@article {Clarke2009971,
	title = {Choosing an Appropriate University or College Environmental Management System},
	journal = {Journal of Cleaner Production},
	volume = {17},
	number = {11},
	year = {2009},
	note = {<a href="https://uwaterloo.ca/school-environment-enterprise-development/sites/ca.school-environment-enterprise-development/files/uploads/files/2009\%20-\%20Campus\%20EMS\%20options\%20-\%20Clarke\%20and\%20Kouri\%20\%28public\%29.pdf">Pre-Publication Version</a>},
	pages = {971-984},
	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 Osnabr{\"u}ck University model (Germany) and the Sustainable University model (Mexico). This article also draws upon the empirical experiences of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada. {\textcopyright} 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.},
	keywords = {Aspects, Automobile drivers, Campus, Driver training, Drivers, Education, EMS, Environmental management, Environmental management systems, higher education, Magnetic susceptibility, Management, Roles, University},
	issn = {09596526},
	doi = {10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.02.019},
	url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652609000614 },
	author = {Clarke, A. and Kouri, R.}
}
