The focus of this ranking goes beyond the traditional view of sustainability as being about stewardship of resources to also look at the role of a university in sustaining and preserving the heritage of communities. It explores institutions¡¯ research on sustainability, their role as custodians of arts and heritage, and their internal approaches to sustainability.

View the?methodology?for the Impact Rankings 2022?to find out how these data are used in the overall ranking.

Metrics

Research on sustainable cities and communities (27%)

• Proportion of papers in the top 10 per cent of journals as defined by Citescore (10%)
• Field-weighted citation index of papers produced by the university (10%)
• Number of publications (7%)

This focuses on research that is relevant to sustainable cities and communities. The field-weighted citation index is a subject-normalised score of the citation performance of publications.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

The data are provided by Elsevier¡¯s Scopus dataset, based on a query of keywords associated with SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities) and supplemented by additional publications identified by artificial intelligence. The dataset includes all indexed publications between 2016 and 2020. The data are normalised across the range using Z-scoring.

Support of arts and heritage (22.6%)

• Public access to buildings and/or natural heritage landscapes of cultural significance (3.75%)
• Public access to university libraries (3.75%)
• Public access to university museums, galleries or works of art (3.75%)
• Public access to open and green spaces (3.75%)
• Provide artistic events for members of the public, such as concerts (3.8%)
• Record and preserve local heritage (3.8%)

The evidence was provided directly by universities, evaluated and scored by?Times Higher Education?and not normalised.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

Expenditure on arts and heritage (15.3%)

This measures the proportion of total university expenditure spent directly on arts and heritage, excluding spending on sports facilities.

The data were provided directly by universities and normalised across the range using Z-scoring.

Sustainable practices (35.1%)

• Targets on sustainable commuting (3.9%)
• Promote sustainable commuting (3.9%)
• Encourage telecommuting, remote working or condensed working weeks (3.9%)
• Affordable housing for students (3.9%)
• Affordable housing for staff (3.9%)
• Prioritise pedestrian access on campus (3.9%)
• Work with local authorities to address planning issues, including the provision of affordable housing for local residents (3.9%)
• Build to sustainable standards (3.9%)
• Build on brownfield sites (3.9%)

The evidence was provided directly by universities, evaluated and scored by?É«ºÐÖ±²¥?and not normalised.

Evidence

When we ask about policies and initiatives, our metrics require universities to provide the evidence to support their claims. Evidence is evaluated against a set of criteria and decisions are cross-validated where there is uncertainty. Evidence is not required to be exhaustive ¨C we are looking for examples that demonstrate best practice at the institutions concerned.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

Time frame

In general, the data used refer to the closest academic year to January to December 2020. However, in some cases, data relate to 2019 due to the disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The date range for each metric is specified in the full methodology document.?

Exclusions

Universities must teach undergraduates and be validated by a recognised accreditation body to be included in the ranking.

Data collection

Institutions provide and sign off their institutional data for use in the rankings. On the rare occasions when a particular data point is not provided, we enter a value of zero.

View the full methodology for the?É«ºÐÖ±²¥?Impact Rankings 2022?.?

É«ºÐÖ±²¥