Choosing an appropriate university or college environmental management system
Universities considering integrating an environmental management system (EMS) have numerous decisions to consider. Should they pursue a formal certified model or an informal uncertified one? If informal is appropriate, which framework best meets their needs? Which environmental interactions are most...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of cleaner production 2009-07, Vol.17 (11), p.971-984 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 984 |
---|---|
container_issue | 11 |
container_start_page | 971 |
container_title | Journal of cleaner production |
container_volume | 17 |
creator | Clarke, Amelia Kouri, Rosa |
description | Universities considering integrating an environmental management system (EMS) have numerous decisions to consider. Should they pursue a formal certified model or an informal uncertified one? If informal is appropriate, which framework best meets their needs? Which environmental interactions are most important to manage? Are there any other sector-specific considerations? This article discusses six different campus EMS frameworks, three different categories of drivers, and the six unique features of a campus EMS, and offers suggestions on when each framework is best applied. The frameworks considered are from: ISO 14001; Higher Education 21 (UK); the EMS Self-Assessment Checklist (USA); the Auditing Instrument for Sustainability in Higher Education (Netherlands); the Osnabrück University model (Germany) and the Sustainable University model (Mexico). This article also draws upon the empirical experiences of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.02.019 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_34725478</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0959652609000614</els_id><sourcerecordid>20754049</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c371t-996d92369986e5ddbed2c409d056f5126e3e3277395e6d3394e7d8c9b77f288e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE1LAzEQhoMoWKs_QdiTt13zsUk2J5HiF1S86DmkyWzNspvUZFvov3dLe-9pGHjel5kHoXuCK4KJeOyqzvawSbGiGKsK0woTdYFmpJGqJLIRl2iGFVel4FRco5ucO4yJxLKeoc_Fb4zZh3VhQmE2U8kmeTNCsQ1-Byn7cV_EVNjY97CGAsLOpxgGCKPpi8EEs4bDUuR9HmG4RVet6TPcneYc_by-fC_ey-XX28fieVlaJslYKiWcokwo1Qjgzq3AUVtj5TAXLSdUAANGpWSKg3CMqRqka6xaSdnSpgE2Rw_H3unevy3kUQ8-W-h7EyBus2a1pLyWzVmQYslrXKsJ5EfQpphzglZPHgaT9ppgfbCsO32yrA-WNaZ6sjzlno45mN7deUg6Ww_BgvMJ7Khd9Gca_gEjPIml</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>20754049</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Choosing an appropriate university or college environmental management system</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Clarke, Amelia ; Kouri, Rosa</creator><creatorcontrib>Clarke, Amelia ; Kouri, Rosa</creatorcontrib><description>Universities considering integrating an environmental management system (EMS) have numerous decisions to consider. Should they pursue a formal certified model or an informal uncertified one? If informal is appropriate, which framework best meets their needs? Which environmental interactions are most important to manage? Are there any other sector-specific considerations? This article discusses six different campus EMS frameworks, three different categories of drivers, and the six unique features of a campus EMS, and offers suggestions on when each framework is best applied. The frameworks considered are from: ISO 14001; Higher Education 21 (UK); the EMS Self-Assessment Checklist (USA); the Auditing Instrument for Sustainability in Higher Education (Netherlands); the Osnabrück University model (Germany) and the Sustainable University model (Mexico). This article also draws upon the empirical experiences of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0959-6526</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-1786</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.02.019</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Aspects ; Campus ; Drivers ; EMS ; Environmental management systems ; Higher education ; Roles ; University</subject><ispartof>Journal of cleaner production, 2009-07, Vol.17 (11), p.971-984</ispartof><rights>2009 Elsevier Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c371t-996d92369986e5ddbed2c409d056f5126e3e3277395e6d3394e7d8c9b77f288e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c371t-996d92369986e5ddbed2c409d056f5126e3e3277395e6d3394e7d8c9b77f288e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652609000614$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27903,27904,65309</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Clarke, Amelia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kouri, Rosa</creatorcontrib><title>Choosing an appropriate university or college environmental management system</title><title>Journal of cleaner production</title><description>Universities considering integrating an environmental management system (EMS) have numerous decisions to consider. Should they pursue a formal certified model or an informal uncertified one? If informal is appropriate, which framework best meets their needs? Which environmental interactions are most important to manage? Are there any other sector-specific considerations? This article discusses six different campus EMS frameworks, three different categories of drivers, and the six unique features of a campus EMS, and offers suggestions on when each framework is best applied. The frameworks considered are from: ISO 14001; Higher Education 21 (UK); the EMS Self-Assessment Checklist (USA); the Auditing Instrument for Sustainability in Higher Education (Netherlands); the Osnabrück University model (Germany) and the Sustainable University model (Mexico). This article also draws upon the empirical experiences of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada.</description><subject>Aspects</subject><subject>Campus</subject><subject>Drivers</subject><subject>EMS</subject><subject>Environmental management systems</subject><subject>Higher education</subject><subject>Roles</subject><subject>University</subject><issn>0959-6526</issn><issn>1879-1786</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkE1LAzEQhoMoWKs_QdiTt13zsUk2J5HiF1S86DmkyWzNspvUZFvov3dLe-9pGHjel5kHoXuCK4KJeOyqzvawSbGiGKsK0woTdYFmpJGqJLIRl2iGFVel4FRco5ucO4yJxLKeoc_Fb4zZh3VhQmE2U8kmeTNCsQ1-Byn7cV_EVNjY97CGAsLOpxgGCKPpi8EEs4bDUuR9HmG4RVet6TPcneYc_by-fC_ey-XX28fieVlaJslYKiWcokwo1Qjgzq3AUVtj5TAXLSdUAANGpWSKg3CMqRqka6xaSdnSpgE2Rw_H3unevy3kUQ8-W-h7EyBus2a1pLyWzVmQYslrXKsJ5EfQpphzglZPHgaT9ppgfbCsO32yrA-WNaZ6sjzlno45mN7deUg6Ww_BgvMJ7Khd9Gca_gEjPIml</recordid><startdate>20090701</startdate><enddate>20090701</enddate><creator>Clarke, Amelia</creator><creator>Kouri, Rosa</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>7QQ</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>JG9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20090701</creationdate><title>Choosing an appropriate university or college environmental management system</title><author>Clarke, Amelia ; Kouri, Rosa</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c371t-996d92369986e5ddbed2c409d056f5126e3e3277395e6d3394e7d8c9b77f288e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Aspects</topic><topic>Campus</topic><topic>Drivers</topic><topic>EMS</topic><topic>Environmental management systems</topic><topic>Higher education</topic><topic>Roles</topic><topic>University</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Clarke, Amelia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kouri, Rosa</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Ceramic Abstracts</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><jtitle>Journal of cleaner production</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Clarke, Amelia</au><au>Kouri, Rosa</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Choosing an appropriate university or college environmental management system</atitle><jtitle>Journal of cleaner production</jtitle><date>2009-07-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>971</spage><epage>984</epage><pages>971-984</pages><issn>0959-6526</issn><eissn>1879-1786</eissn><abstract>Universities considering integrating an environmental management system (EMS) have numerous decisions to consider. Should they pursue a formal certified model or an informal uncertified one? If informal is appropriate, which framework best meets their needs? Which environmental interactions are most important to manage? Are there any other sector-specific considerations? This article discusses six different campus EMS frameworks, three different categories of drivers, and the six unique features of a campus EMS, and offers suggestions on when each framework is best applied. The frameworks considered are from: ISO 14001; Higher Education 21 (UK); the EMS Self-Assessment Checklist (USA); the Auditing Instrument for Sustainability in Higher Education (Netherlands); the Osnabrück University model (Germany) and the Sustainable University model (Mexico). This article also draws upon the empirical experiences of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada.</abstract><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.02.019</doi><tpages>14</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0959-6526 |
ispartof | Journal of cleaner production, 2009-07, Vol.17 (11), p.971-984 |
issn | 0959-6526 1879-1786 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_34725478 |
source | Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Aspects Campus Drivers EMS Environmental management systems Higher education Roles University |
title | Choosing an appropriate university or college environmental management system |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T22%3A29%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Choosing%20an%20appropriate%20university%20or%20college%20environmental%20management%20system&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20cleaner%20production&rft.au=Clarke,%20Amelia&rft.date=2009-07-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=971&rft.epage=984&rft.pages=971-984&rft.issn=0959-6526&rft.eissn=1879-1786&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.02.019&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E20754049%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=20754049&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0959652609000614&rfr_iscdi=true |