Learning for Sustainability Action Model: Lessons Learnt from Community Living Labs
Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2022
ISBN: 978-1-83797-485-6, eISBN: 978-1-83797-484-9
ISSN: 1479-3679
Publication date: 14 December 2023
Abstract
Initiating a practical model for embedding transformative learning in education that will promote sustainable development is a challenge for higher education. Siam University decided to assign a task force with the mission to work with communities in order to propose guidelines of learning for sustainability (LfS) based on real-life experiences. Selected communities which have agreed to be the community living labs for teaching and learning activities of the university were chosen based on the Bray and Thomas’ Cube Model. There are differences in sizes (number of members), locations (urban, suburban), and histories (old settlement with long history and rich culture and the newly settlement communities consisting of migrated members). Community-based participatory research (CBPR) was applied in the study. The initial model was developed from the synthesis of experiential work with communities in sustainability-related projects. After revision, the “Learning for Sustainability Action Model” was proposed. Success factors in implementing the model were also suggested.
Keywords
Citation
Rukspollmuang, C., Reynolds, J. and Chansema, P. (2023), "Learning for Sustainability Action Model: Lessons Learnt from Community Living Labs", Wiseman, A.W. (Ed.) Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2022 (International Perspectives on Education and Society, Vol. 46B), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 49-71. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-36792023000046B004
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2024 Chanita Rukspollmuang, Jaratdao Reynolds and Praphan Chansema
1. Introduction
The sustainability paradigm and the term “sustainable development” have become a fundamental paradigm of action since the Brundtland Commission officially released their report, “Our Common Future,” in 1987 until the present Agenda 2030 or the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted in the UN General Assembly adopted SDGs in 2015. Thailand attaches great importance to the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, particularly within the context of the Decade of Action for the SDGs. The country appoints National Committee for Sustainable Development (CSD), chaired by the Prime Minister, as a main mechanism responsible to achieve these goals. With regard to policies and strategies on SDGs, the CSD agrees to resolve Sufficiency Economy Philosophy (SEP) as a guiding principle in achieving the Goals. Sub-committee on promoting understanding of sustainable development and SEP was then set up along with the other three sub-committees on implementing SDGs, developing information system to support SDGs, and strategic environmental assessment. SEP and the working principles of the late King Rama IX is thus the uniqueness of the Thai approach to sustainable development. The philosophy consists of three principles (moderation, reasonableness, and prudence) with two accompanying conditions (knowledge and morality or virtues). It is believed that by practicing the above three principles with the two underlying conditions, people would be able to live securely in harmony in a balanced and sustainable economy, society, culture, and environment, in other word, “sustainability” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2016; TICA, 2016). SDGs were incorporated in the 12th National Economic and Social Development Plans (2017–2021) and the 20-Year National Strategy Framework (2017– 2036). It was envisioned that by 2037, Thailand will become “a developed country with security, prosperity and sustainability in accordance with the Sufficiency Economy Philosophy.” Recently, on December 28, 2021, the Thai Cabinet endorsed the draft United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework (UNSDCF) 2022–2026. Which is aligned with SEP, 20-Year National Strategy, and the 13th National Economic and Social Development Plan (2022–2026). The Framework also supports Thailand’s efforts toward sustainable economic growth through the Bio- Circular-Green (BCG) Economy Model, transition to an inclusive and sustainable low-carbon economy and society, and response to present and emerging challenges such as climate change and pandemics.
The attainment of the SDGs requires cooperation and partners from all sectors. Since the beginning of international efforts for sustainable development, the education sector has been recognized as fundamentally important to addressing the critical global challenges and promoting sustainability. The UNESCO 2009 World Conference on Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) or the Bonn Declaration and the 2021 Berlin Declaration on Education for Sustainable Development envision ESD as a core component of all education systems at all levels. In addition, UNESCO reviewed the Delores’ 4 pillars of education (learning to know, learning to do, learning to be, and learning to live together) and proposed the fifth pillar – learning to transform oneself and society (UNESCO, 2009) as a key component for sustainability. After reviewing scholastic work, it can be concluded that ESD aims to develop competencies including skills, values, and attitudes that enable individuals to participate in socio-political processes and, hence, to move their societies toward sustainable development (Rieckmann, 2012; UNESCO, 2016; UNESCO, 2017; Wiek et al., 2011). ESD can then be understood as transformative and competence-based education, and it describes the competencies that ESD should develop and the action-oriented transformative pedagogy needed to facilitate this process (Rieckmann, 2018). There are many alternatives and many lessons to learn for successful integration of sustainability in the policies, curricula, and learning activities of educational institutions at both basic and higher education levels. In Thailand, ESD has been an integral part of educational institutions. At the higher education level, universities have provided various types of formal, non-formal, and informal learning, teaching, and training that aim to accelerate the generation and implementation of sustainable solutions. Nevertheless, finding practical models for developing sustainability competencies to promote the fifth pillar of learning at the institutional level is still challenging.
Siam University (SU), one of the leading Thai private universities, has strong commitment to become a model of sustainable university. In the UI GreenMetric World University Rankings, SU was ranked 93rd out of 912 universities in 2020 and 103rd out of 959 universities from 80 countries in 2021. In the “Education and Research for Sustainability” indicator, the university was ranked 1st in Thailand for two consecutive years and was ranked 28th in the world in 2021. As for 2021 THE Impact Rankings, SU was the only private Thai university that was ranked and we were 94th in the world rankings in SDG11 Sustainable Cities and Communities. This success was due to many factors, not only from the implementation of the “Sustainable University, Sustainable District” policy but also from strong partnerships that SU develops locally, nationally, and internationally. The university has adopted the aforementioned policy for a long time. This policy is guided by the framework of sustainable development (SD) and Sufficiency Economy Philosophy (SEP). The 17 SDGs are expected to be one of the outcomes. The concept of “Living Lab” has later been added to the policy and integrated into academic, research, and engagement activities. Our general education program, which was revised in accordance to these frameworks, has given priority to real-world experiences and active learning in the hope that it will nurture needed sustainability competencies. Moreover, since campus sustainability and community sustainability are our prime concerns, the targets of our sustainability practices include the 3Ss – Students, Staff, and Surrounding communities. The latter are those in the Phasi Charoen district which has a close tie with SU for more than 50 years. Students and staff are encouraged to work with these communities, which have become our social living labs for sustainability work, in order to understand their “sustainability-related” problems and needs as well as to propose sustainability solutions. After years of practicing, “Learning for Sustainability Action Model” was proposed. The model was co-designed between Siam University and communities led by groups of students and staff who have been working actively with the community members for over two years. This chapter will address our sustainability-related activities in selected community living labs, the underlying conceptual framework and components of the action model as well as success factors in implementing the model derived from our work in different types of communities.
