation that ceived service on these committees as additional un- addresses ecological, social, and economic concerns compensated work, limiting the incentive to partici- in an integrated and habitual fashion. This process pate. Cockerill has attended several planning meet- includes both material changes on campus and cogni- ings, but this is an ongoing concern for the Commit- tive changes in attitude and vision among decision tee. makers. To achieve this step, stakeholders must rec- The WRPC is the first faculty-led committee at ognize the need for change, disclose information, ASU with diverse institutional and off-campus mem- provide resources, and share both power and bership and an official advisory role in campus de- responsibility in process and outcome. For WRPC, velopment. Comparing conditions “before” and “af- such transformation would mean enabling any mem- ter” WRPC helps gauge its effectiveness. Before, ber to become fully engaged, with some form of campus-water resources were not considered com- compensation, in all stages of decision making for prehensively and faculty and community expertise campus planning, even when that role is not part of was excluded in designing campus projects with sig- his or her primary responsibilities. This development nificant water impacts. Now, the Committee’s input would reflect cognitive change among those with is welcomed. Before WRPC, there was limited inte- responsibility for campus functions and increase raction among various disciplines and interests re- shared information, resources, and power. Transfor- lated to campus-water resources. Now, WRPC is a mation would also mean an institutional commitment venue to discuss both disciplinary and collaborative to implementing sustainable water-management approaches to teaching, research, and practical man- practices when the long-term benefits outweigh the agement of water on campus and in the surrounding short-term costs, and reinvesting the resulting opera- community. tional savings in further improvements (Sharp, 2009). The Committee is not the formal “change man- Institutional transformation would also include a agement team” that Sharp (2009) discusses as central consistent working relationship between the univer- to organizing institutional transformation toward sity and the town, along with relevant interest groups, sustainability. However, in the short time it has ex- to sustainably manage water and other common re- isted, and despite its small size, it has taken positive sources. Because water does not stop at the campus- steps toward its two primary goals of promoting property line, the university can be a “good neighbor” stream remediation and encouraging diverse use. by planning its water resources in concert with the These objectives require engaging faculty, adminis- town’s sustainable planning initiatives centered on, trators, and the community in addressing campus- for instance, “smart growth” and “green business,” water management, and WRPC is gradually streng- not only because of the ecological and economic thening this capability. Providing input to campus benefits, but also because the town’s development building-design plans, promoting rehabilitation and political influence affects the university as a projects on and off campus, and continuing to moni- whole. Moreover, there are likely to be consequences tor stream conditions all contribute to improved creek in resisting transformation. Within the North Carolina health. It is, of course, too early to see definitive university system, ASU has been designated as the ecological results, but integrating WRPC expertise state’s “sustainability campus.” For the rhetoric to into campus-building projects has widened the field match the reality, sustainable concepts must become of proposed water-management solutions and in- a material reality and a comprehensive priority for itiated a discussion of long-term impacts. For exam- policy and behavior. In addition, recent legislative ple, the Committee formally made several water- attention to water quality and water supply at federal related recommendations including that rainwater and state levels makes it likely that water- catchment and low-impact development technologies management practices will become more heavily re- be included in the revised campus design and con- gulated in the future. struction manual. Although this document is still un- The window-of-opportunity approach that we der review, indications are that the Committee’s pro- describe below involves three phases of the transfor- posals will be included in the final draft. In terms of mative process: transformative opportunities, trans- the second goal, WRPC supports access to the creek formative action, and institutional transformation. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy | http://ejournal.nbii.org Fall 2009 | Volume 5 | Issue 2 Cockerill & Carp: Opportunities for Campus Sustainability These phases involve multiple parties, their particular perience is integral to the synergy and collaboration responses to external and internal pressures, and the (shared power and resources) required for institu- parties’ willingness to adapt their actions in the tional transformation. process of collaboration. Referring to the WRPC case In this section, we describe the four “actor- study previously described, we show how new (trans- groups” in our case study. While WRPC is a univer- formative) opportunities arose and describe the situa- sity committee, members and partners are accounta- tional characteristics that allowed unprecedented ble to diverse constituencies and professions. By (transformative) action to emerge. Without recog- primary responsibility, they separate into four groups: nizing the dimensions of transformative opportunity, university faculty, university administration, local successful transformative action is unlikely to occur. political authorities, and community-based interests. As noted above, this case study shows that a diverse While the identity of specific actor-groups is unique set of actors was able to leverage windows of oppor- to any case, three types of entities are equally impor- tunity into transformative action, although institu- tant; individuals, informal associations, and institu- tional transformation involving WRPC has yet to tions each provide characteristic assets and capacities occur. The window-of-opportunity concept offers a that can mobilize development processes when they way to identify when and where transformation may are connected and utilized (Kretzmann & McKnight, occur; it cannot offer any guarantee that transforma- 1993). As Figure 1 shows, each actor-group may tion will occur. If, however, we improve our ability to have numerous constituent members. Among the identify transformative potential in particular situa- actor-groups, individuals representing associations tions, we may realize more opportunities to increase and institutions actively “bridge” between two or sustainability in higher education and similar settings. more groups. Yet coordination among actors that results in an Leveraging Windows of Opportunity for “open window” is not a straightforward process be- cause participants’ interests are rarely unitary. Rather Transformation than viewing (virtually) perfect alignment of interests as ideal (Figure 2) or complete autonomy as inevita- In this section, we discuss indicators that cha- ble (Figure 3), we argue that diverse and divergent racterize transformative opportunities and describe interests and responsibilities are characteristic of them at work in the WRPC case. The ideas discussed transformative action (Fazey et al. 2007). here were arrived at through an inductive process An important feature of our window-of- based on our joint observations. First, we identify four “actor-groups” and demonstrate how they inter- relate. We next describe specific capacities characte- ristic of transformative action: synergy, collaboration, conflict, and flexibility. The subsequent discussion uses diagrams to “freeze” the relationships among actor-groups at three points in time to visually depict the convergence that makes institutional transforma- tion possible, as well as to highlight what occurs once a window of opportunity has opened. We find that transformative opportunities cannot be directed in advance, but that participation in transformative ac- tion depends on opportunism and conscientious at- tention to collaboration to take significant steps to- ward the institutionalization of sustainable water- resource management. Actor-groups Actors are significant to the transformation process because power–as the ability to attract and distribute resources–is differentially distributed among them. Knowledge is also unequally distri- buted. But while power and resources are often Figure 1 Each actor-group can be divided into its played against each other in a zero-sum game, constituent parts and each part can be further divided into knowledge can be accumulated and shared to the its various elements, eventually arriving at the scale of the benefit of all, through increased understanding of individual, who may have membership in multiple actor- institutional functioning. Sharing knowledge and ex- groups. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy | http://ejournal.nbii.org Fall 2009 | Volume 5 | Issue 2 Cockerill & Carp: Opportunities for Campus Sustainability Figure 3 An unrealistic (but sometimes perceived as inevitable) situation where all interests are autonomous. search, and service based at the university. The fa- culty members who participate in WRPC range in rank from full professor to adjunct instructor, teach Figure 2 An unrealistic (but sometimes perceived “ideal”) students about water resources, conduct and present situation where all interests are perfectly aligned. externally funded scientific and participatory-action opportunity approach is conceptualizing the situation research, and support various community-outreach not as a “moving target” with one preferred condi- activities. Enabled by their different fields, affilia- tion, but as a fluid field of action in which actors tions, modes of research and pedagogy, and levels of have multiple real and potential mutual interests that resources, the university faculty use several methods can be leveraged toward common goals. of persuasion to encourage campus transformation. The first actor-group, “community interests,” is In contrast, “university administration” is the comprised of individuals and groups associated either actor-group directly accountable for the university’s with WRPC by professional expertise or an allied physical functioning, as well as its institutional lea- community-based organization (or in some cases to dership. This actor-group spans responsibilities for both of these networks) and these ties link com- campus planning, physical plant operation, business munity institutions, advocacy organizations, and affairs and budget, academic mission, fund raising, landowner groups. This actor-group includes people and policy development and implementation. The who are not necessarily water experts, but who un- WRPC includes a representative from the operational derstand the public significance of water problems. In side of campus activities and his participation has addition to networking, community interests can been critical to achieving