ReviewHeliyon2022
Campus sustainability research: indicators and dimensions to consider for the design and assessment of a sustainable campus.
Review in Heliyon, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Assessment Tools have become the de facto method to address sustainability issues within the built environment. They provide a measurable third-party approach to ensuring sustainability design and directives are met through the use of indictors, criteria's and credit system. A key challenge is that the existing tools such as BREEAM Communities and LEED Neighbourhood Development address a wider community but cannot efficiently address the more nuanced and context specific sustainability requirements of campuses. However, the approach of utilizing credits, indicator and criteria systems is a tactic that campus planners have slowly began to imbibe. This is even more critical to sustainable development cities due to the huge amounts of land and human resources consumed on campuses; However, gaps exist within the currently existing Campus Sustainability Assessment Tools (CSAT) that have been developed. Generally. Though studies have identified trends and gaps in neighbourhood and building assessment tools, no comprehensive study has investigated the potential gaps from the newly emerging CSATs. Using bibliometric analysis, this study reviews over 1000 articles on campus sustainability and assessment tools with the aim of determining the gaps, trends and focus area of campus sustainability via CSAT. The result draw out 15 dimensions that govern the design of sustainable campuses, and the most predominant dimensions were environmental, educational and governance dimension. The results also highlight the importance of context in implementing and developing CSATs and showed numerous overlooked campus sustainability issues, which have considerable impact on the determining the claims that makes campuses sustainable. Finally, results demonstrated a need to enhance inclusivity in decision making on campus via different survey techniques in both education and implementation of campus sustainability initiatives. In sum this study enhances the development of new CSAT and campus sustainability initiative and the modification existing initiatives to effectively meet the required sustainability standards within the built environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.