2. Conceptual Framework
2.1. Living Lab (LL)
The Living Lab (LL) concept first appeared in academic discussions in the 1990s but the term was introduced later by William Mitchell at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in the early 2000s, to describe a user-centric research methodology for sensing, prototyping, validating, and refining complex solutions in multiple and evolving real-life contexts (Eriksson et al., 2006; Van Geenhuizen, 2019). In Europe, the first wave of living labs took off in 2006 when the European Commission funded two projects that sought to create policy measures which could advance, coordinate and promote a common European innovation system. In the following year, 2007, the pan-European network ENoLL (European Network of Living Labs), consisting of 19 core LLs, was set up with the objective to tackle Europe’s declining economic competitiveness and societal challenges (Compagnucci et al., 2021; Leminen & Niitamo Westerlund, 2017).
What exactly is LL? According to the European Commission (2009), LL is defined by the four “Ps,” public–private–people–partnership, as the focus of collaboration. The ENoLL (2015) defines LLs as “user-centered, open innovation ecosystems based on a systematic user co-creation approach, integrating research and innovation processes in real-life communities and settings.” The concept of LL is now widely applied in academic institutions, especially those aiming to generate their resources in order to fulfill its functions of teaching, research, outreach and partnership, and stewardship in ways to help society make the transition to sustainable life. Waheed (2017) suggests that:
A Living Lab initiative hosts projects where participants from different backgrounds partner to collectively address real-world sustainability challenges and opportunities. In a Further and Higher Education (FHE) institution, Living Lab projects form bridges of collaboration between students, academics, professional staff and external stakeholders. This exchange is the unique characteristic, or “selling point,” of the Living Lab; it combines an institution’s intellectual potential with practical sustainability challenges on- or off-campus. It dissolves boundaries between the traditionally segregated activities of education; research; external engagement; and operational & administrative practice. Projects organized through a Living Lab provide a powerful and immersive experience for all. They are a practical, meaningful and engaging way to connect the siloed stakeholder groups of an institution.
He also affirms that LL can have a profound impact on the core areas of an institution’s work by dynamically involving all the key stakeholder groups to pool resources and collectively solve common problems. The valuable outcomes include enriching educational outcomes and experience for students, impactful and innovative learning, teaching and research opportunities for academics, improvement of physical and administrative operations for professional staff, and meaningful and mutually beneficial engagement with external stakeholders. In fact, the LL model has been studied in relation to sustainability and can become part of a transformative institutional change that draws on both top-down and bottom-up strategies in the pursuit of sustainability (Purcell et al., 2019). Studies have analyzed the potential of LLs to anchor sustainability both within the functioning of the university itself and in its interactions with the neighborhood (Trencher et al., 2014; Vargas et al., 2019).
2.2. Living Learning Lab (LLL) and Learning for Sustainability (LfS)
One of the LL models applied in the higher education context is Living Learning Lab (LLL). Learning in this context involves various approaches such as study, experience, and training. LLL facilitates active learning with projects based on exposing real problems to make students think analytically. Zen (2017) described that the keyword “learning” was added to enhance that component into the overall framework by considering the higher education context. Usually, the analysis covers the three following perspectives (1) the promotion of innovative and creative teaching and learning environment; (2) the enhancement of campus sustainability initiatives; and (3) the promotion of knowledge and science on sustainability. In addition, Brundiers et al. (2010) indicated what makes the LLL approach different from ordinary student projects is the element of trans-disciplinary and interdisciplinary issues or problems based on real-world learning opportunities. They explained that collaborative research between academic researchers and practitioners has proven the improvement of students’ competencies in problem solving, linking knowledge to action, collaborative work, and applying concepts from the field. In other words, LLL is a mechanism to provide an integrative approach to research, education/teaching, and operations with more tangible results. It can be an approach to provide more advanced graduates who are socially more sensitive, as well as more robust and rigorous research culture.
Concerning guidelines for the initiation of LLL, Zen (2019) proposed steps toward living learning laboratory in campus sustainability: (1) establishment of one coordinating body; (2) thematic project or issue-based project identification; (3) setting up the technical committee; (4) prioritize course with the environmental element and social sciences; (5) toward action and implementable research output; (6) continuous capacity building to strengthen the operational department; (7) readiness for creative and innovative teaching and learning experience; and (8) financial sustainability of the project-based LLL.
LLL is an essential part of learning for sustainability (LfS). The concept has been recognized since the first UN Decade of ESD (2005–2014). LfS has many synonyms such as ESD and Education for Sustainable Development (EfS). With special attention to learning, LfS is usually practiced as a cross-curricular approach to creating coherent, rewarding, and transformative learning experiences. The Scottish Government and the General Teaching Council for Scotland, one of the most active players in this area, indicate that LfS is all about learners, educators, schools, and their wider communities building a socially-just, sustainable, and equitable society. It supports an effective whole-school and community approach by weaving together global citizenship, sustainable development education, and outdoor learning. GTC Scotland has worked with Learning for Sustainability Scotland, Scotland’s United Nations University-recognized Centre of Expertise on Education for Sustainable Development, to develop resources to help teachers to explore Learning for Sustainability in the Professional Standards for Teachers (GTC Scotland, n.d.). It was suggested that in applying LfS, educational institutions should adopt the “four Cs” approach – curriculum, campus, culture, and community.
Curriculum – Strong leadership at all levels is required to ensure that Learning for Sustainability is used to plan relevant and meaningful learning opportunities, especially through interdisciplinary learning
Campus – Each school should maximize the use of its buildings and school and community grounds as part of its work to embed Learning for Sustainability.
Culture and community – Each school should appreciate and celebrate the diversity of culture and heritage and engage with other cultures and traditions around the world. It should also know, respect, and care for the rights, responsibilities, values, and opinions of others. It should promote an awareness and understanding of democratic processes where the school-community participates in critical thinking and decision-making.
In summary, LfS is a whole school commitment that helps the school and its wider community develop the knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, and practices needed to take decisions which are compatible with a sustainable future in a just and equitable world.
