To read this content please select one of the options below:

A comparison on the evaluation standards of sustainable campus between China and America

Bifeng Zhu (The Faculty of Architecture, Zhejiang Shuren University, Hangzhou, China and Department of Architecture, Zhijiang College, Zhejiang University of Technology, Shaoxing, China)
Gebing Liu (The Faculty of Architecture, Zhijiang College, Zhejiang University of Technology, Shaoxing, China)
Jing Feng (The Faculty of Architecture, Zhijiang College, Zhejiang University of Technology, Shaoxing, China)

International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education

ISSN: 1467-6370

Article publication date: 30 December 2021

Issue publication date: 26 July 2022

576

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to make a comparative study on the latest version of green campus evaluation standard between China and America: Green Campus Evaluation Standard (GB/T51356-2019) and the sustainability tracking, assessment and rating system (STARS 2.2). The differences of evaluation methods and contents are analyzed and their respective characteristics and advantages are sorted out, so as to promote the development of sustainable campus evaluation standards.

Design/methodology/approach

The research mainly adopts the method of comparative study, which is carried out from three dimensions, namely, the related policies development of campus construction and world university sustainable rankings; the content of evaluation standards (including evaluation methods and evaluation categories and scores); the characteristics and current application of standards.

Findings

There are great differences between the evaluation standards of China and America in organization and participation mode, evaluation method and content. Public engagement, energy and campus engagement are the hot spots. Buildings, energy, food and dining and investment and finance will become the focus of sustainable campus in the future. Specific optimization strategies of key points, evaluation method and content and organization and participation mode of Chinese standard are put forward.

Practical implications

This paper clarifies the advantages and disadvantages of the current global sustainable campus, and provides the basis for the next stage of construction policy. At the same time, it is helpful for all countries, especially China, to formulate construction guidelines that not only meet their own actual needs but also conform to the trend of global sustainable campus development.

Social implications

The connotation of sustainable campus is enriched, and the evaluation standards of sustainable campus are improved. The development of sustainable campus is promoted, so as to realize the sustainable development goals.

Originality/value

This research expands the scope of the study to the whole campus, rather than just one aspect of campus buildings. It compares the evaluation standard of green campus in China with STARS in the USA, and no longer compares leadership in energy and environmental design for schools. It discusses the campus building’s energy conservation while paying attention to the campus green consciousness, green management and green planning. Based on the relevant data currently used by STARS in the global evaluation, this paper analyzes the hot spots and shortcomings of the current global sustainable campus construction and puts forward some optimization suggestions for China’s green campus evaluation system.

Keywords

Acknowledgements

Thank the members of the research group who participated in the data research of this study. The authors would like to thank Professor Weixin Zhu of Zhijiang College of Zhejiang University of Technology for his help and support to this study and Yuqi Yang for participating in the preliminary basic research of this study and completing her undergraduate thesis.

Citation

Zhu, B., Liu, G. and Feng, J. (2022), "A comparison on the evaluation standards of sustainable campus between China and America", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 1294-1314. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-03-2021-0095

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2020, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles