Student Sustainability Survey Results€¦ · Student views on sustainability ... undertake using...

Student Sustainability Survey Results 2020

Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 1

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 2 Strengths and limitations ........................................................................................................... 2

Demographic information .................................................................................................. 3

Student views on sustainability .......................................................................................... 8 Sustainability knowledge ........................................................................................................... 8 Facilities and operations ............................................................................................................ 9 Sustainability and University leadership .................................................................................. 13 Carbon neutrality and divestment ........................................................................................... 15

Behaviours relating to sustainability ................................................................................ 16

Student sustainability experience ..................................................................................... 18

Sustainability in teaching and learning ............................................................................. 20

Student views on food-related issues ............................................................................... 22 Summary of findings ................................................................................................................ 22 Summary of actions in-progress ............................................................................................... 23 Detailed findings ...................................................................................................................... 23

Overall satisfaction with food available on campus .................................................................... 23 Student food security and insecurity ........................................................................................... 24 Affordable food on campus .......................................................................................................... 25 Sustainable food choices .............................................................................................................. 25 Sustainable food on campus ........................................................................................................ 27 Tasmanian Grown Food Choices .................................................................................................. 28 Tasmanian Grown Food on campus ............................................................................................. 28

New ecological paradigm.................................................................................................. 30

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 30

University of Tasmania – Student Sustainability Survey 2020 report 1

Executive Summary The 2020 University of Tasmania Student sustainability survey was conducted in March 2020 and follows similar surveys of students and staff in 2016 and 2018. Participation was consistent with previous surveys as well, with 6% of students participating. Overall, the survey highlights the ‘higher’/more positive sustainability scores across all areas, signaling that more students believe that the University is putting effort into its sustainability endeavours, transparency and communications compared to previous years. The weighted average for overall perception of the effort the University has gone to in order to become more sustainable of 6.7 out of 10 in the 2020 survey shows an improvement from 6.1 in 2016 and 5.9 in 2018. This improvement coupled with the near doubling of the percentage that agreed or strongly agreed that University leadership “are supportive of sustainability initiatives” is encouraging. There are many factors that may have affected this shift in perceptions between cohorts. One of which may have been the change in leadership in 2018, with Professor Rufus Black becoming the new Vice Chancellor for the University, who led a re-evaluation of the University’s strategic plan and direction and has intrinsically embedded sustainability. Endorsement of the new Strategic Framework for Sustainability by the University Council in 2019 further underpinned this new strategic direction. Questions relating to students’ sustainability experience at the University showed positive results with more students being engaged with (or wanting to be more engaged with) sustainability overall (54.5% in 2016, 60.3% in 2018 and 71.8% in 2020). Similarly, positive results were seen in the areas of teaching and learning, with 84.7% of respondents in 2020 compared to 80.1% in 2018 and 75.8% in 2016 believing that sustainability is important to their learning and support further integration into learning and teaching. Responses to questions relating to student behaviors revealed that students want to act sustainably in a variety of ways, but time and convenience were barriers to making such a change. This is useful information to consider when implementing new sustainability initiatives at the University and reviewing current sustainability processes to ensure that they are as accessible as possible. The survey also highlights significant support for the University retaining carbon neutral certification (89%) and completely divesting from fossil fuels (78%). This is the first time six of the seven food-related questions were included to inform development of our Sustainable Food on Campus strategy and other food-related activities. The data will also be used as a baseline for comparison in future surveys. Of concern in the findings from these questions is food security of University students where approximately 38% of students reported from ‘rarely’ to ‘always’ that they ran out of food and were unable to purchase more. That is, only 62% of respondents never ran out of food. These results confirm the need for the actions the University has already implemented in response to expected worsening results due to COVID-19 impacts. Mixed results on the other food-related questions will be valuable as UTAS re-visits its catering arrangements in 2021-2022.


Introduction The 2020 University of Tasmania Student Sustainability Survey was conducted in tandem with the staff Sustainability Survey, based on the Sustainability Culture Indicator from Awake P.L. The staff survey is available as a separate report. Data for both surveys was collected by Mr. Corey Peterson, Sustainability Manager, in March 2020 on behalf of the University Sustainability Committee chaired by Professor Margaret Otlowski, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Culture, Wellbeing and Sustainability). Approval for this survey has been granted by the Tasmanian Social Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee (H0015525). This report compiles two sub-reports into one comprehensive student survey report. The main student survey report was completed by Sustainability Integration Program for Students (SIPS) Intern Ms. Mary Jessica Jeyasingham. The short report on food-focused questions designed to support the Sustainability Committee’s Food Culture Working Group’s efforts was developed by academic staff Ms. Sandra Murray (School of Health Science), Dr Katherine Kent (Centre for Rural Health) and Mr. Stuart Auckland (Centre for Rural Health). The 2020 University of Tasmania Student Sustainability Survey was open to all University of Tasmania (UTAS) students from 02-22 March 2020. The 2020 survey is the third biennial sustainability survey and complements the staff sustainability survey undertaken at the same time. The biannual student surveys are run to gain better understandings of students’ views surrounding sustainability, regarding the University and their personal lives. The survey is intended to provide further insight into the values and behaviors of UTAS students, in order to inform future sustainability strategies, and provide valuable performance indicators of current sustainability programs at the university. This report presents the results from the 1,858 student survey responses completed in 2020 and compares these with the 2016 and 2018 surveys, which had 1,752 and 1,945 participants respectively. The 2020 participation rate was approximately 6% given a total headcount of 31,143 in March 2020. Promotion of the survey was done through internal emails, inclusion in newsletters, as well as promotion through the social media of various UTAS clubs, societies and interest groups. To aid in recruitment, participants were given the option to go into the draw to win one of six $100 vouchers. The program used to administer the survey was SurveyMonkey. Data analysis was undertake using SurveyMonkey software and Microsoft Excel version 15.26. Strengths and limitations One of the major strengths of this study is the large number of participants compromising some 6% of students (confidence level 95%; margin of error +/- 2.3%). It is important to note that, due to the nature of the student cohort and the survey design, the cohorts being questioned are different with each iteration of the survey. Therefore, direct comparisons cannot be made. Only trends about changes in attitudes of students can be observed.


In order to maximize completion rates during the survey, many questions were not compulsory and allowed participants to skip a question, rather than not continue with the survey, and thereby maximize results. Because of this, the number of respondents to each question in the 2020 survey varied. This is partially why results are represented as ‘percentage of respondents’, as opposed to percentage or number of participants.

Demographic information The largest proportion of participants over all three surveys were in the 18-24-year-old age group. As seen in Figure 1, there has been a decrease in the proportion of participants who are in the 18 to 24 age group, compared with 2018. The age profile of participants of the 2020 survey are more consistent with that of the 2016 survey, compared to 2018. There were six non-respondents to this question in 2020.

Figure 1 – Survey participants by age

Figure 2 provides the percentage of survey participants by gender. Most participants across all three surveys identify as female. In 2020, 1.6% of participants who answered this question selected an option other than female or male. This includes individuals identifying as non-binary, agender and those who preferred not to disclose. There were six non-respondents to this question in 2020.

42.5

25.7

12.6

9.1

7.4

2.2

0.5

54.2

22.4

9.1

7.2

5.4

1.4

0.3

41.1

23.0

13.5

11.6

7.5

2.8

0.5

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

18 to 24

25 to 34

35 to 44

45 to 54

55 to 64

65 to 74

75 or older

% of participants

Survey participants by age

2016 2018 2020


Figure 2 - Survey participants by gender

Figure 3 shows the level of study being undertaken at the time of survey completion. Most participants were either in their first year or completing their postgraduate studies at the time of the administering the survey. There were eleven survey participants who did not complete this question in 2020.

Figure 3 - Survey participants by current level of study

70.3

28.1

1.6

67.4

31.3

1.3

67.2

31.5

1.3

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

Female

Male

Other

Survey by gender

2016 2018 2020

37.4

17.4

10.1

6.0

29.2

30.8

19.4

15.2

8.7

25.9

37.3

15.8

11.4

7.0

28.4

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

1st year

2nd year

3rd year

4th year

postgraduate

% of participants

Survey participants by current level of study

2016 2018 2020


Figure 4 shows the spread of participants between the different Colleges and Institutes at the University. Please note that due to restructuring over recent years into the current Colleges rather than Faculties, there has been some variation in the survey options provided over the three surveys. Thus, every effort was made to accurately match the results from each survey to fit the current College structure. For example, results from Arts, Education and Law were pooled to fit the College of Arts, Law and Education category. There was no ‘other’ option in the 2016 survey, so it is not included in this graph. In the 2018 and 2020 surveys, if a participant were to select the ‘other’ option, they would be prompted to type their affiliation in the space provided. Answers for this varied from institutions such as Wicking, that exist within the University, to answers such as “UTAS”, indicating that there may be an issue with the clarity of the question, however, those who selected other in both 2018 and 2020 represent a very small proportion of the responses (5.4% in 2020). There were nineteen participants that did not respond to this question.

Figure 4 - Survey participants by collegiate or institutional affiliation

2.5

24.5

8.1

25.2

18.4

3.3

1.3

1.7

9.7

5.4

3.1

23.0

9.3

28.1

16.8

3.1

1.4

1.9

3.8

9.6

3.8

32.0

8.2

33.1

17.9

3.2

1.8

0.0

0.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0

Australian Maritime College

College of Arts, Law and Education

College of Business and Economics

College of Health and Medicine

College of Sciences and Engineering

Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies

Menzies Institute for Medical Research

Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture

University College

Other

% of participants

Survey participants by collegiate or institutional affiliation

2016 2018 2020


Figure 5 shows that most participants over all three surveys were on-campus students. There were ten participants who did not respond to this question in 2020.

Figure 5 - Survey participants by primary mode of study

Figure 6 shows the spread of participants between different UTAS campuses. There were several common responses for those who selected ‘other’, including online or distance combined with a specific campus, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Sciences (as IMAS, IMAS Waterfront or IMAS Taroona), The Media School in Salamanca, and Rural Clinical School. Where a specific physical location was included, these have been included in the relevant primary campus category rather than included in ‘other’. This left 21 of the respondents as undesignated ‘other’ included with the 477 Online/Distance respondents.

