2. Sustainability of the university campus as a co-participatory project

Mariana Cernicova-Bucă

Universities are seen around the world as institutions that train not only highly skilled workforce, but also actively engaged citizens in society, beacons of knowledge and solution providers for the needs of present and future generations (Barnett, 2011). In the 21st century, universities are also called to be benchmarks in building a sustainable future, promoters of social, economic, technological, and social innovation, places where models are tested and validated, for society to observe and implement with the guarantee of success and awareness of the challlenges (Carayannis et al., 2021; Delgado et al., 2020; Leal Filho et al., 2019; Tanţău et al., 2011; Etzkovitz et al., 2000). In an extremely laborious exploration, Amador and Padrel Oliveira identify the interest that the emergence of the concept of sustainability has aroused in the academic community, as well as the ways in which universities have come to incorporate in their concerns the objectives of sustainable development at the level of teaching, research, social responsibility and, in the most advanced forms, in internal administrative and managerial procedures (Amador and Padrel Oliveira, 2013). From the Talloires Declaration of 1990, signed by more than 500 university leaders around the world, who committed to following 10 steps to bring the ideals of sustainability closer (Talloires Declaration, 1990), to the development of national and international networks and initiatives for universities promoting sustainability, whose number is constantly increasing (Networks..., 2024), the experience of educational institutions has been constantly enriched, both through the proposed models and through initiatives that highlighted the complexity of the problem and the diversity of approaches. A common conclusion, superbly formulated by Paula Jones, David Selby, and Stephen Sterling, is that sustainable university is more than the sum of its components, even though they can be analyzed as respecting sustainability principles (Jones et al., 2010). The components identified by these authors do not overlap with the classical series of categories regarding faculties, administrative services, and academic community, but comprise generic categories, in a model called “the 4 Cs” – Curriculum, Campus, Community (academic) and Culture (institutional). The three authors also point out the inhibiting factors that raise obstacles to the accelerated implementation of sustainability projects, listing the resilience of academia to imposed changes (and sustainability is often regarded as an objective imposed from outside the institution), lack of expertise, ambiguity of the term “sustainability” – which still has a lot of definitions, a sign that it is a dynamic concept. The main solution that the authors recommend overcoming the stated obstacles is to adopt a collaborative process that engages all stakeholders in identifying solutions and developing strategies that lead to the implementation of sustainability in the institution. To this researchers add collections of good practice cases, the need to identify funding, exposure to international experiences in the field, all in support of turning sustainability from an abstract concept into assumed reality.

In the same line, Velazquez et al. offer a comprehensive definition clarifying the idea of a “sustainable university.” Sustainable university is, according to this definition, that higher education institution that, as a whole or in its components, addresses, involves and promotes “the minimization of negative environmental, economic, societal, and health effects generated in the use of their resources in order to fulfill its functions of teaching, research, outreach and partnership, and stewardship in ways to help society make the transition to sustainable lifestyles” (Velazquez et al., 2013, p. 812). In similar terms, Sterling et al. link the sustainability of universities to the evolution of the global discourse on sustainability: “The sustainable university is one that through its guiding ethos, outlook and aspirations, governance, research, curriculum, community links, campus management, monitoring and modus operandi seeks explicitly to explore, develop, contribute to, embody and manifest – critically and reflexively – the kinds of values, concepts and ideas, challenges and approaches that are emerging from the growing global sustainability discourse” (Sterling et al., 2013). This global discourse, however, has extremely varied reflections in higher education practices, where, although sustainability is the common goal, the way to pursue it and the milestones on the road require a multidisciplinary approach. In light of complexity theories, the sustainable university profile is, in turn, a multifaceted issue (Leal Filho et al., 2021, Shawe et al., 2019).

The paths chosen by universities to achieve the goal of becoming sustainable institutions are very diverse, as Hans van Weenen points out at the beginning of this century, in an attempt to shape a model based on existing international experiences (van Weenen, 2000). First of all, institutions that take on such a challenge must find appropriate answers to questions about why they are committed to sustainable development goals, what steps the institution needs to take towards sustainability and how it organizes, strategically and managerially, the transformative process. Since there is no universally valid “recipe”, van Weenen groups the inventoried approaches into evolutionary, by key elements and revolutionary pioneering. Leaving the process of pursuing sustainability exclusively to bottom-up initiatives, from the component units of the university to its whole, carries the risk of proliferating results that do not fit into a logic of strategic approach and may miss the indicators by which a university measures the success of its transformative process towards sustainability. However, a top-down approach risks failing to mobilize large parts of the academic community and influence organizational culture (Tilbury, 2012). Convergent efforts are needed, combining both types of efforts (top-down and bottom-up), aggregated at strategic and logistical approach levels, to promote sustainability (Alba-Hidalgo et al., 2018). Despite the growth – we could even say exponential – in the number of initiatives to design transformative sustainability-oriented programs, it is still extremely difficult for an academic institution to achieve meaningful change through a robust holistic process. Organizing reflection and consultations to solve the collective dilemma related to sustainability implementation and projective pedagogy can stimulate the solution of the difficult task of creating synergy and aligning pedagogical actions guided by sustainable development principles, as part of broader educational philosophies, both at individual and institutional levels (Brunstein and King, 2018).

An interesting solution for triggering the process of implementing sustainability in an institution is formulated by Vergragt and Quist, who propose the backcasting method, consisting in setting the objective to be achieved in the future and imagining, by reverse logical deduction, the steps (actions, strategies, policies) that make possible the fulfillment of the vision of the desirable future (Vergragt and Quist 2011). For the particular case of universities, Géring et al. add to the definition of the backcasting method the idea of participatory process (Géring et al., 2018), precisely to eliminate uncertainties and fears related to the (un)sustainable future of higher education. The exercise described by these authors brought face to face the visions of students and teachers about a desirable future, starting from mapping the present state and continuing with highlighting the divergences of visions appeared in the two groups, divergences that, if left unmediated, can lead to dissatisfaction and disengagement as the target approaches.

Only a collaborative, co-participatory process can eliminate the sense of alienation or frustration that jeopardizes organizational culture and the ability to act towards sustainability. Especially since, due to the forces of globalization, the academic community has become hyperaware of current trends and reacts relatively quickly to the challenge of absorbing sustainability principles (Purcell et al. 2019; Sterling et al., 2013). This process also highlights the need to adjust and resume the participatory approach, depending on the results obtained at each parameter and at each action stage (Velazquez et al., 2006). The road does not remain without dangers, largely due to the contradictions that appear in the mediation of the vision regarding the goals to be achieved: democracy vs. piloting the process towards achieving the goal, individual interests vs. collective interests, growth vs. limits, etc. (Dovers and Handmer, 1993; Poto, 2023). Stressing that the European and North American vision of participatory processes is not necessarily applicable to other socio-economic contexts around the globe, Margherita Paola Poto questions, for example, whether sustainability is intrinsically linked to participation (Polo, 2023). Most authors, however, advocate co-participation, co-creation, co-design, considering such an approach to be aligned with inherent traits of sustainability (Ansel et al. 2022). On the contrary, insufficient research into the link between co-participation and sustainable development is seen as a gap to be reduced by a more assiduous study of the subject (Avila-Garzon, 2024).

In the context of the academic environment, the dominant argumentation that emerges from reports, case studies and research articles is that the initiators of the process of implementing sustainability principles are obliged to identify the possibility of attracting stakeholders from universities in creating a common vision, starting from ensuring a common basis of knowledge on the components of environmental responsibility and sustainable development, up to the development of procedures and regulations to steer everything that happens in the respective institutions towards convergent goals. All components included in the life and operations of universities are targeted: the teaching process, research, the organization of academic life and the provision of services with impact on the welfare of the intra- and extra-institutional community, up to attracting projects and organizing activities that accelerate the incorporation of sustainability objectives into the intimate fabric of the university’s existence. Noting that the concepts of “co-participation” or collaborative process also involve several interpretations, Disterheft et al. proposed an adequate description, allowing for comparisons between experiences gained by different universities: “By participatory processes within sustainability initiatives we understand the engagement of all critical stakeholder groups into a deliberative process design to define goals, responsibilities and actions toward the transition to a more sustainable university now and in future “ (Disterheft et al., 2015). The question these researchers raise is not whether sustainability should be targeted at all, but how to chart the path and provide evidence of “sustainable university” status (Ruiz-Mallén et al., 2020; Disterheft et al., 2015; Sterling et al., 2013). The proliferation of sustainability measurement tools and rankings for universities wishing to assess their level demonstrates a desire to develop an optimal paradigm (Disterheft et al., 2015; Findler et al., 2018), even if ranking systems have proven to be imperfect or insufficiently sensitive to differences in sustainability implementation according to geographical, climatic, social and political conditions around the globe (Olcay and Bulu, 2017; Bougnol and Dulá, 2014; Soh, 2016).

Faced with these concerns, which are extremely diverse and call for several research and action plans, the interest in sustainability in Romania seems quite low (Prada et al., 2020). Few Romanian universities go through the exercise of entering the classification systems about “sustainability”, most preferring the older and more familiar rankings that measure the performance of scientific research. The pioneer is Babeș-Bolyai University (UBB) of Cluj-Napoca, the first higher education institution in Romania to join the Sustainable Development Solutions Networks network (Zanellato and Tiron-Tudor, 2021). The experience of the transition towards transforming UBB into a sustainable university, described by Zanellato and Tiron-Tudor, went through the inventory of initiatives which spontaneously appeared in the institution at the stage of piloting the process and, finally, at the evaluation and recognition of sustainable development features (Zanellato and Tiron-Tudor, 2021). However, this model does not necessarily suit any higher education institution, be it Romanian or from another country; international examples show that different universities have triggered similar processes starting from other priorities (Burmann et al, 2021; Ruiz-Mallén and Heras, 2020; Sen et al., 2022).

Research and reports analyzing the emergence of universities as sustainable institutions, the frantic search for appropriate models and the imprecision of the terms used to describe interventions create the image of sustainability as a Gordian knot. Those who want to attack it need the courage to start from any point, but also need stubbornness and perseverance, not to tire along the way. Quite a few of the practical experiences presented in literature zero on the university campus as a place from which transformative intervention can begin. Sugiarto et al. make an inventory of the extremely rich pool of case studies and analyses on sustainable campuses (with alternative terminology of green campuses), a significant part of which also refers to collaborative processes that facilitate the creation of a sustainable university campus (Sugiarto et al., 2022). Most analyzed universities found that stakeholder involvement in pursuing sustainability principles on campus increased the motivations of these actors, increased their satisfaction, attachment to the institution, and quality of life (Sugiarto et al., 2022; Dagiliute et al., 2018; Garrecht et al., 2018).

As a design for implementing sustainability principles on campus, we adhere to the co-creation cycle model, which starts from articulating the stakeholders’ vision of the pursued goal. This stage is usually carried out through interviews, focus groups, opinion polls, study of position papers (if any). The synthesis of key ideas shall be brought to the attention of stakeholders and validated for the setting of measurable objectives (SMART). The implementation of specific actions is followed by a stage of evaluation of results, to allow relaunching the process, to eliminate gaps, build new objectives, attract new resources (human, material, technological, etc.) (Zarandi et al., 2022; Katz, 2021). Creating a climate of dialogue, permanent consultation of stakeholders during the implementation of the assumed objectives, adjusting the envisaged measures according to the realities on the ground (and avoiding projects “in books” or “in the office”) not only ensures the conditions for success, but also contributes to strengthening the social-communication capital (Tarnovan, 2015) in the institution, as well as to developing the resilience of the institution (Carmen et al., 2022). The latter concept, resilience, has also gained prominence in recent years, particularly after the 2019–2021 health crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. As already stated in this chapter, the urge to rebuild institutions, socio-economic activities, interpersonal relations “better”, “greener”, “more sustainable” was reiterated at all levels: in public speeches, in declarations of intent, in action plans. Social capital on campus can (and must) be identified in the sphere of informal social relationships that crystallize at the level of this “city within city”, formalized by working within the student leagues operating on campus, by interpersonal trust between students, respectively between them and hostel administrators, and by trust in the university as a whole. The intervention to raise the level of sustainability has direct effects on this social capital, with the potential to increase the cohesion of the community formed on campus.

The life of universities takes place according to the academic calendar, with periods of close contact between educational partners, alternating with holidays – in the Romanian reality, quite long – during which communication exchanges are interrupted and group cohesion weakens. In residential life in student dormitories, there is also a dilution of ties, since only administrators have a continuous presence on campus, while students cut off the connection between themselves and the dormitories during the summer holidays, and, upon return, they do not necessarily live in the same place, nor with the same roommates, nor in the same configurations. Under these circumstances, they remain attached to affordable (subsidized) housing on campus, rather than to a specific place. Studying life in a Romanian campus faces another impediment: the monitoring infrastructure. Lifestyle tracking and assessment of consumption habits cannot be done with intrusive methods. They would be both costly and marked by subjectivity and may be viewed with suspicion (if not hostility) by on-campus resident students. The student dormitories where the presented project was implemented perform only consumption monitoring (water, heat, electricity) at building level, not at accommodation unit level (floor, room, or group of rooms). In addition, lapses of up to three months occur between meter readings and billing. An extensive number of dormitories is an advantage in educational marketing, being one of the important factors that young people consider when choosing the institution to facilitate their access to long-term professional training. On the other hand, the university sees itself in the situation of managing an infrastructure created in the conditions of the past, but which it must adapt to the needs of the present, to new expectations and lifestyles (Yanni, 2019). The contemporary student expects to find not only a bedroom, a kitchen, and a laundry room, but also an infrastructure for study, with sockets for laptop or tablet, with a good Internet connection, with possibilities for socializing, with opportunities for leisure. The imprint that Politehnica students have left on the residential area can be seen in the appearance of bicycle stations, pavilions that allow them to stay outdoors even in adverse weather conditions. The most visible change was the personalization of the main facades of the dormitories on Students’ Alley through the appearance of murals in 2020, at the initiative of the “Memoirs of the Citadel” program, which produced a series of interventions in the gathering places of students and the community, to facilitate and encourage their interaction with the public space in which they live, temporarily or for a longer term (Memoriile Cetății 2023). The new face of the campus responds to a higher degree to the taste and expectations of this generation of students, which also foresees other interventions, such as the ones promoted by the “Creative Campus” project (ongoing in 2023–2024). The feeling that they are listened to, that their voice matters, strengthens students’ confidence in the educational environment and opens them to what the university proposes as experiences and opportunities, both in formal settings and in their free time. Student initiative and creativity are encouraged, but, in parallel, co-participatory approaches are also facilitated. In this way, students have learning opportunities in a non-formal, experiential setting, different from what happens in classrooms, laboratories, and practical activities included in the academic curriculum. The reflection on the approach proposed by the USE-REC project, described in this volume, aroused their curiosity because it changed the ways of interaction, proposed new forms of action, integrated fresh perspectives in the way of approaching the topics under discussion and requested reflection / evaluation on lived experiences (Lubicz-Nawrocka and Bovill 2021). The actions undertaken within the project are described at length in the following chapters; the core foundation aligns with international good practices, aimed at interventions on campus.

Investigating students’ opinions and behaviors in the run-up to the project, consulting them (through focus groups) on interest in environmental and sustainability issues, broadcasting informative and/or persuasive messages on a multitude of channels were combined with providing opportunities for manifestation on events with physical or virtual presence. The information on the progress and effects of the project also incorporated the views of the UPT administrative staff and management. Also, signaling the effects that students’ current life produces on the natural and built environment contributed to the consolidation of the social-communicative capital mentioned above. Since the start of the project and continuing after its completion, students from the Politehnica campus have been exposed to nudge messages, which presented the consequences of the habitual behavior in the domestic environment: consumption of water, heat, electricity, the habit of managing household waste in a certain way. The model for constructing these messages was nudge, as described in the highly influential book “Nudge. Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness” by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein (Thaler and Sunstein, 2008, 2016 for the Romanian edition). According to Thaler and Sunstein, nudging is a (communicational) intervention that points people in the right direction without coercing them, putting the subject of nudging in a framework that highlights why the proposed direction is beneficial. The nudge does not significantly alter the structure of incentives toward socially desirable behavior, but rather changes some elements of the environment in which people make choices. The model became so popular (especially after Cass Sunstein became a member of the Obama administration and Richard Thaler won the Nobel Prize in behavioral economics) that the United Nations, through its environmental program, developed a nudge guide for college campuses. The Little Green Book of Nudges (United Nations Environment Programme, 2020) proposes verified nudges that work, seeking to encourage more sustainable practices among students and staff running the student campus. It also provides simple guidance on how to implement and evaluate behavioral interventions in a variety of contexts. The USE-REC project team developed its own messages, tailored to the target group, but in the key of the same philosophy, of providing examples that put into perspective the consequences of the habitual behaviors of daily life: personal hygiene, cooking, laundry, etc. The model also faces criticism, from those who claim that the persuasive approach is manipulative and violates the personal autonomy of the person exposed to the nudge (Van Roekel et al., 2019, Bîgu, 2019). The project team made sure, however, that the messages refer only to verifiable information and do not contain elements that fit into manipulative discourse but are nevertheless oriented towards supporting behavior change towards one that is sustainable. From the proposal of the United Nations model were retained the essential features in the elaboration of the messages, which were:

Easy – in the sense that the proposed solutions are easy to implement.

Attractive – through dynamic and pleasant visual material.

Social – by promoting that other people have adopted a pro-environmental lifestyle and highlighting the benefits of a sustainable lifestyle.

In the present tense – based on scientifically tested findings that young people value the known present more than a future they do not imagine very clearly, the messages have been configured to refer to the immediate benefits of adopting sustainable behavior.

Their sequence and insertion in the communication strategy are explained in the chapter dedicated to the campaigns carried out within the project.

Researchers who focused on consumer behavior – and in the described case presenting the project, the students were also seen from the perspective of their role as utility consumers, with an effect on the environment – emphasize that, being exposed to the same information, subjects make different decisions, depending on their mentalities, predispositions, and education. In this sense, Lindenberg and Steg formulate the goal-framing theory, which postulates that goals “frame” how people process information and act to achieve it (Lindenberg and Steg, 2007). The cited authors warn that except under laboratory experiment conditions, in everyday life a person has several active objectives, which may (or may not) be compatible. In other words, the strength of the main lens can be influenced by other lenses that are in the background. Efforts to influence pro-environmental behavior must take these into account and reduce situations that lead to not acting in an ecological manner (Chakraborty 2017). That is why the placement of pro-environmental messages was framed in a coherent approach, which combined exposure to information with the call to action, early rewarding student actions in favor of sustainable behavior with invitations to social events, incorporating unconventional illustrations of environmentally friendly behaviors and which tend to minimize the environmental footprint.

The co-participatory approach has brought as advantages, as will be seen in the following chapters: identifying and prioritizing directions of action, adapting theoretical models of approaching sustainability to specific conditions, expectations and potential of identified target groups, developing communication strategies in accordance with the specifics of the academic community in Politehnica, educating students through extracurricular, informal activities to become “sustainable”, autonomous adults with specific features of European eco-citizenship, enriching knowledge on the ways in which universities (can) start the process of implementing sustainable objectives and values in their way of operating, creating support points for a backcasting exercise, so that the ideal of a sustainable campus is a clearly outlined one, with milestones and steps aimed at both the technical component of housing optimization, and the human dimension of the lifestyles adopted by the residents of this campus. This type of approach takes place in conditions where the socio-political and economic climate in Timisoara offers multiple co-participatory instances. An initiative of the Council of Europe in 2007 led to testing the possibility of Timișoara being a territory of co-responsibility and going through the exercise of creating welfare indicators through citizens’ input (Cernicova-Bucă, 2012). In 2019–2023, the Timișoara – European Capital of Culture project invited citizens – including students – to co-participatory approaches, from developing the application file for this title to assessing the impact of the actions carried out (Turșie, 2021). Finally, the creation of the Decidem digital platform collects all co-participatory initiatives in which the City Hall is involved, providing transparent and open information on projects and strategies for the benefit of the city’s development. Politehnica students, for example, experimented with the possibilities of using the principles of participatory budgeting, promoted by the municipality, to obtain funding for their projects. In such an environment, the project’s approach was a natural instance of handling a problem of great complexity.