A sustainable campus for an uncertain future. Two cases of infrastructural transformation at Norway’s largest university
Keywords:
Circular economy, Infrastructure, Planning, Construction, UncertaintyAbstract
Purpose – This study aims to convey lessons learned from two sustainability initiatives at Norway’s largest university. This contributes to knowledge-based discussions of how future, sustainable higher education institutions (HEIs) infrastructures should be envisioned and planned if the fundamental uncertainty of the future development of learning, researching and teaching is acknowledged.
Design/methodology/approach – This study was submitted on 24 January 2023 and revised on 14 September 2023. HEIs, particularly when they are engaged in research activities, have a considerable environmental footprint. At the same time, HEIs are the main producers and disseminators of knowledge about environmental challenges and their employees have a high awareness of the urgent need to mitigate climate change and biodiversity loss. In this study, the gap between knowledge and environmental performance is addressed as a question of infrastructural change, which is explored in two case studies.
Findings – The first case study presents limitations of ambitious, top-down sustainability planning for HEI infrastructures: support from employees and political support are central for this strategy to succeed, but both could not be secured in the case presented leading to an abandonment of all sustainability ambitions. The second case study exposes important limitations of a circular approach: regulatory and legal barriers were found against a rapid and radical circular transformation, but also more fundamental factors such as the rationality of an institutional response to uncertainty by rapid cycles of discarding the old and investing in new equipment and facilities.
Research limitations/implications – Being based on qualitative methods, the case studies do not claim representativity for HEIs worldwide or even in Norway. Many of the factors described are contingent on their specific context. The goal, instead, is to contribute to learning by presenting an in-depth and context-sensitive report on obstacles encountered in two major sustainability initiatives.
Originality/value – Research reporting on sustainability initiatives too often focuses descriptively on the plans or reports the successes while downplaying problems and failures. This study deviates from this widespread practice by analysing reasons for failure informed by a theoretical frame (infrastructural change). Moreover, the juxtaposition of two cases within the same context shows the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to infrastructural change particularly clearly.
Originally published as Berker, T., Henriksen, H., Sutcliffe, T.E. and Woods, R. (2024), “A sustainable campus for an uncertain future. Two cases of infrastructural transformation at Norway’s largest university”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1198–1213. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-01-2023-0027. Republished here as the author accepted manuscript.
References
Achten, W.M.J., Almeida, J. and Muys, B. (2013), “Carbon footprint of science: more than flying”, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 34, pp. 352-355, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.05.025.
Acker, S. and Miller, M. (2005), “Campus learning spaces: investing in how students learn”, EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research Bulletin, Vol. 8, pp. 1-11.
Austin, S. and Sharr, A. (2021), “The university of nonstop society: campus planning, lounge space, and incessant productivity”, Architecture and Culture, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 69-97, doi: 10.1080/20507828.2020.1766300.
Berker, T. (2011), “Domesticating spaces. Socio-technical studies and the built environment”, Space and Culture, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 259-268.
Berker, T. and Woods, R. (2020), “Identifying and addressing reverse salients in infrastructural change. The case of a small zero emission campus in Southern Norway”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 1625-1640.
Blanchard, M., Bouchet-Valat, M., Cartron, D., Greffion, J. and Gros, J. (2022), “Concerned yet polluting: a survey on French research personnel and climate change”, PLOS Climate, Vol. 1 No. 9, p. e0000070, doi: 10.1371/journal.pclm.0000070.
Brozovsky, J., Gustavsen, A. and Gaitani, N. (2021), “Zero emission neighbourhoods and positive energy districts – a state-of-the-art review”, Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 72, p. 103013, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2021.103013.
Bucci Ancapi, F.E., Van den Berghe, K.B.J. and van Bueren, E. (2022), “A policy coherence framework for circular built environment implementation: the case of a campus development”, The State of Circularity, available at: https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3A74dc937f-60af-4022-b5e6-21f1617f0e29
Corvellec, H., Stowell, A.F. and Johansson, N. (2021), “Critiques of the circular economy”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 421-432, doi: 10.1111/jiec.13187.
Fawcett, T. (2014), “Exploring the time dimension of low carbon retrofit: owner-occupied housing”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 477-488, doi: 10.1080/09613218.2013.804769.
Fernandez, J. and Powers, M. (2021), “Before the neoliberal campus: university, place and the business of higher education”, Architecture and Culture, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 25-44, doi: 10.1080/20507828.2020.1805949.
Finlay, J. and Massey, J. (2012), “Eco-campus: applying the ecocity model to develop green university and college campuses”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 150-165, doi: 10.1108/14676371211211836.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006), “Five misunderstandings about case-study research”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 219-245.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2011), “Case study. SSRN scholarly paper ID 2278194”, Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract¼2278194 (accessed 25 June 2014).
Gerring, J. (2004), “What is a case study and what is it good for?”, American Political Science Review, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 341-354, doi: 10.1017/S0003055404001182.
Gohari, S., Medalen, T. and Aranya, R. (2019), “Exploring the impact of complex multi-level governance structures on the societal contribution of universities to knowledge-based urban development”, Social Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 10, p. 279, doi: 10.3390/socsci8100279.
Haggans, M. (2016), “The 21st-Century campus”, Planning for Higher Education, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 1-8.
Hajrasouliha, A.H. (2017), “Master-planning the American campus: goals, actions, and design strategies”, URBAN DESIGN International, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 363-381, doi: 10.1057/s41289-017-0044-x.
Hesmondhalgh, D. (2021), “‘The infrastructural turn in media and internet research”, in McDonald, P. (Ed.), The Routledge Companion to Media Industries, 1st ed., Routledge (Routledge Media and Cultural Studies Companions), New York, NY, pp. 132-142.
Hopff, B., Nijhuis, S. and Verhoef, L.A. (2019), “New dimensions for circularity on campus – framework for the application of circular principles in campus development”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 3, p. 627, doi: 10.3390/su11030627.
Ide, L., Gutland, M., Bucking, S. and Santana Quintero, M. (2022), “Balancing trade-offs between deep energy retrofits and heritage conservation: a methodology and case study”, International Journal of Architectural Heritage, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 97-116, doi: 10.1080/15583058.2020.1753261.
Karasti, H. and Blomberg, J. (2018), “Studying infrastructuring ethnographically”, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 233-265, doi: 10.1007/s10606-017-9296-7.
Katz-Rosene, R.M. and Pasek, A. (2023), “Spiral-scaling climate action: lessons from and for the academic flying less movement”, Environmental Politics, pp. 1-22, doi:10.1080/09644016.2023.2193068.
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D. and Hekkert, M. (2017), “Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 127, pp. 221-232, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005.
Lee, C.P. and Schmidt, K. (2018), “A bridge too far? Critical remarks on the concept of ‘infrastructure’ in CSCW and IS”, in Wulf, V. (Ed.), Socio-Informatics: A Practice-Based Perspective on the Design and Use of IT Artifacts, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 177-217.
Lidsky, A.J. (2002), “A perspective on campus planning”, New Directions for Higher Education, Vol. 2002 No. 119, pp. 69-76, doi: 10.1002/he.73.
Lloyd, J. (2021), “Reimagining campus community: a Spatio-Rhetorical analysis of conventional and unconventional planning discourse”, Rhetoric Review, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 59-74, doi: 10.1080/07350198.2020.1841528.
Mendoza, J.M.F., Gallego-Schmid, A. and Azapagic, A. (2019), “A methodological framework for the implementation of circular economy thinking in higher education institutions: towards sustainable campus management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 226, pp. 831-844, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.060.
Muthesius, S. (2000), The Postwar University: Utopianist Campus and College, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
NTNU (2016a), “Kvalitetsprogram. NTNUs campusutvikling 2016-2030”, NTNU, Trondheim, available at: https://www.ntnu.no/documents/1268425101/1269933790/NTNU+kvalitetsprogram_vedtatt/68107f01-6f42-4cfb-9fc0-7b61f97e799f
NTNU (2016b), “Program for Involvering. NTNUs Campusutvikling 2016-2030.” NTNU, Trondheim, available at: https://www.ntnu.no/documents/1268425101/1269933790/NTNU+Program+for+involvering_utskriftsversjon.pdf/6b215cd6-7e56-4e3a-9ff5-38bfa07486ee
Öhgren, M., Milios, L., Dalhammar, C. and Lindahl, M. (2019), “Public procurement of reconditioned furniture and the potential transition to product service systems solutions”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 83, pp. 151-156, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2019.02.134.
Parag, Y. and Janda, K.B. (2014), “More than filler: middle actors and socio-technical change in the energy system from the ‘Middle-Out’”, Energy Research and Social Science, Vol. 3, pp. 102-112, doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2014.07.011.
Pennanen, A. (2004), “User activity based workspace definition as an instrument for workplace management in multi-user organizations”, PhD thesis, Tanoere University of Technology, Helsinki.
Pipek, V. and Wulf, V. (2009), “Infrastructuring: toward an integrated perspective on the design and use of information technology”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 10 No. 5, doi: 10.17705/1jais.00195.
Sá, C.M. (2008), “Interdisciplinary strategies’ in U.S. Research universities”, Higher Education, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 537-552, doi: 10.1007/s10734-007-9073-5.
Star, S.L. and Ruhleder, K. (1996), “Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: design and access for large information spaces”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, p. 25.
Yin, R.K. (2018), Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, 6th ed., Sage, London.
Published
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Emerald Publishing Limited
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