Figure 6 - Survey participants by primary UTAS campus

66.0

34.0

77.5

22.5

67.2

32.8

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0

On-campus

Distance

Survey participants by primary mode of study

2016 2018 2020

3.3

11.6

2.0

16.6

37.1

2.5

26.9

2.8

20.8

1.9

18.6

45.0

2.5

8.4

3.5

23.4

1.9

18.2

39.2

3.2

10.6

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0

Cradle Coast

Hobart CBD

Inveresk

Newnham

Sandy Bay

Sydney

Online/Distance/Other

Survey participants by primary UTAS campus

2016 2018 2020


Figure 7 shows the participation rates of domestic students, compared to international students in the student sustainability survey in 2020, 2018 and 2016. In 2020, 79.9% of participants who responded to this question were domestic students. Over the three surveys, there has been a small decrease in percentage of domestic participants, and a small increase in international participants. In 2020, there were seven participants who did not respond to this question.

Figure 7 - Survey participants by enrolment type

Overall the demographic characteristics for the participants in the 2020 Student Sustainability Survey are consistent with the demographics from previous years.

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0

Domestic

International

Survey participants by enrolment type

2016 2018 2020


Student views on sustainability This section discusses student views on sustainability in their personal lives and relating to the University. Sustainability knowledge From the below graphs, most University of Tasmania students believe that they are well informed about sustainability issues. In 2020, 66.8% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “I feel like I am well informed and educated about sustainability issues in general” (Figure 8). In contrast, 61.4% of respondents to the 2018 survey selected one of these options. A similar trend was observed in response to the statement “I clearly understand sustainability issues relevant to our University” (Figure 9). In 2020, 64.3% of respondents indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed with this statement, and in 2018, 56.5% selected one of these options.

Figure 8 - Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase: "I feel like I am well informed and educated about sustainability issues in general"

2.8

8.5

13.9

24.6

37.1

13.2

3.1

7.7

12.2

23.8

37.6

14.6

1.54.8

8.0

21.0

45.8

18.9

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

Stronglydisagree

Disagree Neither agreenor disagree

Agree Strongly agree Don't know

% of

res

pond

ents

Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase: "I feel like I am well informed and educated about

sustainability issues in general"

2016 2018 2020


Figure 9 - Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase: "I clearly understand sustainability issues relevant to our University"

Facilities and operations In this section, results relating to the running of the University in relation to sustainability are presented. Figure 10 illustrates respondents’ perception of the effort the University has gone to in order to become more sustainable. The weighted average of 6.7 in the 2020 survey shows an improvement from 6.1 in 2016 and 5.9 in 2018.

Figure 10 - On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate the University's current level of effort with regard to sustainability (with 10 being the best)?

5.2

12.6

18.7

28.328.9

6.34.5

12.9

18.4

29.327.2

7.7

2.7

7.7

14.0

28.0

36.3

11.3

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

Stronglydisagree



%of

resp

onde

nts

Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase: "I clearly understand sustainability issues relevant to our

University"

2016 2018 2020

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% of

res

pond

ants

On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate the University's current level of effort with regard to sustainability

(with 10 being the best)?

2016 2018 2020Poor Best


In the 2020 survey, the responses to the statement “The University is very innovative in its approach to making its operations more sustainable”, were more comparable to results from the 2016 survey (Figure 11). For example, in 2020, 65.3% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. Similarly, 63.5% of 2016 respondents selected one of these options. However, in 2018, only 56.5% of respondents indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed. The reason for is unclear, but a similar trend can be observed in Figures 12 and 13, where respondents are asked to consider the University’s facilities and their commitment to sustainability respectively. It should be noted that there has been a near doubling of “Don’t know” answers, which is most likely reflected in the larger numbers of online/distance students participating in 2020.

Figure 11 - Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase: "The University is very innovative in its approach to making its operations more sustainable”

Figure 12 shows that 65.8% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the University has the facilities to support sustainable behaviors. This figure is higher than in previous years, indicating that a greater proportion of the 2020 participants were satisfied with the University’s facilities and their ability to support sustainability.

4.4

12.014.3

31.9 31.6

5.93.9

15.3

19.1

32.7

23.9

5.22.6

8.9

13.4

32.7 32.6

9.8

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Stronglydisagree



Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase: "The University is very innovative in its approach to making

its operations more sustainable"

2016 2018 2020


Figure 12 - Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase: "The facilities in the University are well-equipped to support sustainable behaviours"

From Figure 13, it is evident that more respondents to the 2020 survey (72.6%) agree or strongly agree that the University has a clear commitment to sustainability, compared to the 2016 (50.1%) and 2018 (42.9%) surveys.

Figure 13 - Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase: "The University has a clearly defined commitment to sustainability"

4.6

12.115.7

32.529.8

5.45.1

13.3

17.8

34.3

24.2

5.23.6

8.5

12.5

34.731.1

9.6

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

Stronglydisagree



% of

res

pond

ents

Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase: "The facilities in the University are well-equipped to support

sustainable behaviours"

2016 2018 2020

2.8

9.8 10.1

27.2

42.0

8.12.9

11.4 12.4

30.435.3

7.6

1.45.8 6.5

25.9

46.7

13.7

0.05.0

10.015.020.025.030.035.040.045.050.0

Disagreestrongly

Disagree Disagreeslightly

Agree slightly Agree Agree strongly

% of

res

pond

ents

Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase: "The University has a clearly defined commitment to

sustainability"

2016 2018 2020


Figure 14 shows the student views of the University’s transparency relating to sustainability matters. More respondents agree with the statement ‘The University’s commitment to sustainability has been clearly communicated’ with 71.7% of respondents slightly agreeing, agreeing and strongly agreeing. This value is higher than in 2016 and 2018 (55% and 52.8% respectively).