2.3. Community Action Model
LL and LLL can be used as action models for both campus sustainability and community sustainability. One of the community action models is a community-driven model (CAM) proposed by the San Francisco Tobacco Free Project (SFTFP, 2017) as a part of the Community Health Promotion and Prevention section of the San Francisco Department of Public Health. Based on the theory of Paulo Freire, CAM is a five-step model focused on environmental change through policy development or change in organizational practices rather than individual behavior change. CAM involves participatory action research approaches and is asset based (builds on the strengths of a community to create change from within). The goals of this action model are environmental changes and people empowerment. The five-step process of the CAM can be summarized as (1) skill-based trainings in which community advocates select an area of focus; (2) action research where advocates define, design, and conduct a community diagnosis in order to determine the root causes of a community issue and outline the resources necessary to overcome it; (3) analysis where advocates analyze the results of the community diagnosis and prepare findings; (4) organizing where advocates select, plan and implement an “Action” for environmental change and educational “Activities” to support it.; and (5) implementation where advocates ensure that the policy outcome is enforced and maintained. In Step 4, the “action” defined represents the desired policy outcome for the project, and it should meet 3 criteria: (1) it should be achievable, (2) it should have the potential for sustainability, and (3) it should compel members of groups, agencies, or organizations to change their community for the well-being of all. “Activities,” on the other hand, are defined as the educational and organizational interventions that lead up to and support the outcome (Lavery et al., 2005, SFTEP website, updated 2020).
2.4. “Town & Gown”: University–Community Partnerships
Partnership is essential for attaining sustainability as indicated in SDG17 – Partnerships for the Goals. Universities around the world have developed partners with public and private sectors as well as communities in accordance with their mission in social responsibility and community engagement. The most well-known definition of university–community engagement is that of the Carnegie Foundation: “….the collaboration between institutions of higher education and their larger communities (local, regional/state, national, global) for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity” (cited in Driscoll, 2009, p. 6). Hence, partnerships between “town,” the non-academic population including surrounding communities, and “gown” or the university community are important to drive SDGs and its three dimensions of sustainability – environment, social, and economic. This collaborative relationship between academicians and a community entity could increase sensitivity to a community’s unique needs and circumstances as well as increase each partner’s exposure to new resources and services.
Koekkoek et al. (2021) have done a comprehensive review of components and models of university–community engagement including the silo model, the intersecting model, and the infusion model. In the silo model, universities pursue their three roles (teaching, research, and community service) separately. The intersecting model assumes that all activities of universities imply engagement with the community either directly or indirectly and make a social, cultural, or economic impact. The infusion model argues that university–community engagement should be integrated within all universities’ activities – but in a more explicit way than in the intersecting approach. In this model, university–community engagement is actively pursued by universities, with a strong emphasis on collaboration and mutual relationships with communities. This model assumes that universities should prepare students “to be responsible citizens as demonstrated through civic engagement and social responsibility” – instead of just prepare them for employment. As for partnership processes, Suarez-Balcazar et al. (2005) proposed a contextual and interactive model of community–university collaborations to establish a framework for developing and sustaining community–university partnerships. The model includes three phases: (1) gaining entry into the community in order to establish relationships and creating a framework for continued collaborations; (2) developing and sustaining the collaboration; and (3) recognizing challenges, benefits, and outcomes. These phases are interrelated and interactive, meaning each factor influences the others.
Many factors are critical to successful partnerships. For example, Martin et al. (2015) identified seven success factors including (1) source and nature of funding and financial relationship; (2) frequency, type of communication (formal and informal meetings), and clarity of purposes and accountabilities among partners from the initial stage of collaboration; (3) partnership synergy which requires a two-way street approach to knowledge development and transference; (4) measurable outcomes which members should be encouraged to construct early in the development of a university–community partnership; (5) visibility and dissemination of findings, research and knowledge generated; (6) organizational compatibility which requires that the academic environment is operating in a fashion that relate well to the off-campus environment; and (7) simplicity which refers to explicit goals, common definitions, and achievable outcomes.
2.5. Comparative Approaches
The interdisciplinary four-step approach has laid a foundation in comparative research. Many models have been proposed. One of the recent approaches for comparative research is a three-dimensional cube originally proposed by Mark Bray and R. Murray Thomas in 1995. They suggested that comparative education would benefit from approaching research problems and questions using “multilevel analysis,” which would foster a better understanding of how systems of education worked at both the macro- and micro-levels. The Bray and Thomas cube did not demonstrate a methodology but illustrates the complexities of and choices available when approaching comparative education research and provides a starting place for an analytical framework. Bray and Thomas suggested that comparative education should be approached through three dimensions. These are (1) geographic/location, (2) nonlocational demographic groupings, and (3) aspects of education and society (Bray et al., 2014).
The first dimension concerns the unit of analysis in terms of geographical or physical location and contains seven levels: (1) world regions/continents, (2) countries, (3) states/provinces, (4) districts, (5) schools, (6) classrooms, and (7) individuals. The second dimension suggests a variety of nonlocational demographic groups that might be considered in comparative research.
Potential demographic factors such as ethnicity, age, religion, and gender were identified as potential cross-cutting focal points for a comparative study. However, these groups are only suggested and to which others can be added to the research depends on the research question and chosen theoretical lens. The third dimension, aspects of education and society, considers the elements that make up systems of education and society. A set of substantive issues that might be studied in reference to the previous two – anything from curriculum and teaching methods to school financing, political change, and labor markets – are also suggested only and can be determined by the researcher in relation to the research question. It is noteworthy that a comparative education study thus might focus on one or more “sub-cubes” within this larger three-dimensional cube. The Bray and Thomas Cube has some limitations; yet it provides a useful framework for comparative research (Sobe & Kowalczyk, 2014).
In summary, the concept of LL, LLL, and LfS will be adopted for the action model in this research. The researchers are faculty members from the departments of education, business administration, and nursing. Students who assisted our work have expertise in engineering and other social sciences disciplines. The Bray and Thomas Cube was applied by using “communities” as location, culture, or way of life was undertaken, learning activities and SDGs-related projects undertaken by staff and students of Siam University in three communities were used in the third dimension.
