|Submission Date||June 30, 2017|
University of Alberta
IN-18: Pre-Submission Review
|0.50 / 0.50||
Chief Sustainability Officer
Office of Sustainability
The name, title, and organizational affiliation of each reviewer:
Director of Sustainability
A brief description of the review process:
Step 1. MacEwan University staff reviewed STARS Technical Manual to re-familiarize themselves with the credits and related updates.
Step 2. MacEwan University staff attended the University of Alberta’s two-day STARS deep-dive. Collectively with seven staff from the University of Alberta, they examined each credit, the requirements for the credit, the available data, and whether the University of Alberta would be pursuing the credit. Most credits has a considerable amount of work completed before the deep-dive was conducted which allowed the peer reviewers to review the reporting fields, timeframes and attachments at a relatively high level. There was ample opportunity to discuss areas of concern and areas where more information or clarification was required. Feedback and questions were captured by the Office of Sustainability on Excel spreadsheets. Once the feedback was gathered from the deep-dive session, the University of Alberta team reflected on the comments, gathered further information, updated credit information and completed the draft STARS submission.
Step 3. The comments and findings from MacEwan’s Office of Sustainability were summarized on one electronic spreadsheet.
Step 4. Upon completion of all credits that the University of Alberta was planning on pursuing, a final draft report was provided to the Office of Sustainability at MacEwan University. Peer reviewers reviewed to ensure accuracy, completeness, relevance as well as noting if the feedback from the deep-dive was incorporated.
Step 5. MacEwan University confirmed that the changes and suggestions were incorporated into the final draft and that the University of Alberta was submitting a valid, representative and complete STARS submission.
Which of the following describes the review process?:
Affirmation from the reviewer that the submission has been reviewed in full and that any identified inconsistencies have been addressed:
Copy of the completed STARS Review Template:
Affirmation from an additional reviewer that the submission has been reviewed in full and that any identified inconsistencies have been addressed:
Copy of the completed STARS Review Template for the 2nd reviewer:
Affirmation from a 3rd reviewer that the submission has been reviewed in full and that any identified inconsistencies have been addressed:
Copy of the completed STARS Review Template for the 3rd reviewer:
Affirmation from a 4th reviewer that the submission has been reviewed in full and that any identified inconsistencies have been addressed:
Copy of the completed STARS Review Template for the 4th reviewer:
The website URL where information about the programs or initiatives is available:
Additional documentation to support the submission:
The information presented here is self-reported. While AASHE
staff review portions of all STARS reports and institutions are welcome to seek additional forms of review, the data in STARS reports are not verified by AASHE. If you believe any of this information is erroneous or inconsistent with credit criteria, please review the process for inquiring about the information reported by an institution and complete the Data Inquiry Form.