4.7 Article

Assessment of sustainable development in technical higher education institutes of India

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 214, 期 -, 页码 975-994

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.305

关键词

Sustainable development; Higher education institutions; Sustainability assessment framework; STARS; UI GreenMetric world university rankings

资金

  1. Government of India's Ministry of Human Resource Development through the IIT-Roorkee Institute Scholarship [14902003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper assesses the sustainability related performance of Indian Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) based on the parameters and indicators listed under the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System (STARS), and the University of Indonesia GreenMetric World University Ranking (UI GreenMetric WUR). Qualitative assessment of Indian HEIs based on the two selected frameworks is provided. Data were collected for parameters pertaining to sustainable development (SD) at nine Indian HEls through surveys, documentation, direct observations, and interviews with professors, research scholars, students, and employees. The study shows that although Indian campuses are implementing SD strategies, the approach is not comprehensive and systematic, as almost 50% of the STARS and UI GreenMetric framework parameters are not currently being complied with. Out of the two selected assessment frameworks, Indian HEls showed greater compliance with the Ul GreenMetric, which can be attributed to its Asian origin. A lack of policies, monitoring and reporting mechanisms were common across all the HEls. This study highlights the need to report specific rating parameters that are widely present on Indian campuses and those which are not currently being emphasised. The findings contribute to developing a contextualised rating system for assessing Indian HEIs that can help boost SD. This study can further help other developing countries aiming to progress along similar lines. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据