Figure 14 - Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase: "The University's commitment to sustainability has been clearly communicated"

Survey responses relating to the implementation of more sustainability initiatives at the University has been consistent with 2018 results, as seen in Figure 15. In 2020, 87.1% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they would like to see the University implement more sustainability initiatives on its infrastructure and processes. In 2018, 87.5% of respondents selected one of these options.

7.9

17.719.5

25.523.6

5.97.1

20.5 19.6

24.422.7

5.73.3

10.4

14.6

26.4

32.7

12.6

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Disagreestrongly

Disagree Disagreeslightly

Agree slightly Agree Agree strongly

% of

res

pond

ents

Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase: "The University's commitment to sustainability has been

clearly communicated"

2016 2018 2020


Figure 15 - Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase: "I would like to see the University implement more sustainability initiatives in its infrastructure and in processes"

Sustainability and University leadership This section focuses on student perceptions of leadership relating to sustainability at the University. In the 2020 survey, a strongly agree option was added to the questions in this section. The agree and strongly agree categories have been combined in the graph so comparisons can be made between years. In 2020, almost half (47.9%) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that leaders of the University make good role models towards sustainability, this is an increase compared to responses in 2018 (23.5%) and 2016 (23.0%) (Figure 16).

1.2 1.0

10.5

37.7

46.7

2.91.2 1.0

7.5

29.7

57.8

2.90.7 0.8

8.0

28.4

58.7

3.4

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Stronglydisagree



% of

par

tici

pant

sRespondents' level of agreement with the phrase: "I would like to see the University implement more

sustainability initiatives in its infrastructure and in processes"

2016 2018 2020


Figure 16 - Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase: "The leaders of the University make good role models towards sustainability"

Similarly, when asked about support for sustainability from leaders of the University, 59% agreed or strongly agreed that they “are supportive of sustainability initiatives”, compared to 30% and 28.9% in 2016 and 2018 respectively (Figure 17).

Figure 17 - Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase: "The leaders of the University are supportive of sustainability initiatives"

8.712.4

37.9

23.018.1

5.9

17.3

35.8

23.5

17.6

3.05.7

27.5

47.9

15.9

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nordisagree

Agree/stronglyagree

Don't know

% of

res

pond

ents

Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase: "The leaders of the University make good role models towards

sustainability"

2016 2018 2020

6.09.8

36.030.0

18.2

4.1

11.9

35.228.9

20.0

1.9 3.2

20.7

59.0

15.2

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0


Agree/stronglyagree

Don't know

% of

res

pond

ents

Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase: "The leaders of the University are supportive of sustainability

initiatives"

2016 2018 2020


Carbon neutrality and divestment The graphs relating to carbon neutrality and divestment from fossil fuels both demonstrate a high level of student support. In the 2020 survey, 89.2% of participants agreed or strongly agreed with the University’s commitment to being certified carbon neutral (Figure 18). Further, 78% of 2020 survey respondents indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed that the University should divest completely from fossil fuels (Figure 19). It should be noted that the carbon neutrality and divestment questions were worded slightly differently in 2020 compared to 2018. Comparable questions did not exist in the 2016 survey. The questions were as follows:

• 2018 o Carbon neutrality: I think it is important for the University to be carbon

neutral (i.e. no net release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere) o Divestment: I think it is important for the University to divest from fossil fuels

(i.e. to withdraw investments from fossil fuels companies)

• 2020 o Carbon neutrality: Since 2016, the University has been certified carbon

neutral (i.e. no net release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere). The University should maintain this certification.

o Divestment: The University divested all direct investments in fossil fuel-related companies in December 2018. It is important to me that the University should divest all funds from such companies.

Figure 18 - Respondents' level of agreement with the University being certified carbon neutral

1.5 1.68.3

85.6

3.00.7 0.5 3.4

89.2

6.2

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0


Agree/stronglyagree

Don't know

% of

res

pond

ants

Respondents' level of agreement with the University being certified carbon neutral

2018 2020


Figure 19 - Respondents' level of agreement with complete divestment from fossil fuels by the University

Behaviours relating to sustainability This section relates to specific student actions in relation to sustainability. When asked how frequently they look for opportunities to get involved in sustainability initiatives, 2020 survey data was consistent with previous years, with slightly more students selecting often, very often or always. For example, in 2020, 11.7% of respondents indicated that they always look for opportunities to get involved with sustainability initiatives, compared to 9.7% and 7.4% in 2018 and 2016 respectively (Figure 20).

Figure 20 - Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase: "I look for opportunities to get involved with sustainability initiatives"

2.5 3.210.6

79.2

4.51.5 1.811.2

78.0

7.5

0102030405060708090

100


Agree/stronglyagree

Don't know

% of

res

pond

ants

Respondents' level of agreement with complete divestment from fossil fuels by the University

2018 2020

9.2

21.8

29.0

19.3

13.3

7.48.2

21.0

29.0

19.3

12.89.7

8.1

15.5

27.1

20.317.3

11.7

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

Never Rarely Occasionally Often Very often Always

% of

res

pond

ants

Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase: "I look for opportunities to get involved with sustainability

initiatives"

2016 2018 2020


Figure 21 presents ‘word clouds’ created from 2016, 2018 and 2020 responses to the question “What is the biggest change you could PERSONALLY make in order to decrease the environmental impact of your direct campus activities?”. Common terms in all three word clouds include “printing”, “transport”, “waste” among others. This gives an indication of the key areas of concern to students, when it comes to sustainability at the University. Although there are measures in place to address many of these issues1, the University may benefit from further innovation (thereby also addressing Figure 11) in these areas, or further efforts to ensure that students are aware of sustainability programs.