the transformative actions supply resources, publicity, and educational oppor- described in this article. tunities, as well as the enthusiasm and appreciation The establishment, increasing responsibility, and that encourage the difficult work of transformation. growing influence of WRPC reflect a ten-year history Several individual WRPC members are also members of collaboration among individuals and groups. The of diverse community-interest organizations, includ- experience of working both together and separately, ing KCC, the National Committee for the New River, using various tools and methods, and communicating and the county cooperative extension office. This with different individuals is complex, multivocal, and integration provides a “bridge” linking various ideas divergent. We identify four capacities–synergy, col- and projects. laboration, conflict, and flexibility–as necessary cha- Another actor-group, “political interests,” de- racteristics of windows of transformative opportu- scribes people who influence policy and strategies nity. affecting campus-water resources. Beyond the extent of state property in the town, the size and scope of Synergy university-related activities influence the surrounding Synergy occurs when multiple actor-groups area in terms of housing availability, public services, work to realize similar outcomes. Specific events traffic, economic opportunity, and community cha- contribute to each actor-group’s focus on an issue racter. Water-related projects typically “spill over” and recognition of a common direction with other into the town, requiring collaboration between cam- actor-groups. In the WRPC case, flooding events in pus and community-based political interests. Thus, 2004, coupled with the 2005 town report on supply political actors are significant advocates (and adver- limits, focused attention on water throughout the re- saries) in attempts to transform the university’s ma- gion. Common direction among diverse entities, terial conditions. This actor-group includes elected however, is signified by different forms. The interor- and appointed officials and government staff. While ganizational, multiscalar context of our case involves, none of the current members of WRPC are elected for example, curriculum change, advocacy, scientific officials, some do serve on town boards and are key experimentation, technological innovation, political to “bridging” campus and political interests. negotiation, fundraising and financial investment, “University faculty” is the actor-group whose citizen involvement, and community festivals. De- primary activity occurs on behalf of education, re- Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy | http://ejournal.nbii.org Fall 2009 | Volume 5 | Issue 2 Cockerill & Carp: Opportunities for Campus Sustainability spite their differences, every actor-group recognizes facility-planning activities. While collaboration that addressing water-resource degradation with creates opportunities (Wondolleck & Yaffey, 2000; feasible strategies for change requires coordinated Cockerill et al. 2006), it is not a panacea for ad- action among entities with diverse expertise and re- dressing complex issues (Roberts & Bradley, 1991; sponsibilities. Lubell, 2004). As the next sections address, collabo- While the actor-group provides the legitimacy ration does not necessarily reduce conflict and it re- and organization necessary for action, it is individu- quires flexibility to be sustained. als who create the relationships that bring groups into contact. As noted, actor-groups in our case included Conflict several individuals bridging government, university, Although conflict is present in most, if not all, and community organizations. They leveraged per- group activities, published case studies often ignore it sonal and professional relationships to share infor- when reporting “lessons learned” and this is a lost mation, request consideration, and negotiate agree- opportunity to fully explore how transformation is ments. These individual actions collectively sustain likely to become manifest. From our combined dec- the synergy among actor-groups. While such synergy ades of initiating collaboration in research, commu- does not minimize conflicts, it can support a network nity service, and various workplaces, we have found of action in the face of occasional conflict and pro- that stakeholders, especially those that are not in- vide energy and motivation. These circumstances volved in professionally facilitated collaborative pave the way for collaboration, the second capacity. processes, often consider conflict to be a negative aspect of the process. However, conflict can enable Collaboration stakeholders to see the various tradeoffs and make Collaboration is demonstrated in sharing know- decisions with that full knowledge, thus helping to ledge and resources, typically toward achieving a achieve consensus (Putnam, 1986; Dooley et al. common goal. It is clear to all actor-groups that there 2000). Most decisions made by WRPC required is no single disciplinary approach and no overarching working through conflict or conflict avoidance when authority holds responsibility for managing the creek members withdrew from discussion. In this particular as a complex adaptive social-ecological system case, evidence of conflict became manifest in discip- (Walker & Salt, 2006). This common awareness linary incommensurability and divergent perspectives promotes collaboration among actor-groups; sharing on the history of the group and its purpose. knowledge and resources from a variety of different One source of tension has been evident in mem- areas of expertise is needed to improve local