3. Objectives and Methodology
This two-year study (2019–2020) aims to develop a learning for sustainability action model from lessons learnt in community living labs of Siam University (SU). Prior to undertaking this research, SU has been working on transforming the ecosystem for sustainability. A Whole Institution Approach to sustainability is implemented in our policies and practices to reflect concern and commitment for the three dimensions of sustainable development both in the campus and surrounding communities. In 2018, SU began to redesign general education program with the aim to use it as a testbed of living learning lab (LLL) for sustainability. The new program promotes LfS under the principles of SD and SEP. This revised curriculum offers many sustainability and sustainability-related interdisciplinary courses such as Sufficiency Economy Philosophy for Sustainable Development, Community Explorer and Service Learning, Green Technology for Sustainable Development, and Living Lab for Campus Sustainability (Rukspollmuang et al., 2020). At the same time, the University promotes necessary learning ecosystem for our LLL including (1) nurturing students with key sustainability competencies; (2) transforming pedagogy and delivery methods with emphasis on team-teaching and active learning using project-based learning, community/place-based as well as service experiential learning in order to provide real-life experiences. Students can use the campus and buildings as a living lab to do course projects on sustainability issues in the university, recommend their implementation and impacts as part of coursework. They also can use local communities as living labs to help them become more sustainable and develop solutions to sustainability challenges; (3) supporting human and physical infrastructure for LLL by retraining our faculty members and staff, providing flexible learning environment as well as needed technology and facilities that promote learning for sustainability; (4) enhancing local, national and international partnerships for sustainable development with emphasis on university–community partners which will serve as learning communities for sustainability. Members of these partnerships are students, staff, university administrators, community members, and other partners who share common goals and attitudes and commit to work collaboratively to meet the desired goal – sustainability.
Among these four components of learning ecosystem, the latter one needs further investigation. Hence, the main objectives of the study were (1) to conduct sustainability projects in selected communities, (2) to develop learning for sustainability action models from real-life experiences in the communities, and (3) to suggest success factors in the implementation of the model.
The researchers employed qualitative research with community-based participatory research (CBPR) as the main methodology because this approach involves community members, researchers, and others in all aspects of the research process. It thrives with community engagement in the research process, especially through primary data collection methods such as interviews and focus groups. Community members and researchers participate in identifying issues, develop study design, and data collection, as well as analysis and implementation of findings. CBPR also increases knowledge and understanding of a given phenomenon and to integrate the knowledge gained with interventions for social change benefiting the community members. The followings are the main findings of the study.
4. Sustainability Projects in the Community Living Labs
As mentioned earlier that Siam University is the only university in Phasi Chareon district, we realize that it is our responsibility to take a leading role in promoting the well-being of communities. Hence, the university encourages initiatives that promote SDGs, especially SDG11 “Sustainable Cities and Communities.” Nevertheless, since the UN SDG agenda has set out five key opportunities for development that are (1) inclusive, (2) universal, (3) integrated, (4) locally focused, and (5) technology-driven, we decide that our work on SDG11 will be integrated with other SDGs depending on local needs of the communities which we engage. For the purpose of drafting action model, three communities in the district which have agreed to be our community living labs were selected. Backgrounds and sustainability-related activities undertaken by the research team can be summarized as follows.
4.1. Lertsuksom Community
Lertsuksom is a sub-urban community with approximately 770 residents who have an average monthly income of 9,000–10,000 Baht (270–300 US dollars). The community has set up an administrative committee chaired by a former school teacher. Most of the committee members are elders. Lertsuksom is surrounded by rivers and has a long history of more than 70 years. In the old days, the area was covered with rice farms before the community members become gardeners planting mainly pandan, bananas, and coconuts. This agricultural area is now threatened by urbanization. Increasing number of young generations choose to work elsewhere leaving the old to take care of their gardens. Moreover, more land-owners have decided to sell their lands as the price has increased rapidly. The problem was intensified when the government cut new highways through the center of their communities. The highway not only creates a new “slum” area under a flyover bridge but also weakens a sense of community among members. The community thus decided to participate in the “Healthy Space Project” run by SU Research Center for Community Development (RCFCD) with a research grant from the Thai Health Promotion Foundation for five years since 2015. Under this project, the area under a flyover bridge was transformed into a green space for community activities.
The researchers interviewed community members and administrative committees and found that their pain point is mainly financial. From our discussion, we agree that the community is fortunate with social and cultural capital. The elders are well respected and still have quite a close family tie. Their pandan farm also has economic value. The community has preserved their land for pandan growing and continuously seek knowledge to make new products from pandan leaves. A survey showed that the pandan garden covers a large area (40 Rai). With the help from Siam University and other partners especially the Government Savings Bank (GSB), we decided to use learning spaces for pandan and organize workshops to make products such as pandan paper, pandan flowers, and pandan bowls. Specialized know-how was provided by SU staff and students to find effective methods for making dried paper from pandan and developing a prototype of bowl making machine. We also assisted the community members by providing training on financial literacy and online commerce. At present, various community products from pandan leaves have become one of the main incomes of community members.
Moreover, Lertsuksom is well-known for the implementation of “Sufficiency Economy Philosophy (SEP)”. The concept of “New Theory” which is one of the examples of the application of the SEP in the agricultural sector was applied. They grow everything they want to eat as advised which in turn can reduce their expenses and make more income. According to this model, the total land area is divided into four, well-defined plots in the ratio 30:30:30:10. The first plot (30%) is for water storage; the second (30%) is for cultivating rice to ensure that households have a year’s supply; the third (30%) is used to grow vegetables, fruits, and herbal plants for household consumption, with surpluses sold to earn additional income. The last and smallest plot (10%) contains the family dwellings and outbuildings for raising livestock. The “New Theory” offers a foundation of self-reliance and a way to gradually improve a farmer’s standard of living while providing immunity against the fluctuations of the market or unpredictable circumstances. The researchers visited two family households and one of them agreed to start a “SEP Home Stay” as part of “Creative Economy Tourism” since “green area” in suburban is attractive for visitors nowadays. Tourists can visit and study the application of SEP, pandan learning spaces, and cultural attraction of the community for 1–2 days. The initiative received a lot of attention despite the Covid-19 pandemic. The home stay project is still undergoing and more households are interested to be a part of the project.
4.2. Khlong Ladphashi Community
Khlong Ladphashi was quite a new community comparing to Lertsuksom. The community resides approximately 330 residents. Their founding members were evicted from various places approximately 18 years ago. To strengthen their community, the members agreed that there should be community mutual agreements and regulations which specify the roles and responsibilities of the members. In 2004, the community leaders decided to set up a savings group and were able to buy land from former owner with the help of the Cooperative Promotion Department. The housing project was thus their first activity to better their living. Accordingly, a community administrative committee was elected. After the public hearing, they set up another six projects as shared missions and assigned members to look after each project which include the “Green” Environment, Public Utilities & Healthy Space Project of the Siam University’s RCFCD, Economic & Business, Youth Activities in the royal “To be #1 Project,” Cultural Activities, and Complaint & Emergency (see Fig. 3.1). It is hoped that these projects will lead to a sustainable community through self-help and a participatory approach. It should be noted that after community rules and regulations were set up, the community is now well-organized and is well-known for being a safe and strong community-watch urban area. Ladphashi received “Strong Community” award from the Office of Phasi Chareon District.
Siam University has worked with this community for a long time through the Healthy Space Project. The community, together with Lertsuksom community, was also selected as case studies to develop community-based virtual museum – a digital learning platform for the practices of Sufficiency Economy Philosophy (Rukspollmuang et al., 2017). During 2019 and 2020, the researchers and students enrolled in a general education course worked with the community in partnership projects with the help of Government Savings Bank and Bangkok Metropolitan Office in Phasi Chareon district.
After a field survey and discussion with community members and representatives from the administrative committee, we were impressed by the strong leadership of the Chair and Vice Chair of the committee and full cooperation from members. Unlike Lertsuksom, members of all ages participate in the above seven missions shown in Fig. 3.1. As for the pain points, Khlong Ladphashi members also need more income. However, the situation is different from Lertsuksom because the members insisted that they are now debt-free due to their strong savings cooperative. The researchers and community members discussed on needed projects. We found that the community leaders are very active in attending workshops such as mushroom growing, SEP, and its application and have applied their knowledge to develop community products. The researchers agreed that entrepreneurial mindset of the community members is very impressive. However, they still cannot make money as much as expected even though they have already developed their “brand” for food products. After discussion, all partners agreed to work on SDG11 Sustainable Community, SDG8 Decent Work and Economic Growth and SDG17 Partnerships for the Goals. With regard to their shared mission, the partners decided to concentrate on the “Economic & Business” activities. In the first year, mushroom products such as dried mushroom and mushroom chili sauce were chosen for our engaged project. The community indicated that they wanted to rebrand their mushroom products and admitted that they had problems with food preservation and non-attractive packaging. The researcher asked our faculty members and students to do research on mushroom preservation and design an equipment to solve this pain point. We also invited experts to give advice on mushroom growing and help build new mushroom farms. As for packaging, the partners (researchers from SU and community members) codesigned new branding and more attractive packaging. The new product logo and packages were redesigned many times before all partners agreed to use eco-friendly package for dried mushroom and sealed vacuum container for the mushroom chili sauce. In the second year, the community agreed to use the rebranding process for another product – Ladphashi Pad Thai sauce. The community members are very happy with these choices because the new packaging helps them sell their products to both local and international customers. Moreover, additional marketing channels through digital platforms were developed. These channels help them sell their products even during the pandemic.
4.3. Poonbumpen Community
Poonbumpen community, an area situated on the bank of Bangcheunknung Canal, Phasi Chareon district, currently has approximately 750 residents. The “Poonbumpen” family is the landlord and still has strong leadership even though more “oursiders” have moved to stay in the community. This close-knit community has been settled for a long time, even before Lertsuksom community. In the old days, agriculture was the backbone of this rural area but urbanization has turned the community into an urban one. But there are still some “green” areas in those households along the canal bank where the researchers undertook our engagement project. This community has a good relationship with our university not only they have joined the Healthy Space Project but is also one of the areas that our students and staff participate in engagement activities as assigned in our “SEP for SDGs” general education course for quite some time. Poonbumpen is well known for organic vegetable farms, traditional Thai dancing, original Thai dessert, and beautiful houses along the canal. The community members indicated that they needed “organizers,” “influencers” and digital platforms to promote the community and their products. Recently, the community suffered from the Covid-19 pandemic and welcomed our partners in helping them solve the problems. Pain points and possible solutions were discussed among Siam University, Phasicharoen District Office, Government Savings Bank, Thonburi Hospital, and 12 members of the community administrative committee. Results could be summarized as follows in Table 3.1.
From Pain Points to Action.
| From Pain Points to Action | ||
|---|---|---|
| Pain Points | Gain Points/Opportunity | Potential Activities/Products |
|
|
|
We decided that SDG11 Sustainable Community should be integrated with SDG2 Zero Hunger (food security), SDG8 Decent Work and Economic Growth, SDG17 Partnerships for the Goals, and emphasized BCG (Bio-Circular-Green) Economy. Four projects were identified. The first one is “Organic Farming” in which the community devoted 3,000 square meters of unused land for the project and members of 12 houses volunteered to manage this organic farm. Secondly, the “Local Green Market” was initiated and the owner of spectacular housing on the canal bank agreed to use his house as the center for community local market. Thirdly, the “Home Stay” project was proposed by the owners of two beautiful houses – Bansuan Bonus and Natural Ozone House. The owners also looked forward to develop small organic farm ventures which would be an attraction place for tourism. Lastly, the “Zero Waste” project was proposed so that organic waste and recyclable materials would be reincorporated into usable products through composting methods and used for fertilizer in the community. SU played an active role in empowering and supporting the local members through knowledge sharing and knowledge transferring. These four projects have been actively undertaken for some time before the University hosted the “Unseen Poonbumpen Festival” on February 26, 2021. The success of this festival led to the weekend market project. Unfortunately, another wave of the Covid-19 pandemic stroked Bangkok and the partners had to change the function of the “Organic Farming” into food security bank for the members of the community.
A comparison of the three community living labs is as follows in Table 3.2.
Comparison of Three Community Living Labs.
| Points of Comparison | Lertsuksom | Khlong Ladphashi | Poonbumpen |
|---|---|---|---|
| Community backgrounds |
|
|
|
| Relationship with SU |
|
|
|
| Pain points | Economic and environment | Economic | Economic |
| Selected SDGs |
|
|
|
| Sustainability projects |
|
|
|
| Learning activities |
|
|
|
| Partners |
|
|
|
5. Development of Learning for Sustainability Action Model
The researchers synthesize data from CBPR to draft the learning for sustainability (LfS) action model from real-life experiences in the communities with the following recommendations.
- (1)
Component of learning. The concept of Living Learning Lab (LLL) should be adopted to promote sustainability. The three components that should be considered are (1) institutional commitment which is reflected in the university’s vision and mission related to campus and community sustainability; (2) education program that will be used as a testbed; (3) needed learning ecosystem – people (students, faculty members, staff), pedagogy and delivery modes, learning infrastructure, learning community.
- (2)
Approach of LLL. Based on the “four Cs” approach, it could be summarized that the university should consider the followings.
Curriculum and learning activities. The revised general education program which emphasizes real-life experiences, active learning as well as the concepts of Living Lab and Living Learning Lab is beneficial for LfS. The program could help develop knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, and practices needed to take actions for the well-being and sustainable living.
Campus. The university revised vision, “Innovation for Sustainable Future,” helps promote sustainability-related activities.
Culture. LfS enhance awareness of cultural diversity and appreciation for local wisdom, “sufficient” way of living, and lifestyles.
Community. LfS promote closer collaborations between the university and community living labs. Learning activities were designed in accordance with real needs of the community or the local SDGs.
- (3)
Partners. Partnerships between university and community are important. However, both researchers and community members are aware that there should be other partners. Quadruple Helix model (Public–Private–People Partnerships) or Triplex Helix Mode should be considered.
- (4)
Action and activities. Living Lab approach, which is a user-centered, open innovation ecosystems based on a systematic user co-creation approach integrating research and innovation processes in real-life communities and settings, should be applied to the sustainability activities. The 4Cos; namely, co-create, co-design, co-produce, and co-reflect was proposed in the action model.
Focus group discussion was organized among researchers and community leaders to react and revise the initial LfS action model. The finalized model consists of the following components.
- (1)
The guiding principles. LfS action model should adopt Sufficiency Economy Philosophy (SEP) and Sustainable Development (SD) with the aim to promote SDGs and the three dimensions of sustainability of both campus and community living labs. SEP which focuses on “sufficiency” has been Thailand’s guiding spirit toward sustainable development for over 40 years. In addition, other royal teachings especially on development work should be applied. For area-based development strategies, His Majesty the late King Rama IX had given a simple formula: “Understand, Access, and Develop.” Understand means understanding the geographical and social makeup of the location, access refers to having access to geo-social information so that the project can truly answer the needs of the people, while develop means setting the guidelines for the development project based on a holistic, multi-dimensional approach incorporating all aspects of knowledge and folk wisdom, as well as the potential to further experiment and improve the procedures that are sustainable and infinitely applicable (The National Legislative Assembly, 2018, p. 18).
- (2)
The goals: Local SDGs. LfS should aim for both campus and community sustainability. In the case of community, self-reliance should be the outcome. Partners are formed to enact activities aiming to alleviate problems or initiate innovations which lead to the three dimensions of SDGs in a real-life context. Considering that SU is the only university in the district, we decide to play the leading role in promoting “Sustainable Cities and Communities” or SDG11. This goal is compliance with the laying principle of “locally-focused development” of UN SDGs. Nevertheless, each project might also aim to promote other SDGs because all of the 17 SDGs are integrated.
- (3)
The partners. It was agreed that the Triplex Helix model should be applied. The reason that the Quadruple Helix model was not used because some sustainability activities may not need both public and private partners. It can be either of them. Hence, University-Public/Private-Community (U-P-C) was proposed. U-P-C are the key players and serves as a “triangle of synergy” in this model. It is imperative that all actors have the right mindset and shared values necessary for driving sustainable initiatives in the targeted communities. In addition, the roles and responsibilities of each partner should be clarified in the early stage - who should be leaders, utilizers, providers, and users of the initiatives or innovations developed from the partnerships.
- (4)
The action and activities. The LfS action model should plan learning activities that enhance key competencies of sustainability. Interdisciplinary and active learning such as project-based, community-based, experiential-based, and service learning in real-life context should be the main pedagogy and delivery methods. Normally, collaboration comprised three phases: (1) gaining entry into the community; (2) developing and sustaining the collaboration; and (3) recognizing challenges, benefits, and outcomes (Balcazar et al., 2005) From the very beginning, creating a framework for this partnership, including the steps necessary to accomplish mutually agreed-upon goals is needed to ensure that all partners being actively engaged in the process. SU staff and students from various disciplines are expected to use their expertise in education/research and strengthen collaboration with partners. As for the outcomes, the late King Rama IX’s advice on helping people, “We should give them a fishing rod, not the fishes” should be followed. Thus, the ultimate aim is to enhance self-reliant community so that they can live sustainably thereafter. As for activities, the proposed “4Cos” in the action model can be explained as follows (see Fig. 3.2).
Co-create: After selecting targeted community, the late King IX’s development formula: “Understand, Access, and Develop” will be used as a starting point. The university approaches community leaders and members for mutual understanding and to learn their pain and gain points. Communities naturally have various problems and it is the first responsibility of the university and community to identify the real needs. This could be done by community needs survey or interview. The next step is to approach “partners” who will be co-creators in this mission. The U-P-C partners will then work on re-identifying and prioritizing needs. Keep in mind the importance of geo-social-cultural nature and community socio-cultural capitals. The proposed activities or actions should then be based on local human-social-cultural capital and expertise of partners.
Co-design: Having shared vision, all partners should work together to ideate sustainability-related initiatives or innovations for the benefit of people in the communities who are the real users. Under this action model, designing, proposing, and creating ideas/products should take into considerations both the market demands and “community identity.” In co-design, capacity building such as training or study tour to learn about the making and value-added of the products should be provided.
Co-produce: This phase concentrates on making a “prototype” of the product or “blueprint” of the activities together. Expertise or R&D from university and related partners will be utilized and presented to partners for improvement and test. It also involves the process of monitoring, commercializing, or utilizing.
Co-reflect: All partners will involve in the “evaluation” phase to evaluate and check whether the goals and ambitions have been achieved. Evaluation is followed by “refinement” of the innovation in order to improve and finetune the product. The next step is “dissemination” which is learning mechanisms and learning process from the experiences in the development activities in order to apply them in future contexts. Then comes the final step “replication” referring to the reproduction or sustainment of the developed innovation. Feedback, suggestions, ideas, and guidelines gathered from use and evaluation of the product is used for the betterment of the project that will foster a cohesive and sustainable community.
6. Success Factors in Implementing LFS Action Model
Several factors have been discussed as critical for the success of LfS Action Model. Lessons learnt from the three community living labs can be concluded as follows.
- (1)
Willingness and readiness to transform teaching and learning for sustainability. University plays a vital role in preparing students to meet the sustainability challenges of the future. The imperatives of sustainability point not only to new course content but also to new ways of teaching the content that is relevant across the disciplines. Interdisciplinary, place-based, and project-based learning with real-life experiences should be promoted. While LfS can use the campus as sustainability classroom, community living labs are needed. Instructors should not only encourage students to look after sustainability issues in their campus but also the city and communities in which it is located, as a sustainability classroom.