Figure 21 – Word clouds of the most commonly cited activities respondents suggested to reduce personal environmental impact on campus by year

Elaborating on the question from Figure 21, the word clouds in Figure 22 present common responses to the question “What is the main thing stopping you from making that change?” Recurring themes throughout all three surveys are “time” and “convenience”. This indicates that further work needs to be done to ensure that there are sustainability initiatives that are accessible to all UTAS students, even those that are time poor. Further encouragement of sustainability actions that can be easily integrated into a busy student’s lifestyle is more likely to be sustainable in the long term, and lead to the development of positive habits.

1 University of Tasmania Re-use program: https://www.warp-it.co.uk/company/utas University of Tasmania bicycle parking: https://www.utas.edu.au/campus-services/parking/bicycle-parking

https://www.warp-it.co.uk/company/utas

https://www.utas.edu.au/campus-services/parking/bicycle-parking


Figure 22 – Word clouds of the most commonly cited barriers to change by year

Student sustainability experience This section relates to students’ experiences with the sustainability programs at the University. The majority (84.7%) of respondents in 2020 agreed or strongly agreed that they could make a big different to sustainability issues at the University (Figure 23). This value is higher than in the 2018 survey, were 75.5% of students agreed or strongly agreed with this phrase. It should be noted that the results for the “agree” and “strongly agree” options have been combined in the graphs in this section. This was done because a “strongly agree” option was not present in every survey year. Combining them allows for comparison between surveys.

Figure 23 - Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase: "Students can make a big difference to sustainability issues at the University"

1.2 3.8

14.1

74.1

6.81.5 3.2

15.2

75.5

4.61.3 2.08.0

84.7

4.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0


Agree/stronglyagree

Don't know

% of

res

pond

ents

Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase: "Students can make a big difference to sustainability

issues at the University"

2016 2018 2020


In 2020, most respondents would like to get more involved in sustainability initiatives with this value increasing since 2016 (Figure 24). The percentage of respondents who agreed or strongly agreed with the statement was 54.5% in 2016, 60.3% in 2018 and 71.8% in 2020.

Figure 24 - Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase: "I would like to get more involved in sustainability initiatives"

In Figure 25, more people agree or strongly agree that there are many opportunities for involvement in sustainability at 33.7%, compared to previous years. Over the three surveys, the proportion of respondents who disagreed or neither agreed nor disagreed with this sentiment decreased as those who agreed or strongly agreed increased.

Figure 25 - Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase: "There are many opportunities for me to get involved in sustainability initiatives as a student"

2.57.0

33.1

54.5

2.92.3 6.0

28.7

60.3

2.71.7 4.8

19.9

71.8

1.90.0

10.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.0


Agree/stronglyagree

Don't know

% of

res

pond

ents

Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase: "I would like to get more involved in sustainability

initiatives"

2016 2018 2020

2.6

14.9

41.2

26.8

14.4

2.0

14.1

38.5

30.7

14.8

1.2

8.7

30.433.7

12.5

0.05.0

10.015.020.025.030.035.040.045.050.0


Agree/stronglyagree

Don't know

% of

par

tici

pant

s

Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase: "There are many opportunities for me to get involved

in sustainability initiatives as a student"

2016 2018 2020


Sustainability in teaching and learning Questions surrounding sustainability in the curriculum were of particular interest to the Sustainability Committee in the 2020 survey. Many UTAS students expressed the belief that sustainability is important to their course curriculum. In 2020, 84.7% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: “I think sustainability is an important topic to study at university”. This figure is higher than in previous surveys (80.1% in 2018 and 75.8% in 2016) (Figure 26), indicating that this cohort may have an increased desire to learn about sustainability, compared to previous years. Despite this being the case, 17.5% of participants disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that “My lecturers and tutors include sustainability in their teaching”. This is an improvement from 2018 results, where 30.5% of participants disagreed or strongly disagreed with this phrase (Figure 27). This could be attributed to a perceived increased focus on sustainability in the curriculum, compared to previous years, in accordance with the University’s brand value of “Nurturing a vital and sustainable community”2 which draws on the UTAS Statement of Values.3 It must be noted that the cohort for each survey is different, so we cannot conclude that this difference is due to a change in course materials alone. In 2020, 85.4% of UTAS students who answered the question indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed that “sustainability issues will affect [their] personal [lives] in the future”.