water- bers’ understanding of the impetus for WRPC. Some resource management. For example, riparian land- faculty criticize the lack of previous attention to the owners are aware that scientific research is needed on creek and hold that the monitoring program and its the efficacy of stream-remediation strategies, while data collection were the key to the provost’s support. scientists require cooperating landowners to grant Others note that the success of Carp’s studio classes, access to waterways for gathering data. Engineers the role of KCC, and various stakeholder activities need community and political leaders to help identify from 2004-2006 laid the necessary groundwork. Si- and support potential projects, while almost anyone milarly, members disagree about the validity of di- developing grant proposals needs to identify match- verse research strategies. Evidence of serious study ing funds among stakeholders, political entities, and for some members requires the accumulation of community organizations. quantitative data; for others it is careful inventory and Collaboration on common goals both within and analysis of physical conditions; while still others find among actor-groups maximizes communication community-based design alternatives significant. To among stakeholders, encourages individual initiatives varying extents, individuals with these perspectives in relation to an overall project vision, and provides a have created loose “factions” within WRPC and the meaningful experience of collective efficacy (Carp, conflicting frames influence discussions about 2008). The forms of collaboration are varied and the WRPC goals and specific activities. relationships involved are dynamic, with interaction In addition to conflict within WRPC, there are levels ebbing and flowing as issues, projects, rela- tensions among actor-groups. For example, relation- tionships, and actors evolve. The WRPC relies on ships among ASU scientists and KCC reflect a clas- significant cooperation at multiple levels, for exam- sic science/non-science communication barrier. The ple, drafting language that captures multidisciplinar- KCC needs information to plan future projects, but ity, collaborating between faculty and a campus- the scientists provide data, not information project manager to coordinate the logistics with (Environmental Law Institute, 2007). So the scien- groundskeepers and contractors for university-based tists say that the rehabilitation efforts are happening research, and communicating with administrators on in a “data vacuum” while KCC finds that the re- Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy | http://ejournal.nbii.org Fall 2009 | Volume 5 | Issue 2 Cockerill & Carp: Opportunities for Campus Sustainability searchers sidestep requests for the results of moni- ous committee members take leading roles and others toring activities, such as compiling nonscientific re- choose not to participate, but the mix of leaders and ports for use in discussing municipal stormwater nonparticipants is fluid. The lack of direct engage- policy. Equipment installation uncovered tensions ment does not always reflect paucity of support, but between the researchers and the town when officials is simply a matter of time/energy management for ignored requests for placement information. Also, each individual member. A nonparticipant in one ac- because it is easier for the administration to purchase tivity may well be a leader in another. equipment than to provide personnel resources, Interdisciplinary flexibility also occurs in ar- Committee members that required research equip- guing over terms such as “restoration” and establish- ment received internal funding, generating a sense of ing realistic expectations, guidelines, and actions for WRPC as a “pork barrel” for the monitoring team. creek remediation (Bradshaw, 1987; Hilderbrand et There is also constant potential for conflict with the al. 2005; Palmer & Allan, 2006; Walter & Merritts, university administration. Some faculty who teach 2008). Early in the development of WRPC there was water-resources management are put in an awkward a particularly forceful discussion about whether position when students identify management defi- “stream restoration” was an appropriate goal for the ciencies on campus. As Pittman (2004) reports for creek. This was resolved by making clear distinctions many universities, at ASU there is significant rhetoric between “restoration,” “rehabilitation,” and “contin- about being sustainable, but actual decisions are still ued degradation,” so that Carp, for example, was largely based on short-term economics. At the same willing to drop the popular umbrella term “restora- time, WRPC’s increasing role in advising campus- tion” in favor of the more precise, but less politically building efforts risks complicating the design and attractive, term “rehabilitation” that Cockerill pre- construction process. fers. This conflict was not just about semantics; it Frustrating meetings and communication gaps enabled the group to define a more distinct goal that coexist with synergy and collaboration, capacities is not only shared incidentally by individuals, but is that in turn enable WRPC to surmount the political an experience of synergy on which future WRPC difficulties of conflict and maintain consistency, via- actions have been built and to which discipline- bility, dynamism, and creativity. Furthermore, con- specific initiatives can appeal for relevance under the flicts offer opportunities germane to transformative WRPC umbrella. action, including the self-reflection that enables Concurrently, many WRPC members are per- members of an empowered organization to bridge sonally involved in an intense conflict among depart- divisions that constrain conscious interdependence–a ments concerning restructuring the university’s gen- key tenet of sustainability (Kaplan, 1996). Working eral education program. However, they are able to through the conflicted issues has strengthened step aside from this intellectual collision to sustain WRPC’s capacity to address difficult challenges. The their collaboration specific to stream rehabilitation flexible nature of the group and its operation is and water resources. The authors are themselves on another key to its accomplishments. different sides of this schism, yet value our synergy to the extent that we are able to collaborate on this article, which we intend to represent both conflict and Flexibility Flexibility is an essential capacity for leveraging flexibility at multiple scales from individual to actor- group interactions. windows of opportunity into transformative action because it enables collaboration to continue, thus ex- As participant-observers, we have developed a greater awareness of flexibility in relation to activi- tending synergy, despite ongoing conflicts within and among actor-groups. Flexibility holds the possibility ties in which we are personally involved. However, the expansion of WRPC’s responsibilities on campus for conflict resolution, but it also allows actors and actor-groups to maintain a positive relationship in the indicates flexibility in other actor-groups, evident as a shared capacity to consider different standpoints. presence of unresolved tensions. This situation does not mean that the activity of one group is shaped ac- This situation sometimes leads to modifying agendas, actions, language, or expectations, such as the prov- cording to the will of another. Flexibility is evident when actors or actor-groups consider the positions ost’s willingness to expand the scope of WRPC to include research funding and review of building and standpoints of others, even when inconvenient or in opposition, and do not obstruct others’ initiatives. The range of disciplines represented within These terms tend to be defined on a case-by-case/publication-by- WRPC results in diverse agendas within the group: publication basis. In WRPC, a key point of discussion was that “restoration” can imply a return to a presettlement condition, scientific monitoring, educating secondary school which is idealistic for urban streams. “Rehabilitation,” in contrast, teachers, and revising the campus design and con- has been used to suggest improving ecological conditions without struction manual. As specific activities develop, vari- the sense of an indeterminate historic baseline. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy | http://ejournal.nbii.org Fall 2009 | Volume 5 | Issue 2 Cockerill & Carp: Opportunities for Campus Sustainability plans. Support for faculty involvement from the Of- fice of Design and Construction surprised several faculty who were familiar with the previous bright line dividing the academic and physical sectors of the campus. The WRPC has also been flexible as colla- boration with the administration has proceeded. The group has learned more about the considerable com- plexities inherent in campus development from the administrative standpoint and thus now recognizes that our influence on development policy will vary accordingly. For example, an initial WRPC recom- mendation for including pervious sidewalks in plans for a new campus building was retracted as the building designers explained that delivery vehicles must use the sidewalks and current pervious pave- ment technology is inadequate for the weight loads required. Conclusion In public policy, a window of opportunity enables a problem, solution, and political support to come together. This space allows advocates to pro- mote their intervention and is typically of short dura- Figure 4 Using WRPC as an example of the “window-of- tion (Kingdon, 1984). In some policy domains, win- opportunity” idea. dows are predictable (e.g., budget cycles). In our use of the concept, windows of transformative opportu- The “future” stage shows that continuing rela- nity occur organically and cannot be intentionally tionships among these actor-groups are unknown. generated, although it is possible to recognize when Common interests and individual participation will one is forming. Our case study suggests that identifi- ebb and flow. The power for identifying transforma- able characteristics include (1) diverse actor-groups tive opportunities is in exploring the characteristics of with a common interest or goal. These actor-groups intersection among these various groups. To the ex- are likely to include (2) “bridging” individuals whose tent that each actor-group transforms within its cha- overlapping memberships carry the synergy that racter to institutionally support sustainable water- brings the diverse groups together (3) to collaborate resources management, it will provide stability for through sharing knowledge and resources. Once in such management as a common vision. Having a gear, actor-groups (4) use conflict constructively and particular window close does not mean that transfor- (5) cultivate flexibility to further common goals. mation has failed. To the contrary, it may mean that it Figure 4 shows the nature of actor-group rela- has succeeded and the conditions that opened the tionships and the window of opportunity. While the window have changed sufficiently to render that par- figure itself necessarily appears as a static image for ticular window unnecessary. The window needs to be this publication, in reality each actor-group is dy- open only long enough to provide room for synergy, namic in membership, resources, and foci. The “past” collaboration, conflict, and flexibility among actor- diagram reflects conditions just prior to the inception groups to achieve Ehrenfeld’s (2008) notion that the of WRPC. As these actor-groups changed, conditions actions become routine and the norms are embodied: were favorable for them to coalesce, opening a win- transformation has occurred. dow of opportunity as shown in the “present” stage. Here the actor-groups have converged sufficiently to create WRPC as an unprecedented entity on campus: References a collaborative committee among faculty, staff, and Adomssent, M., Godemann, J., & Michelsen, G. 2007. Editorial. community interests with formal responsibility to International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education affect campus (and subsequently off campus) water- 8(4):462. resource management. Within this window, institu- Bradshaw, A. 1987. Restoration: an acid test for ecology. In W. tional transformation can occur, but it requires that Jordan, M. Gilpin, & J. Aber (Eds.), Restoration Ecology: A Synthetic Approach for Ecological Research. pp. 23–30. New the actor-groups sustain the synergy of their common York: Cambridge University Press. goal or goals and continue their collaboration. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy | http://ejournal.nbii.org Fall 2009 | Volume 5 | Issue 2 Cockerill & Carp: Opportunities for Campus Sustainability Calhoun, T. & Cortese, A. 2005. We Rise to Play a Greater Part: Kretzmann, J. & McKnight, J. 1993. Building Communities from Students, Faculty, Staff, and Community Converge in Search the Inside Out: A Path toward Finding and Mobilizing a of Leadership from the Top. 2005 Update in Support of Cam- Community’s Assets. Chicago: ACTA Publications. pus Sustainability Day III. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for Col- Lozano, R. 2006. Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities: breaking through barriers to change. Journal of lege and University Planning. http://www.scup.org/ asset/49750 /scup-csd-101705.pdf. Cleaner Production 14(9–11):787–796. Carp, J. 2008. “Ground-truthing” representations of social space: Lubell, M. 2004. Collaborative environmental institutions: all talk using Lefebvre’s conceptual triad. Journal of Planning Edu- and no action? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management cation and Research 28(2):129–142. 23(3):549–573. Palmer, M. & Allan, J. 2006. Restoring rivers. Issues in Science Cockerill, K., Passell, H., & Tidwell, V. 2006. Cooperative mod- eling: building bridges between science and the public. Jour- and Technology 23(2):40–48. nal of the American Water Resources Association 42(2):457– Pittman, J. 2004. Living sustainably through higher education: a 471. whole systems design approach to organizational change. In Cortese, A. 2003. The critical role of higher education in creating a P. Corcoran & A. Wals (Eds.), Higher Education and the sustainable future. Planning for Higher Education 31(3):15– Challenge of Sustainability: Problematics, Promise, and 22. Practice. pp. 199–211. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Dooley, R., Fryxell, G., & Judge, W. 2000. Belaboring the not-so- Putnam, L. 1986. Conflict in group decision-making. In R. obvious: consensus, commitment, and strategy implementa- Hirokawa & M. Poole (Eds.), Communication and Group tion speed and success. Journal of Management 26(6):1237– Decision-Making. pp. 175–196. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Rober 1257. ts, N. & Bradley, T. 1991. Stakeholder collaboration and Ehrenfeld, J. 2008. Sustainability by Design: A Subversive Strategy innovation: a study of public policy initiation at the state for Transforming Our Consumer Culture. New Haven, CT: level. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27(2):209–227. Yale University Press. Sharp, L. 2002. Green campuses: the road from little victories to Environmental Law Institute. 2007. Lasting Landscapes: Reflec- systemic transformation. International Journal of Sustaina- tions on the Role of Conservation Science in Land Use Plan- bility in Higher Education 3(2):128–145. ning. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute. Sharp, L. 2009. Higher education: the quest for the sustainable Fazey, I., Fazey J., Fischer, J., Sherren, K., Warren, J., Noss, R., & campus. Sustainability: Science, Practice & Policy 5(1):1–8. Dovers, S. 2007. Adaptive capacity and learning to learn as http://ejournal.nbii.org/archives/vol5iss1/editorial.sharp.html. leverage for social-ecological resilience. Frontiers in Ecology Walker, B. & Salt, D. 2006. Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Eco- and Environment 5(7):375–380. systems and People in a Changing World. Washington, DC: Hilderbrand, R., Watts, A., & Randle, A. 2005. The myths of Island Press. restoration ecology. Ecology and Society 10(1):19. Walter, P. & Merritts, D. 2008. Natural streams and the legacy of Kaplan, A. 1996. The Development Practitioners’ Handbook. water-powered mills. Science 319(5861):299–304. Chicago: Pluto Press. Wondolleck, J. & Yaffee, S. 2000. Making Collaboration Work: Kingdon, J. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management. York: Harper Collins. Washington, DC: Island Press. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy | http://ejournal.nbii.org Fall 2009 | Volume 5 | Issue 2

Journal

"Sustainability: Science, Practice & Policy" – Taylor & Francis

Published: Oct 1, 2009

Keywords: educational institutions; sustainability; water resources; organizational behavior; watershed management; local planning; cooperation

There are no references for this article.