- (2)
Leadership and collective commitment of partners. LfS Action Model needs strong leadership and commitment from all partners. (1) Institutional Commitment – clear vision and mission as well as roadmap for sustainability is important and must be committed at all levels from institution to individual faculty members. At the same time, efficient and suitable infrastructure and resources including funding should be provided. Moreover, the university should set up a reward system to recognize the faculty members, staff, and students who are serious about teaching and learning for sustainability as well as engaging in the sustainability projects in campus and communities; (2) Community Commitment. LfS in communities will not be possible if the community leaders and members are not active. Siam University is fortunate to have a strong relationship with surrounding communities for a long time. All three community living labs in the study have active community leaders and members who are devoted to promote sustainable development. The leaders are well respected and able to persuade others to work actively toward the goals. It should also be noted that leader can be individual or group but must have a strong commitment to work for sustainability because it will be a long process; (3) Commitment from other Partners. Networks and partners from within and outside communities are important. Engagement project need specialized knowledge and resources from public and/or private sector. In our study, the Government Savings Bank has provided seed money while the Office of Phasi Charon district has played an active role in the capacity building for communities in the area. The Office organizes monthly meetings for members from 54 communities in order to share knowledge and experiences in sustainability solutions.
- (3)
Understanding and appreciation of community’s history and culture. Partnerships need trust, respect, and understanding. The researchers should “know” the community that they are engaged and the sustainability projects should cherish local wisdom and identity. The three community living labs in this study have commons and differences. Khlong Lad Phashi is the only one where members were evicted from other communities. Lertsuksom and Poonbumpen are local communities which have been settled for a long time. Strong social network and kinship in these two communities have been an important factor in achieving the engagement goals. All three communities have “gain points” and valuable local expertise. Most important, they all share the same drive, that is, to have a sustainable living.
- (4)
Partnership synergy. U-P-C partnerships require a two-way approach to knowledge development and transference. The success of community–university partnerships require both clear goals, derived from mutual agreement understanding, and respect toward the individual roles of all stakeholders and socio-cultural norms within the community. Moreover, between-group and within-group factors should be considered. Between-group factors are related to relationships between the partnering communities/organizations while within-group factors are related to the internal dynamics of each partner. Partner vision and values; good communication; sharing of power, responsibility, and authority; cooperation and resistance from students/faculty/community members are some of the issues that should be concerned.
- (5)
Mutual learning and capacity building for sustainability. U-P-C partnerships in sustainability projects can promote mutually beneficial co-learning between academics and community advocates. This benefit can strive from the 4Cos – co-create, co-design, co-produce, and co-reflect. All parties should involve in all processes during the project and can help transform pain points to gain points as well as social/economic capital of the community. Active participation from all partners to solve problems of the community is essential.
- (6)
Simplicity and sustainability. Enthusiasm is good but realistic is better. The projects should have both short-term and long-term outcomes but the researchers and community partners agreed to work in a “simple” project, that is, the project which have explicit goals, common definitions, and achievable outcomes. It is necessary to work on solutions of immediate pain points but the ultimate goal is for the community to be self-reliant and sustainable.
7. Conclusion
This chapter describes exemplar cases in the roadmap toward sustainability transformation of Siam University. According to UNESCO, education for sustainable development should aim to develop competencies that enable and empower individuals to reflect on their own actions by taking into account their current and future social, cultural, economic, and environmental impacts from both a local and a global perspective. Hence, learning to transform oneself and society, which is the fifth pillar of learning, is essential to achieve the goal. Siam University, which has advocated SEP and SD as guiding principles to move SDGs, decided to use general education program and engagement activities as testbeds for Learning Living Lab (LLL). Students and staff are encouraged to work on sustainability projects in communities which have agreed to be living labs for our academic and engagement work. To better understand this phenomenon, a study team attempted to propose a model of learning from real-life experiences. Three communities, which are differences in size, location, and history, were chosen for the study. Lessons learnt from experiential learning in these partnership projects were analyzed to draft the initial model. The finalized Learning for Sustainability (LfS) Action Model consists of the Guiding Principles, the Goals, the Partners, the Action, and Activities. Triple Helix model of partnerships consisted of University-Public/Private-Community (U-P-C) was proposed. These partners are the key players and collaborate as a “triangle of synergy” to achieve sustainable development goals that are mutually agreed. Six key success factors for the implementation of the model were analyzed including willingness and readiness to transform teaching and learning for sustainability; leadership and collective commitment of partners (institution, community, and other partners); understanding and appreciation of the community’s history and culture; partnership synergy; mutual learning and capacity building for sustainability; simplicity and sustainability.
References
Bray, Adamson, & Mason (Eds.). 2014Bray, M., Adamson, B., & Mason, M. (Eds.). (2014). Comparative education research: Approaches and methods (2nd ed.). Springer.
Brundiers, Wiek, & Redman, 2010Brundiers, K., Wiek, A., & Redman, C. L. (2010). Real-world learning opportunities in sustainability: From classroom into the real world. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 11(4), 308–324.
Compagnucci, Spigarelli, Coelho, Duarte, 2021Compagnucci, L., Spigarelli, F., Coelho, J., Duarte, C. (2021). Living Labs and user engagement for innovation and sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production. 281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125721
Driscoll, 2009Driscoll, A. (2009). Carnegie’s new community engagement classification: Affirming higher education’s role in community. New Directions for Higher Education, (147), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.353
ENoLL. 2015ENoLL. (2015). Introducing ENoLL and its Living Lab Community. Cited in Papilloud, L., Ramseyer, R., Mastelic, J., Fragnière, E. (2017, 28 August–1 September). Service blueprint model: A tool to improve the co-creation process in living labs, ENoLL Open Living Lab Days. Research Day Conference proceedings, Krakow.
Eriksson, Niitamo, Kulkki, & Hribernik, 2006Eriksson, M., Niitamo, V., Kulkki, S., & Hribernik, K. (2006). Living labs as a multi-contextual R&D methodology. IEEE International Technology Management Conference (ICE), 26–28 June, 2006, Milan, Italy.
European Commission. 2009European Commission. (2009). Living labs for user-driven open innovation, an overview of the living labs methodology, activities and achievements. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
Koekkoek, Van Ham, & Kleinhans, 2021Koekkoek, A., Van Ham, M., & Kleinhans, R. (2021). Unraveling university–community engagement: A literature review. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 25(1), 3–24.
Lavery, Smith, Esparza, Hrushow, Moore, & Reed, 2005Lavery, S. H., Smith, M. L., Esparza, A. A., Hrushow, A., Moore, M., & Reed, D. F. (2005). The community action model: A community-driven model designed to address disparities in health. American Journal of Public Health, 95(4), 611–616.
Leminen, & Niitamo Westerlund, 2017Leminen, S., & Niitamo Westerlund, M. (2017, 28 August–1 September). A brief history of living labs: From scattered initiatives to global movement, ENoLL Open Living Lab Days. Research Day Conference proceedings, Krakow.