Figure 26 - Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase "I think sustainability is an important subject to study at university" by year of survey completion

2 Brand positioning guidelines: https://www.utas.edu.au/brand/our-brand/positioning 3 Statement of Values: https://www.utas.edu.au/ourvalues/utas-statement-of-values

1 3.7

18

42.7

33.2

1.51 3.2

14.4

42.437.7

1.31.2 2.210.9

39.645.2

10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Stronglydisagree


Agree Strongly agree Don’t't know

% of

res

pond

ents

Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase "I think sustainability is an important subject to study at

university" by year of survey completion

2016 2018 2020

https://www.utas.edu.au/brand/our-brand/positioning

https://www.utas.edu.au/ourvalues/utas-statement-of-values


Figure 27 - Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase "My lecturers and teachers include sustainability in their teaching" by year of survey completion

Figure 28 illustrates student perception of the teaching of sustainability at the University. In the 2020 survey, a greater percentage of respondents (43.1%) agreed or strongly agreed that the University is very innovative with its approach to teaching about sustainability, compared to previous surveys. This may be partially explained by the different demographic of students responding to the survey, including more students who belong to the College of Sciences and Engineering (Figure 4). However, such a significant change may have had other contributing factors. One such factor could be the success of the award-winning SIPS program that has had a long integration with CoSE courses in particular. SIPS aims to “[link] operational sustainability outcomes with student education and experience”4.

4 University of Tasmania Sustainability Integration Program for Students: https://www.utas.edu.au/infrastructure-services-development/sustainability/SIPS

5.4

19.3

31

26.4

9.5 8.47

23.5

28.3

23.8

9 8.4

4

13.5

25.9

29.4

16.4

10.8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Stronglydisagree


Agree Strongly agree Don’t know

% of

res

pond

ents

Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase "My lecturers and teachers include sustainability in their

teaching" by year of survey completion

2016 2018 2020

https://www.utas.edu.au/infrastructure-services-development/sustainability/SIPS


Figure 28 - Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase: "The University is very innovative in its approach to teaching about sustainability"

Student views on food-related issues In this section, the seven food-related questions have been analysed and interpreted. Six of the seven food-related questions have been included for the first time in the Student Sustainability Survey with the intention to inform the development of our University’s Sustainable Food On-Campus strategy and further food-related activities on UTAS campuses. Summary of findings

1. Approximately 40% of students were satisfied, 30% neutral and 30% dissatisfied with the food available on campus with international students more likely to be satisfied.

2. Approximately 38% of students reported that they ran out of food and were unable to purchase more based on responses from ‘rarely’ to ‘always’.

3. International students, on-campus students and students 18-24y and 25-34y were more likely to report that they ran out of food and were unable to purchase more.

4. Approximately 33% of students indicated they were satisfied, 30% neutral and 37% dissatisfied with the affordability of food on campus.

5. Approximately 37% of students reported being satisfied, 30% neutral and 32% being dissatisfied with the availability of sustainable food on campus.

6. Students aged 18-24y reported being more satisfied than students aged 55+y with the availability of sustainable food on campus.

7. Approximately 33% of students reported that they were satisfied, 30% neutral and 37% dissatisfied with the availability of Tasmanian grown food on campus.

4.2

14.2

38.6

26.4

16.6

4.4

17.7

35.5

26.5

15.9

3.1

8.0

31.1

43.1

14.7

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0


Agree/ stronglyagree

Don't know

% of

res

pond

ents

Respondents' level of agreement with the phrase: "The University is very innovative in its approach to

teaching about sustainability"

2016 2018 2020


Summary of actions in-progress In response to ‘Finding 2’, in the short-term, UTASLife, The University Union (TUU), the UTAS Sustainability Integration Program for Students (SIPS) and local community organisations are collaborating to set-up food initiatives for students which provide food access. Examples of initiatives being explored include a frozen meal services known as ‘freezer fillers’ and a veggie bag scheme. In the medium to longer term the UTAS Food Culture Working Group, TUU, Riawunna are collaborating to progress a follow-up student survey and interviews/focus groups to further explore the prevalence, predictors, consequences and possible solutions to the food insecurity challenges reported by students. Detailed findings Overall satisfaction with food available on campus

Figure 29 - How satisfied are you with the food available on your campus? NB data expressed as a %; n=1248 (missing data n=610) Most students were neutral (score 3) with regards to their satisfaction of the food available on campus. A chi-square test indicated that students of different ages reported different levels of satisfaction with the food available on campus (p<0.001). Only 6% of students aged 55y+ reported being very satisfied, in comparison to the 18% of students aged 18-24y. Student level of study reported significantly different levels of satisfaction with food available on campus (P<0.001), with 10% of postgraduate students very satisfied with the food available on campus compared with 20% of first year students. Domestic students (17.3%) were more likely to be very dissatisfied with the food available on campus in comparison to international students (12.8%) (p=0.001). There were no differences in satisfaction reported between genders (p>0.05). As this relates to food provided on campus, the differences between on-campus or distance students was not investigated. Key Findings:

• Approximately 40% of students were satisfied, 30% neutral and 30% dissatisfied with the food available on campus.

• Levels of study had significantly different levels of satisfaction with food available on campus.

• International students were more likely than domestic students to be satisfied with the food available on campus.

16.3

13.5

29.4

26.0

14.8

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

1 =

Very

Dis

sati

sfie

d5

= Ve

ry S

atis

fied

How satisfied are you with the food available on your campus?


Student food security and insecurity

Figure 30 - In the last 12 months was there a time you ran out of food and were unable to purchase more? NB data expressed as a %; n=1514 (missing data n=344) In line with published literature which reports that responses to this validated question should be coded as either Yes or No, data were collapsed into two groups of food insecurity: not food insecure (students reporting ‘never’) and food insecure (students reporting ‘rarely, occasionally, often, very often and always’). A chi-square test indicates that students of different ages had different levels of food insecurity (p<0.001), with students 18-24y and 25-34y more likely to be food insecure (39% of 18-24y and 45% or 25-34y), in comparison to students aged 55y+ (25%). On campus students (41%) were more likely to report being food insecure in comparison to distance students (32%) (p=0.001). International students were more likely to be food insecure (54%) in comparison to domestic students (34%). There were no differences in food insecurity reported between genders, levels of study, between colleges or between campuses (p>0.05). Key Findings:

• Approximately 38% of students reported that they ran out of food and were unable to purchase more5 with 15% of students report rarely to 13% often to always. (NB: These statistics are consistent with those in the USA. To-date few studies have been conducted in Australia investigating prevalence, predictors and consequence of food insecurity among university students. A study conducted by Universities Australia found that 1 in 7 university students regularly go without food and other necessities with 18% of regional and lower SES students regularly going without food6).

• International students, on-campus students and students 18-24y and 25-34y were more like to be food insecure.

5 The question is validated and is an indicator of food insecurity “In the last 12 months was there a time you ran out of food and were unable to purchase more?” 6 https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/media-item/one-in-seven-uni-students-regularly-go-without-food/

2.8

4.1

6.1

10.0

15.1

61.9

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0

Always

Very oft

Often

Occasion

Rarely

Never

In the last 12 months was there a time you ran out of food and were unable to purchase more?

https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/media-item/one-in-seven-uni-students-regularly-go-without-food/


Affordable food on campus

Figure 31 - How satisfied are you with the availability of affordable food on your campus? NB data expressed as a %; n=1228 (missing data n=630) Most students were neutral (score 3) with regards to their satisfaction of the availability of affordable food on campus. There were no differences in the reported satisfaction of the availability of affordable food across age groups, between genders, between colleges or campuses or between domestic or international students (p>0.05). Key Findings:

• Approximately 33% of students indicated they were satisfied, 30% neutral and 37% dissatisfied with the affordability of food on campus.

Sustainable food choices

Figure 32 - I make food choices to minimise my environmental impact. NB data expressed as a %; n=1514 (missing data n=344) Most students reported making food choices that minimise their environmental impact (68% reporting making often or more). Students aged 55y+ reported always (21%) or very

19.8

16.6

30.4

20.2

13.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0

1

2

3

4

5

1 =

Very

Dis

sati

sfie

d

5 =

Very

Sat

isfi

edHow satisfied are you with the availability of affordable food

on your campus?

17.4

25.3

25.6

20.3

8.1

3.3

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

Always

Very oft

Often

Occasion

Rarely

Never

I make food choices to minimise my environmental impact


often (33%) making food choices to minimise their environmental impact, which was higher in comparison to students aged 18-24y who reported 14% and 22% respectively (p=0.01). Males were more likely than females to never (8% vs 1.5%) or rarely (12.5% vs 6.5% respectively) make food choices to minimise their environmental impact (p<0.001). Key Findings:

• Approximately 68% of students indicated that they make food choices to minimise their environmental impact.

Figure 33 - How important is it for you to make food purchasing choices which aim to minimise environmental impact? NB data expressed as a %; n=1333 (missing data n=525) Most students (51%) reported it was very important to make food purchasing choices which aim to minimise environmental impact. More female students (56%) than males (40%) reported that it was very important for them make food purchasing choices which aim to minimise environmental impact (p<0.001). More domestic students (53%) than international students (44%) reported that it was very important for them make food purchasing choices which aim to minimise environmental impact (p=0.041). There was no difference in responses between age groups, level of study, mode of study, campus (p>0.05). Key Findings:

• Approximately 77% students reported that it was important to make food purchasing choices aimed at minimising environmental impact.

• More female than male students, more domestic than international students reported that it was very important to make food purchasing choices aimed at minimising environmental impact.

3.9

5.3

14.3

25.7

50.9

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

1 =

Very

Uni

mpo

rtan

t5

= Ve

ry Im

pora

nt

How important is it for you to make food purchasing choices which aim to minimise environmental impact?


Sustainable food on campus

Figure 34 - How satisfied are you with the availability of sustainable food on your campus? NB data expressed as a %; n=1235 (missing data n= 623) Most students were neutral (score 3) with regards to their satisfaction of the availability of sustainable food on campus (30%). Fewer students aged 55y+ reported being satisfied with the availability of sustainable food on campus than students aged 18-24y, with 11% vs 16% reporting being ‘very satisfied’ respectively (p=0.001). Males reported being more satisfied than females (p=0.024). Students at different level of study reported significantly different levels of satisfaction with the sustainable food available on campus (p<0.001), with 11% of postgraduate students very satisfied with the sustainable food available on campus compared with 20% of first year students. Domestic students (20%) were more likely to be very dissatisfied with the food available on campus in comparison to international students (11%) (p=0.001). Key Findings:

• Approximately 37% of students reported being satisfied, 30% neutral and 32% being dissatisfied with the availability of sustainable food on campus.

• Students aged 55y + reported being less satisfied than students aged 18-24y with the availability of sustainable food on campus.

• International students were more likely to be satisfied than domestic students with the availability of sustainable food on campus.

18.2

14.6

30.2

22.8

14.3

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

1 =

Very

Dis

sati

sfie

d5

= Ve

ry S

atis

fied

How satisfied are you with the availability of sustainable food on your campus?


Tasmanian Grown Food Choices

Figure 35 - How would you rate the importance of purchasing Tasmanian grown food? NB data expressed as a %; n=1308 (missing data n=550) Most students (62%) reported it was very important to purchase Tasmanian grown food. More students aged 45-54 and 55+ reported that it was ‘very important’ to buy Tasmanian grown produce (77% and 69% respectively) in comparison to students aged 18-24 (61%) and 25-34 (55%) (p<0.001). There was a significant difference in responses by gender (p<0.14), with more female students (65%) than males (55%) reporting that it was very important for them to purchase Tasmanian grown food. More domestic students (66%) than international students (49%) reported that it was very important for them to buy Tasmanian grown produce (p=0.001). Key Findings:

• Approximately 83% of students reported it was important to purchase Tasmanian grown food with 62% reporting it was very important.

• More domestic than international students, and more students aged 45-54 and 55+ compared to students aged 18-24% reported that it was very important for them to purchase Tasmanian grown food.

Tasmanian Grown Food on campus

Figure 36 - How satisfied are you with the availability of Tasmanian grown food on your campus? NB data expressed as a %; n=1207 (missing data n=651)

2.8

3.2

10.3

21.6

62.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

1 =

Very

Uni

mpo

rtan

t5

= Ve

ry Im

pora

ntHow would you rate the importance of purchasing Tasmanian

grown food?

19.8

16.6

30.4

20.2

13.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

1 =

Very

Dis

sati

sfie

d5

= Ve

ry S

atis

fied

How satisfied are you with the availability of Tasmanian grown food on your campus?


Most students were neutral (score 3) with regards to their satisfaction of the availability of Tasmanian grown food on campus (30%). A chi-square test indicated that students of different ages reported different levels of satisfaction with the Tasmanian food available on campus (p=0.001) with only 6% of students aged 55y+ reported being very satisfied with the Tasmanian food available on campus, in comparison to the 14% of students aged 18-24y. There was a difference between genders (p=0.015) with males more likely to be satisfied (25% vs 18%) or very satisfied (16% vs 12%) with the Tasmanian food available on campus. Student level of study reported significantly different levels of satisfaction with the food available on campus (P<0.001), with 5% of both 3rd and 4th year students very satisfied with the Tasmanian food available on campus compared with 17% of 1st year students. Domestic students (23%) were more likely to be very dissatisfied with the Tasmanian grown food available on campus in comparison to international students (9%) (p=0.001). Key Findings:

• Approximately 33% of students reported that they were satisfied, 30% neutral and 37% dissatisfied with the availability of Tasmanian grown food on campus.

• More international than domestic students, and more students aged 18-24% compared to students aged 45-54 and 55+ reported that they were satisfied with the availability of Tasmanian grown food on campus.

NOTES for food-related questions analysis: Due to low numbers in the lowest and highest categories, for this analysis the 11-item response options were collapsed into 5 categories as per the table below.

0 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 4 2 5 3 6 4 7 4 8 5 9 5 10 5

Age was collapsed from 7 categories to 5 due to low numbers in the oldest 3 age groups (‘55 to 64’, ‘65 to 74’ and ‘75 or older’ were grouped in ‘55 and over’).


New ecological paradigm The new ecological paradigm describes how environmentally focused participants’ thoughts and beliefs are. In the graphs below, participants’ responses are represented as either ‘Dominant social paradigm’ or ‘New ecological paradigm’. Responses that are categorised into the New ecological paradigm group may indicate that the participant has a more eco-centric world view, where humans are a part of, and rely on nature. Those with responses fitting the Dominant social paradigm may see themselves as distinct from the environment, and view nature primarily in terms of what it can offer humans. Figure 29 presents the average results for the six questions relating to the New ecological paradigm. Only the 2018 and 2020 survey results are included due to a change in response format from the 2016 survey. Participants were asked to rate their agreement with certain phrases. They could strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, strongly agree or select that they don’t know. These responses were sorted into Dominant social paradigm and New ecological paradigm groups accordingly, with those who selected ‘neither agree nor disagree’ being sorted into the dominant social paradigm group.

Figure 37 - Average results for survey questions relating to the New ecological paradigm by year of survey completion

Conclusion Overall, the University of Tasmania Student Sustainability Survey 2020 yielded responses that indicate an increasing interest in sustainability amongst respondents. A greater proportion of respondents expressed their satisfaction with sustainability processes and leadership at the University. There was also significant support for an increased focus on sustainability integration into the curriculum, maintaining carbon neutral certification, achieving divestment, implementing more sustainability initiatives at UTAS, and addressing issues with food security, quality, affordability, impact and provenance. To foster what the surveys show to be an increased interest in sustainability at the University, continued commitment to implementing the Strategic Framework for Sustainability will be important for continuous improvement and an increase in sustainability-integration activities across all University activity areas.

23.3

74.5

2.2

24.9

73.2

1.80.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

Dominant social paradigm New ecological paradigm Don't knowAver

age

% of

res

pond

ents

Average results for survey questions relating to the New ecological paradigm by year of survey

completion

2018 2020

Student Sustainability Survey Results€¦ · Student views on sustainability ... undertake using...

Documents

Transcript of Student Sustainability Survey Results€¦ · Student views on sustainability ... undertake using...