Martin, Smith, & Phillips, 2015Martin, L., Smith, H., & Phillips, W. (2015), Bridging “Town & Gown” through innovative university–community partnerships. Innovation Journal, 10(2), 1–16.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2016Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2016). Sufficiency economy philosophy: Thailand’s path towards sustainable development goals. http://www.mfa.go.th/SEPforSDGs/SEPThailandsPathtowardsSDGS/SEP_Thailands_Path_towards_SDGs.pdf
Purcell, Henriksen, Spengler, 2019Purcell, W. M., Henriksen, H., Spengler, J. D. (2019). Universities as the engine of transformational sustainability toward delivering the sustainable development goals: “Living labs” for sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 20(8), 1343–1357.
Rieckmann, 2012Rieckmann, M. (2012). Future-oriented higher education: Which key competencies should be fostered through university teaching and learning? Futures, 44(2), 127–135.
Rieckmann, 2018Rieckmann, M. (2018). Learning to transform the world: Key competencies in education for sustainable development. In A. Leicht, J. Heiss, & W. J. Byun (Eds.), Issues and trends in education for sustainable development (pp. 39–60). UNESCO Publishing.
Rukspollmuang, Khlaisang, Chansema, Reyanlds, Supaluk, Yomthong, & Thammasak, 2017Rukspollmuang, C., Khlaisang, J., Chansema, P., Reyanlds, J., Supaluk, S., Yomthong, A., & Thammasak, C. (2017). Guidelines for the development of community-based virtual museum: A case study of the practices of philosophy of sufficiency economy to strengthen community culture in Phasi-Chareon district, Department of Cultural Promotion, Ministry of Culture.
Rukspollmuang, Phongmanee, Limpawattana, Srisavat, Reynolds, Thongnoum, Thaiphanit, Jaiherm, Anantarungsi, & Boonlam, 2020Rukspollmuang, C., Phongmanee, S., Limpawattana, M., Srisavat, Y., Reynolds, J., Thongnoum, D., Thaiphanit, S., Jaiherm, A., Anantarungsi, T., & Boonlam, S. (2020). A development of general education model for Siam University. Siam University.
San Francisco Tobacco Free Project Mission. 2017San Francisco Tobacco Free Project Mission. (2017). Community action model: Creating change by building community capacity. https://sanfranciscotobaccofreeproject.org/actions/community-action-model/
Suarez-Balcazar, Harper, & Lewis, 2005Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Harper, G. W., & Lewis, R. (2005). An interactive and contextual model of community-university collaborations for research and action. Health Education & Behavior, 32(1), 84–101.
Sobe, & Kowalczyk, 2014Sobe, N. H., & Kowalczyk, J. A. (2014). Exploding the cube: Revisioning “context” in the field of comparative education. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 16(1), 6–12.
Thailand International Cooperation Agency (TICA). 2016Thailand International Cooperation Agency (TICA). (2016). TICA and philosophy of sufficiency economy. http://www.tica.thaigov.net/main/contents/files/articles-20160701-133542-717714.pdf
The National Legislative Assembly. 2018The National Legislative Assembly. (2018). The wisdom of the monarch: A world leader in sustainable development. Amarin Printing & Publishing Public Company Limited.
The General Teaching Council for Scotland. n.d.The General Teaching Council for Scotland. (n.d.). Learning for sustainability. https://www.gtcs.org.uk/professional-standards/key-cross-cutting-themes/learning-for-sustainability/
Trencher, Yarime, McCormick, Doll, & Kraines, 2014Trencher, G., Yarime, M., McCormick, K., Doll, C., & Kraines, S. (2014). Beyond the third mission: Exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability. Science and Public Policy, 41(2), 151–179.
UNESCO. 2009UNESCO. (2009). Education and the search for a sustainable future. Policy Dialogue 1. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000179121?1=null&queryId=8e3f7265-80b3-4f1a-b617-3ef2a14cae47
UNESCO. 2016UNESCO. (2016). Education 2030. Incheon declaration and framework for action. Towards inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning for all. http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/incheon-framework-for-action-en.pdf
UNESCO. 2017UNESCO. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals. Learning Objectives. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002474/247444e.pdf
Van Geenhuizen, 2019Van Geenhuizen, M. (2019). Applying an RRI filter in key learning on urban living labs’ performance. Sustainability, 11(14), 3833.
Vargas, Mac-Lean, & Huge, 2019Vargas, L., Mac-Lean, C., & Huge, J. (2019). The maturation process of incorporating sustainability in universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 20(3), 441–451.
Waheed, 2017Waheed, M. H. (2017). A revolution for post-16 education – part 2: How do living labs work? https://www.sustainabilityexchange.ac.uk/files/living_labs_project_part_2.pdf
Wiek, Withycombe, & Redman, 2011Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. L. (2011). Key competencies in sustainability: A reference framework for academic program development. Sustainability Science, 6(2), 203–218.
Zen, 2019Zen, I. S. (2019). Exploring the living learning laboratory: An approach to strengthen campus sustainability initiatives by using sustainability science approach. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 18(6), 939–955.
- Prelims
- Chapter 1: 10 Years of Reflection on the Field of Comparative and International Education: What Difference Does it Make?
- Part 3: Research-to-Practice
- Introduction to Part 3: Research-to-Practice
- Chapter 2: Stakeholder Perspectives on Barriers for Equitable Higher Education Admissions: Cases of Turkey and China
- Chapter 3: Learning for Sustainability Action Model: Lessons Learnt from Community Living Labs
- Chapter 4: A Comparative Inquiry of Teaching Strategies in New Zealand and Canadian High Schools: A Global Quest for Improved Educational Outcomes for Indigenous Students
- Part 4: Area Studies and Regional Developments
- Introduction to Part 4: Area Studies and Regional Developments
- Chapter 5: The Conflict Between Centralization and Decentralization of Higher Education: The Case of Educational Development in Japan
- Chapter 6: Inclusive Education as a Challenge for German School Systems. An Analysis of the Federal State of Schleswig-Holstein
- Chapter 7: Tracking the Research on the Internationalization of Higher Education in Turkey: A Bibliometric Analysis
- Chapter 8: Emerging Geopolitical Barriers to the Realization of International Policies for Collaboration in Higher Education and Research: The Case of Scandinavia
- Chapter 9: Education for Securitization and Neoliberalization: A Cultural Political Economy Analysis of Pakistan's Single National Curriculum
- Part 5: Diversification of the Field
- Chapter 10: What Happened to Diversification in The Field of Comparative and International Education?
- Index